backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by InsaneScientis.. on Aug 18 at 1:26 AM

Steve Jobs gifts a new OS to the loyal developers

Among the Apple loyalists one of the most eagerly awaited fall events is the release of OS X Snow Leopard.  Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the operating system also comes at a wallet-friendly price point of $29 for one license.

Apple's Golden Master build (Apple's fancy way of saying RTM build) is typically delivered to company employees and a handful of developers.  With the delivery of the Snow Leopard Golden Master, Apple has reportedly ditched the exclusivity and given all registered Mac OS X developers a chance to get in on the action.

The build is numbered 10A432 and it will be copied and released to customers on optical media in about a month.  Also included is Snow Leopard Server, build 10A433, and potentially the final release of QuickTime 7, version 7.6.4.  The client image is 6.1GB, while the server image weighs in at 5.5GB.

The OS's installation process recently went public this Wednesday, with few surprises.  With no official release date exists for the OS, other than a tentative "September" target, it is unknown when Mac enthusiasts can get their fingers on it.  However, given that the Golden Master build has aired, it appears headed for an early September release.

As evidence of the OS's popularity, a pre-order on Amazon was the site's top selling software product a week ago.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Correction
By rs1 on 8/13/2009 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the operating system also comes at a wallet-friendly price point of $29 for one license.


Should read:

Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the service pack also comes at an extortionary price point of $29 for one license.




RE: Correction
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Correction
By rs1 on 8/13/2009 1:00:45 PM , Rating: 4
Meh. Because I dislike Apple due to their aggressive, manipulative, heavy-handed, and just plain not-very-nice business practices that automatically makes me a MS fanboy? You fail at logic

quote:
How is the new Mac OS any more of a "service pack" than windows 7 after vista?


Let's see:

1. You do not have to buy $1000+ worth of hardware from Microsoft to run Win 7/Vista.

2. The EULA for Win7/Vista has no stipulation about where it is and isn't legal to install it.

3. OS X is completely useless as a standalone product. Without dedicated hardware purchased from Apple, it cannot (legally) run.

...and even if you want to ignore those points, the fairly minimal amount of changes included in the new OS X release provide the basis for an entirely separate argument. I don't think that's necessary however, because the way the OS X license ties it only to Apple hardware makes it more like a driver or a firmware than an operating system.

quote:
He is calling it what the company is calling it.


While the company can call it whatever it wants, I would expect a tech journalist/blogger to have more integrity and more intelligence than that.


RE: Correction
By Murst on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Correction
By Screwballl on 8/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Correction
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/14/2009 1:37:00 PM , Rating: 3
but your points do not address the underlying argument at all. what i said had absolutely nothing to do with your numbered arguments. I am asking why this incremental step, being called derisively a "service pack" is any different than the incremental step between Vista and 7?

Do you get that argument? I am not pro-mac, but wondering why other OS's can pull the same behavior of minimally updating (basically a facelift) and call it a new OS and thats ok...


RE: Correction
By web2dot0 on 8/17/2009 2:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly does Win7 do so much better than Vista as what Snow Leopard does to Leopard?

They both improve performance, and robustness features. Enhancements to all aspects of the OS. What exactly does Win7 do so evolutionary that warrants its elevated status?

You may not be pro-mac, but you're also not logical. Name me some cold hard facts, not personal opinion.


RE: Correction
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/17/2009 12:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are misunderstanding my post. I never took the position that Snow Leopard was not worthy of the title if a "new OS". I think that both the Mac and Windows new operating systems are in comparable positions.

I took issue with singling out Mac, when the update is analogous to what MS is doing with Vista --> 7. Whether you want to call "worth of being a new OS, vs just an update" is up to you.


RE: Correction
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 11:25:10 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't a snow leopard an endangered species ?
roflmao


RE: Correction
By harmaton on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Correction
By rs1 on 8/13/2009 1:05:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You believe it should be for free?


Yeah, it should be, because in order to use it, you have to buy $1000+ worth of hardware from Apple. Given that the product cannot be used without an associated hardware purchase, Apple should not be charging users for it.

You believe that nvidia should charge for its driver updates? Or that Asus/MSI/Gigabyte/etc. should charge for their BIOS updates?

If a piece of software can only be used if you've purchased a piece of hardware from the same manufacturer, then that software should not be charged for. That's the model that pretty much everyone but Apple follows. But of course, if you really think that that is what "communism" is, then you have bigger problems.


RE: Correction
By SiliconDoc on 8/13/2009 4:12:44 PM , Rating: 1
Good reply, I see that shut them up entirely.
lol
+1 time


RE: Correction
By KWRussell on 8/13/2009 5:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
When Microsoft introduces architectural changes to the core of Windows, and releases them free of charge in a service pack, then your point about the nominal price of Snow Leopard will be valid. Until then, keep chugging the haterade. The old "OS X is tied to Apple hardware" whining is just changing the subject.


RE: Correction
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 3
No, he actually made a very good point, and explained it sufficiently that one can easily guess even you comprehended, and that point you have failed to counter.
--
You merely argued in defeat that the changes are a worthy upgrade to pay for - that doesn't negate his rock solid and substantial point, no matter how much BS you spew about chugging anything.
You should have tried " $29 is cheaper than the $99 msft charges for an OS upgrade ".
Then at least you'd have made an argument or a point, instead of a fool of yourself, while you spewed the blind fealty and stupidity lines calling someone else a hater - who obviously ISN'T - he had a logical and solid EXPLANATION, you doof.


RE: Correction
By KWRussell on 8/17/2009 12:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
I quote the original post...

quote:
Bringing updated 64-bit versions of many popular Mac programs, and other updates, the service pack also comes at an extortionary (sic) price point of $29 for one license.


Now take your corporation worship and shove it up your ass.


RE: Correction
By InsaneScientist on 8/18/2009 1:26:14 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
When Microsoft introduces architectural changes to the core of Windows, and releases them free of charge in a service pack, then your point about the nominal price of Snow Leopard will be valid. Until then, keep chugging the haterade. The old "OS X is tied to Apple hardware" whining is just changing the subject.


That's exactly what XP SP2 was... a significant architectural change to the core of the operating system.
Now, that was the exception, not the rule, and they haven't done it since... but you asked. :D

And no, I don't consider it a service pack, and I don't think the price is unreasonable. (even though I get Win 7 for free. :D )


RE: Correction
By harmaton on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Correction
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 7:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
They shouldn't charge to experience the next higher level of the church of spiritual gui - I mean keeping this experience from the masses by charging for it must be a specially damning sin.
* I LOVE MY MAC !


RE: Correction
By Flunk on 8/14/2009 1:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
Mick has also neglected that $29 is only the upgrade price, the full price is significantly higher.


RE: Correction
By HrilL on 8/17/2009 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 4
Shouldn't every legal copy be an upgrade? It won't work on non Intel MACs so all of those should already be in the upgrade window. You can only use their OS on MAC hardware and that would already have OS X running on it. Why would anyone get a retail non upgrade version unless

1. They are a complete moron and like to get ripped off more.
2. They are breaking Apple's EULA by installing on non apple hardware.

Really though if I missed something please enlighten me.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki