Mac Snow Leopard

Marty_J

Some interesting news: apparently the £25 Snow Leopard upgrade works just fine on Macs running OS X 10.4, so Tiger users don't have to purchase the £129 Mac box set.

It will also allow installation when no OS is present. So if you were putting a new HDD in your Mac, you could just directly install Snow Leopard using the upgrade disk.

Leopard

Yes; I saw that one yesterday.

It's an interesting point because, if it's true, then this page on Apple's website is deliberately (and actionably) misleading. It could get them into serious trouble.

It reads, in part:


Upgrading from Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard.

If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard, just purchase Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard when it’s available and follow the simple installation instructions.


Upgrading from Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger.

If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, purchase the Mac Box Set (when available), which is a single, affordable package that includes Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard; iLife ’09, with the latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb and iDVD; and iWork ’09, Apple’s productivity suite for home and office including Pages, Numbers and Keynote.


And we, in good faith, based on that statement, have been advising others here, who find themselves in that situation, that they need to buy the Box Set.

I guess it will become clear enough after tomorrow.

In my own case, I've purchased two new 320 GB 7,200 rpm hard drives to put into my MacBooks Pro and will be doing a clean install (once it's been established that the thing works properly), so it would save a lot of time and faffing about if one can just run the "upgrade" DVD and then import preferences and applications from my existing system by Firewire 800 when it offers that option.

I'm also thinking that it would probably be a good idea to archive my current (OS 10.5.8) Time Machine file and then start a new Time Machine build with OS 10.6 only. I'm concerned that doing a "Restore" from a 10.5 build could crash 10.6.

Any views on that?

Marty_J

Leopard wrote: »

I'm also thinking that it would probably be a good idea to archive my current (OS 10.5.8) Time Machine file and then start a new Time Machine build with OS 10.6 only. I'm concerned that doing a "Restore" from a 10.5 build could crash 10.6.

Any views on that?

There some info on that here. Apparently, Snow Leopard prompts several times during installation to initiate a Time Machine restore, so I would assume your previous backups will be compatible.

Better safe than sorry I guess though.

almillar

I'm planning to just back up my home drive, format Macintosh HD, then reinstall the programs and copy my home folder contents back over. Nice and clean. I'm sure the hardcore Mac veterans can tell I'm ex-Windows! I just don't do upgrades, although I've seen them being done and they seem to work out nice and clean and everything, I just refuse to believe that there isnt at least a wee bit of space wasted.
So thinking of the way I was planning to do it, I could've done the same from Tiger. I guess that's why Tiger people are getting the iLife and iWork as well then, to make it worth it.

Leopard

Just a quick note to say I now have the retail version of Snow Leopard up and running (booting a 2007 Santa Rosa 2.4 GHz ProBook from an external Firewire 800 drive) and all seems well: have encountered no problems - as yet...

It's much snappier than 10.5 and everything I've tried. so far. seems to work.

Best of all, for me, it recognises and uses my 2005 vintage Konica Minolta 5430DL laser printer - which is just as well because I suspect whoever owns Konica Minolta nowadays has little interest in writing an OS 10.6 driver for it.

I confronted several staff members at the Apple Retail Store about whether the simple £25 version could install OS 10.6 all by itself on a blank hard drive (without needing OS 10.5 at all) and all said it could. Every one of them then became sheepish and embarrassed when I asked why, therefore, Apple was telling users of OS 10.4 that they needed to buy the Box Set for £129. They said that they understood the point I was making but were forbidden by Apple to comment on it...

Sure enough, the OS 10.6 "Upgrade" disc happily reformatted and re-partitioned a spare hard drive I had, and then installed OS 10.6 on to it, all by itself.

The install took about 45 minutes and then it took about another 50 minutes for the newly installed system to seek out all my applications and configurations from another drive (by Firewire 800) to produce a fully personalised system and desktop.

So, all looking good, thus far - but I won't be installing it natively on to a Mac until it has run without problems for at least a week from the external hard drive.

Hope that clarifies a few things for those wondering whether it's safe to take the plunge. I'd recommend it: for £40, my 5-user "Upgrade" version seems well worth the money.

But the alleged "need" for the £129 Box Set by OS 10.4 users is another matter entirely.

One for the Advertising Standards Authority to ponder...



PS. Installation Tip,

During the installation process, click on the button marked "Customize" when it appears and tick the box marked "Rosetta" which is not the default choice. That will enable it to run older software that you may have. (It's probably why my printer works.)

If you don't need to use your Mac in Chinese, Korean and a host of others such, open the "Languages" tab and un-tick all the boxes that would otherwise clutter up your system with these.

Marty_J

Just got back from Best Buy, where I picked Snow Leopard up for $25 (bizarrely, it was on sale), and my first impression is that it's very fast. I'll post more when I've had more time to try it out.

BikerEd

Leopard wrote: »

But the alleged "need" for the £129 Box Set by OS 10.4 users is another matter entirely.

One for the Advertising Standards Authority to ponder...

Why?

The cheaper price is only for a 10.5 to 10.6 upgrade. The fact that Apple choose to implement this licensing scheme by user honesty rather than silly physical system checks is to their credit, not something they need investigating for.

Leopard

BikerEd wrote: »

Why?

The cheaper price is only for a 10.5 to 10.6 upgrade. The fact that Apple choose to implement this licensing scheme by user honesty rather than silly physical system checks is to their credit, not something they need investigating for.

BikerEd,

If and when you purchase Mac OS 10.6 you will observe that nowhere on the packaging, in the enclosed documentation nor on the DVD itself is it described as an "Upgrader".

It's sitting on the desk in front of me.

The packaging calls it simply "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" (everywhere on it) and the disc itself is labelled "Install DVD - Version 10.6". Nowhere is there any mention of Mac OS 10.5 and nowhere does the word "Upgrade" appear, in any form.

The whole "it's only an upgrader disk for users of Mac OS 8.5" is a marketing myth. It's a pure, standalone, OS 10.6 installer.

You're perfectly entitled to your view that it's a "fact" that "Apple choose to implement this licensing scheme by user honesty" but I would be mightily aggrieved if I was an OS 10.4 user who had been induced by Apple to buy the (5-user) Box Set for £179 when all I needed legally to buy was the individually-sold Install DVD for £40 - and when it comes to "honesty" I wouldn't like to be in Apple's shoes in an investigation of this by the Advertising Standards Authority.

I found it significant that the staff I spoke to about it in the Apple Retail Store all said that the order not to discuss it had come "from Apple's Legal Department".

We are all entitled to our own views as who has been honest and who hasn't in this matter, but I know what my own view is and I'm darned sure it's shared by pretty much everyone except you and Apple, Inc.

Mine was clearly shared by the embarrassed staff in the Apple Retail Store that I went to. They admitted to me that all a 10.4 user actually needed to buy was the simple install disc and they were conspicuously not happy about being asked to project the company line on this one.

I have no intention, however, of putting :A Martin Lewis :A at risk of expensive and time-consuming litigation with Apple by alleging that Apple has been dishonest; any decision to do that should be his.

I'd still like to know, however, why Apple charges me 22% in "estimated" VAT on my DotMac/MobileMe subscription every year in a country where it's 15%. They have never replied to any request by me for an explanation. They are perfectly entitled to charge whatever they like for their product, but the tax they apply to it is a different matter.

If you wish to commend Apple for its practices, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to us all its honesty in forging statutory company documents to invent a fictitious board meeting that supposedly authorised the granting of stock options to some of its most senior executives.

You are clearly both intelligent and literate so please indulge us with your view on that one.

Marty_J

Leopard wrote: »

The whole "it's only an upgrader disk for users of Mac OS 8.5" is a marketing myth. It's a pure, standalone, OS 10.6 installer.

It doesn't matter what the physical disk is; that's not what you buy when you purchase a piece of software. It matters what licence you purchase.

According to the EULA:

Leopard Upgrade Licenses. If you have purchased an Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer as long as that computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it.

You should be glad Apple choose not to enforce such things (there's another stipulation in there that you agree to only install OS X on an Apple-branded computer) instead of annoyed.

Leopard

I need, you may be assured, no tutoring in contract law! :rotfl:

(And, while we're about it, you're in breach of copyright law - and the Terms & Conditions of MSE, as well - by reproducing, here, clauses from Apple's EULA without Apple's consent. )

But, if we are to hoist the skull and crossbones and sail under it so wantonly, let me point out that you have, either deliberately or carelessly, taken Clause 2c out of context.

If I may prevail upon the indulgence of Steve Jobs (and let's not forget those stock options if he would do so grudgingly - poor Fred Anderson never will. See Erick Gulsrad, et al vs Apple Computer, Inc et al, 2006.) the first three sub-clauses of Clause 2 read as follows:


2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

B. Family Pack License. If you have purchased a Family Pack license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non- exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-branded computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. The Family Pack License does not extend to business or commercial users.

C. Leopard Upgrade Licenses. If you have purchased an Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer as long as that computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it. If you have purchased a Family Pack Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-branded computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household (as defined above), are used by persons who occupy that same household, and each such computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it. The Family Pack Upgrade for
Mac OS X Leopard License does not extend to business or commercial users.


Nothing that I have bought indicates nor suggests that I have purchased a "Family Pack Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license". I bought, instead, what is, and what purports in every visible way to be, a standalone "Family Pack" install-from-fresh package.

Apple cannot have this both ways. What I bought, and what you bought at Best Buy (unless it was packaged differently), and what will be on sale in every high street store such as PC World (eventually) is packaged as, displayed as, and demonstrably purports to be, a standalone Snow Leopard Installer - not a Leopard Upgade Installer. If Apple is selling (what it allegedly considers to be) a mere upgrader in the guise of a standalone installer, it's on the hook for misrepresentation. Consider the position of somebody who's been on holiday for a month, has read nothing about it, goes into PC World, reads the packaging and buys it.

And, yes, the licence does matter but so does the packaging, the contents of the box, how it describes itself, what it actually does and the description of it when and where it is offered for sale - indeed, more so.

To state, as you do, "It doesn't matter what the physical disk is; that's not what you buy when you purchase a piece of software" is palpable and self-evident nonsense. You do buy the disc and it most certainly matters what it is and what is on it. Suppose you bought the package and found it contained a damaged DVD - or a DVD of Mac OS 10.3.

Buying it, moreover, does not bind you to its licence in any way: you only become bound by the Terms & Conditions of the licence by agreeing to them when you start to install the software. (You might also care to ponder what contractual action a putative litigant could take against a minor who purchases its software but fails to adhere to its Terms & Conditions after agreeing to them.)

In regard to those who install Apple software on non-Apple computers, the situation is this. Anyone who uses Apple software without paying Apple to use it is a thief who should rightly be prosecuted and sued by Apple for its loss. But if somebody pays Apple for it and then decides to install it on a non-Apple computer instead, the terms of the EULA are breached, but not to the detriment or financial disadvantage of Apple - so the breach is not, in practice, material.

Consider, if you will, the situation of somebody who buys, at full price from Apple, a 5-user version of its software. If they install it on three of their Macs they have two licences spare. If they then install it on a fourth computer that they own but which is not a Mac - instead of on another one they own that is a Mac - in what way has Apple been disadvantaged? None. And since Apple has sustained no financial nor material loss from it, the breach is, in effect, a technicality, not a theft.

This is in contrast to the situation of somebody who Jailbreaks an iPhone. Because, when they do that, both Apple and O2 (in Britain) lose the revenue to which they are entitled contractually from the continuing monthly fee for airtime.

So, from Apple's point of view, that is a far more serious transgression.

My own netbook, incidentally, I have re-branded with one of these.