Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:07 UTC
Mac OS X We're certainly not done yet with Snow Leopard on OSNews! The operating system will be officially released tomorrow, but that hasn't stopped various news outlets from cranking out reviews of Apple's latest big cat. As usual, the reviews are fairly consistent: this latest release is the best yet. In addition, very welcome news for Tiger users: the Snow Leopard "upgrade" disk can upgrade Tiger installations too, and performs no checks to see if Leopard is installed.
Order by: Score:
Upgrades
by darknexus on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:16 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

So, I'm assuming that means a clean install is possible as well, since erase and install is available? So, for example, if I upgrade the hd in my Macbook as I plan to do very shortly as the 160gb is starting to fill up very fast, I'll be able to install straight Snow Leopard rather than having to install Leopard first?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Upgrades
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:18 UTC in reply to "Upgrades"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yup.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Upgrades
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:37 UTC in reply to "Upgrades"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

So, I'm assuming that means a clean install is possible as well, since erase and install is available? So, for example, if I upgrade the hd in my Macbook as I plan to do very shortly as the 160gb is starting to fill up very fast, I'll be able to install straight Snow Leopard rather than having to install Leopard first?


You'll need to load up the Disk Utility to format the hard disk, exit the Disk Utility then start the installation. The 'Erase and Install' isn't directly accessible via the installer. I guess the decision was made because there have been some who assumed 'Erase and Install' meant to 'erase the operating system off but keep my files in tact' (image the rage from Joe and Jane Doe because they didn't read the friendly manual).

Reply Score: 3

DREVILl30564
Member since:
2008-04-18

or can it be used to install a system with a blank drive?

I really don't want to have to buy the box set just to get a full version. If Apple will sell a separate full version of snow leopard, I'll gladly buy it

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

or can it be used to install a system with a blank drive?

I really don't want to have to buy the box set just to get a full version. If Apple will sell a separate full version of snow leopard, I'll gladly buy it


If you read the linked article - the 'upgrade disk' does not check for an existing operating system. The only think you'll have to do is load up the installer, load Disk Utility and format the drive, exit then run continue installer.

Reply Score: 2

DREVILl30564 Member since:
2008-04-18

man I totally missed that. I'm ordering my copy right now then.

Reply Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

This is Apple's early Christmas present for Hackintosh makers. Folks, just make sure you comply with that there EULA and put them stickers on your machine before commencing installation. I would play it safe and stick them both on. Would not want you to break the law. Sorry, the agreement. Them stickers are in the box for a reason. They do mean you to use them.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This is Apple's early Christmas present for Hackintosh makers. Folks, just make sure you comply with that there EULA and put them stickers on your machine before commencing installation. I would play it safe and stick them both on. Would not want you to break the law. Sorry, the agreement. Them stickers are in the box for a reason. They do mean you to use them.


Way to go distortion the meaning of 'Apple labelled product' - I can almost here the slow clapping in the background.

Reply Score: 2

Two machines
by kaiwai on Thu 27th Aug 2009 13:41 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

iMac and MacBook 'White' 2.4Ghz, both have 4GB RAM - both installed; only two problems so far has been with EyeTV installation because the media I have is EyeTV 3.0.1 and only 3.1.2 is 'compatible-ish' with Snow Leopard and there are no drivers compatible with my HP F2280 Multifunctional printer. Apart from that hick up which I worked around (mentioned on my blog) - its been pretty damn good.

Reply Score: 3

How embarrising, Thom
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:30 UTC
KAMiKAZOW
Member since:
2005-07-06

I June I already quoted ArsTechnica that the "upgrade" disk is actually a retail disk for only 29 bucks: http://www.osnews.com/thread?367416

You otoh activated caps lock (internet equivalent of shouting) telling me how wrong I am.

See, this is the difference between actual journalism at ArsTechnica and a blogger like you. Real jounalists knew this months ago.

Reply Score: 1

RE: How embarrising, Thom
by sbergman27 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:50 UTC in reply to "How embarrising, Thom"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You otoh activated caps lock (internet equivalent of shouting) telling me how wrong I am.

Oh come on, Markus. Caps were only used to emphasize a couple of significant words. The equivalent of bolding them or enclosing them in asterisks. That is hardly shouting. On the balance, Thom's comment didn't come off as half as whiny as your post which I am replying to.

Edited 2009-08-27 14:51 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: How embarrising, Thom
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 27th Aug 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "How embarrising, Thom"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Not really. The Ars article linked to doesn't really say explicitly that its a full retail copy that doesn't depend on an existing OS. There were other articles that were released after that that sated the $29 version was only for current Leopard users.

I was researching this a couple days ago, as I just installed a new 320 gb hd in my macbook, and came away pretty confused.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jimbofluffy
by jimbofluffy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 14:50 UTC
jimbofluffy
Member since:
2008-07-15

Maybe I will upgrade from 10.4, even though the 64 bit extras won't help my three year old Core Duo Macbook. Now if only my superdrive wasn't broken.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by jimbofluffy
by d3vi1 on Thu 27th Aug 2009 16:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by jimbofluffy"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

Maybe I will upgrade from 10.4, even though the 64 bit extras won't help my three year old Core Duo Macbook. Now if only my superdrive wasn't broken.

If you have another Mac you can do a remote install.
Furthermore, you can easily replace the super-drive or use an USB one.
Regarding the 64bit thing, if it's a first generation MBP, you can replace the CPU as it's not soldered on the board. There are a lot of Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz CPUs out there (make sure you select the 667MHz version).
I've had the same problems with my Mac Mini and all the solutions above worked for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jimbofluffy
by jimbofluffy on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jimbofluffy"
jimbofluffy Member since:
2008-07-15

If you have another Mac you can do a remote install.
Furthermore, you can easily replace the super-drive or use an USB one.
Regarding the 64bit thing, if it's a first generation MBP, you can replace the CPU as it's not soldered on the board. There are a lot of Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz CPUs out there (make sure you select the 667MHz version).
I've had the same problems with my Mac Mini and all the solutions above worked for it.


Thanks for the info. I have been going back and forth on whether to replace the internal superdrive or get a usb one that my wife could use with her netbook. I had just been sharing one from a PC across my network. I do have a G4 Power Mac, would a PowerPC Mac be able to do the remote install? I was not aware of the ability of upgrading the CPU. I have upgraded the ram and hard drive, so that would be the next step to have my 3 year old computer last 2 more years which is when I plan to upgrade my work laptop.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by me
by pandronic on Thu 27th Aug 2009 15:48 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

I appreciate the speed increase in Finder, but from what I've read in the reviews, this and file previews are the only improvements.

This really bugs me, as Finder has a lot of problems with usability and lack of basic features. Actually it's the number one reason my MacBook now runs Windows, the second being Apple's attitude towards its users.

I won't go into detail about Finder's fundamental flaws, as I've done this before in another comment: http://www.osnews.com/thread?334122

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by me
by merkoth on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Aren't there any alternative file managers for OSX? I'm just asking, I find it weird not to use a certain OS just because the default FM sucks...

Edited 2009-08-27 17:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by me
by renhoek on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by me"
renhoek Member since:
2007-04-29

Mucommander sucks less, but it's still no total commander. (Apple, please make a proper filemanager! Single click to rename is madness)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by me
by Bishi on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
Bishi Member since:
2009-08-27

To rename a file you can select a file and then press the Enter key.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by me
by ebasconp on Thu 27th Aug 2009 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

You can run Krusader 2 natively [with no X] too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by me
by pandronic on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by me"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Path Finder is quite good ... actually almost everything that Finder should be, but it is not integrated perfectly, so from time to time, Finder shows its ugly head.

Mucommander si a TotalCommander-style application, but it doesn't have nearly all the features that you'd expect from a two pane file manager. Also, on my computer I found it unusable due to frequent crashes.

And, as you might know, Apple leaves little room for alternatives.

Edited 2009-08-27 17:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by me
by Gryzor on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

If you don't like finder, use another alternative, like PathFinder. Is not that one is using finder to move files exclusively. If your work consists of moving files only, I can see why you're so frustrated… but Finder is not the cause!

Search with spotlight, have some smart folders, smart mailboxes, smart playlists, etc. Man, I don't even use Explorer while in windows. If you're a true keyboard person, you use Launchbar or similar (thus, no finder needed), like I do.

Whem I am lazy about the keyboard only and just wanna use the mouse, Spring Folders + Expose + etc., surpass any Windows Explorer, Thunar, Gnome FileManager, etc. I've seen.

It sounds to me that you're a user who hasn't taken into account all the other tools your OS offers you. (It happened to me before).

Rethink your flow of work the way your OS offers you and only then you will start appreciating it.

Using Windows just because finder doesn't do Cut is as ridiculous as saying I use a car because I have to park it when not in use… Windows may have advantages but I could cite way more reasons why I simply don't use it as my primarily OS.

If finder has lived without Cut for all these years, it's clearly not a show-stopper ('tho it would be great to have it, I admit, but back to point one, how many times a month do I need to cut/paste a file: One. Maybe less).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by me
by pandronic on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by me"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Cut is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are interested you can read the thread linked in my first post. And Finder is the tip of the iceberg in my OS X 6 month experience.

I could rant for hours about the little annoyances in every Apple application and the OS itself. It's like Apple just has to make all the things different than everybody else whether it makes sense or not.

Switching to Windows was mainly a matter of getting things done instead of fighting with your computer. That said, I'd rather use Windows 98 or Ubuntu 4.10 than go back to OS X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by me
by Gryzor on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

I read the thread and I found your suggestions interesting and would love to see those, but none other OS X user I've met decided that OS X was so bad they needed to use either Windows 98 or Ubuntu to "get things done". You only have a 6-month OS X experience, that means you have yet to explore the whole OS experience. I took me more than two years to fully unleash it.

I don't know what "work you can't get done" under OSX, I have never seen an OS less intrusive. I have a small company, I code under Windows XP/Vista/7 using Visual Studio. I maintain three linux servers and use a Mac Pro for daily work (VMWare/Parallels for windows work). I haven't felt the reason to move back to Windows 98 (?) nor Linux.

Again, I think you have too much previous OS experience and don't want to relearn what your new OS offers you. OS X is not for everyone, but I come from a Windows world and I found a way to discover OS X (I started in Jaguar go figure). I lived thorough horrible Samba support, PPC, slow finder hangs, etc., however, the whole OS X experience has been superior to anything Windows ever offered me.

Go back to windows 98, and make sure you use 98SE, else you won't be able to use your USB devices.
Skip Windows Millenium, it had lots of bugs.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by me
by pandronic on Thu 27th Aug 2009 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by me"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, yes, I have tons of Windows experience and it's true that I expect certain things done a certain way, but what I don't understand is why can't Apple provide more options in their software, so that converts like myself can tweak the OS and the apps to their liking without resorting to ugly hacks or 3rd party apps that kind of work.

Probably, if I've had 15 yrs experience in Macs as I do in non Apple PCs, I would have found the Windows and Linux way weird. But since 90% of the people grew up with Windows I don't think it's unreasonable to accommodate users that can't fully embrace the Mac way.

But ... if most shortcomings I've found in Mac OS X can be debated, Finder sucks big time and there's no amount of speeding up that can change that.

What I find most disappointing is that until now I thought that Apple were just too lazy to update Finder, but since they bothered to rewrite it I came to realize the sad fact that they thought it was OK.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by me
by MysterMask on Thu 27th Aug 2009 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by me"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

but since they bothered to rewrite it I came to realize the sad fact that they thought it was OK.


It is OK. And I would be very sad if those ugly Windows Explorer annoyances pop up on OS X just to make some switchers happy: E. g.
- ENTER to rename is way better than F2 (Why the hell F2? What's the logic?)
- I don't like to use F5 all the time (again, this shouldn't be necessary at all)
- I don't want that duplicated files are added - out of order - at the bottom of an alphabetically ordered list till you make some actions that restores the order (totally annoying)
- Finders naming behaviour for multiple copies or aliases is way better
- CMD+ARROW DOWN to open a file is a consisten behaviour - it also opens folders and is easy to learn together with all the other CMD + ARROW shortcuts
- I don't like the silly UP behavior of Explorer, that sometimes goes to the parent folder - but somtimes not
- I do like a trash that behaves like a trash no matter if you use a lokal or a server file system (a bug that should have been squashed in Windows a long time ago!)
- I do like when Finder tells me that a file is to large to copy to a destination before it starts
- I do like that Finder is always able to put a file into the trash even if it is locked by a process - unlike Windows, you don't have to search for the process that lockes the file to put it on the hit list to nirvana
- I absolutly don't like Explorers "merge" behaviour when copying/pasting folders (you never know what will be merged in deeper levels of that folder hierarchy and it get's really ugly, if the copy job suddenly stops because it hits a locked file or a disk full or ..)
- ..

Agreed that it would be nice to have some additional features in Finder like compressed archive browsing or a decent built-in FTP client. But frankly, I don't miss that very often. There are good tools which are - thanks to spotlight - only a few keystrokes away. However I miss Finder when having to work with Windows Explorer ..

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Comment by me
by Leo Davidson on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by me"
Leo Davidson Member since:
2009-06-11

- ENTER to rename is way better than F2 (Why the hell F2? What's the logic?)


Enter launches the selected file in Windows. Makes sense to me since that's what people probably do most often with files; definitely more often than they rename them.

It's something you get used to, either way. I suspect you're just complaining about something because it's not what you're used to rather than because it's worse.

- I don't like to use F5 all the time (again, this shouldn't be necessary at all)


You shouldn't, unless you're pointing at a filesystem that doesn't send change notifications properly (e.g. some Samba network shares, due to reasons that aren't worth getting into). Changes should automatically appear and do for me.


- I don't want that duplicated files are added - out of order - at the bottom of an alphabetically ordered list till you make some actions that restores the order (totally annoying)


That no longer happens in Windows 7 and I think has been changed since Vista, but I'm not sure. Used to annoy me as well (back when I used Explorer) but it's a thing of the past now.

- Finders naming behaviour for multiple copies or aliases is way better


If that's in the top 10 list then it's not a very major list. It's just automatic name-conflict avoidance. Surely you usually rename whatever automatic name the things got anyway, if you care about what names they have at all.

- CMD+ARROW DOWN to open a file is a consisten behaviour - it also opens folders and is easy to learn together with all the other CMD + ARROW shortcuts


As above, I think you're arguing about what you're used to and not what is inherently better or worse. Windows and OS X are different; if you come from one and expect it to be the same as the other, right down to the keyboard shortcuts, then of course you'll be disappointed. If you are that stuck in your ways then you will never be happy with anything other than OS X; fine, use OS X, but your personal hotkey preferences mean nothing to anyone else.

- I don't like the silly UP behavior of Explorer, that sometimes goes to the parent folder - but somtimes not


That I can agree with. It's something they messed up in Vista and Win 7, IMO. There is the Alt-Up hotkey which will always go up but not many people know about it and it's not convenient for mouse users (nor European keyboard users as there's only a left alt key). You can always go up using the breadcrumbs bar or the folder tree but in my brief moments using Explorer I miss having an easy-to-push Up button that is always in the same place and requires no thought or parsing of the display.

- I do like a trash that behaves like a trash no matter if you use a lokal or a server file system (a bug that should have been squashed in Windows a long time ago!)


I agree; the recycle bin should be available for network drives as well as local ones.


- I do like when Finder tells me that a file is to large to copy to a destination before it starts


Makes sense I guess. Can't say I've run into that problem since my Amiga days. :-)


- I do like that Finder is always able to put a file into the trash even if it is locked by a process - unlike Windows, you don't have to search for the process that lockes the file to put it on the hit list to nirvana


Ah, the age-old debate about file deletion/lock semantics. As a developer I agree with the way Windows does it. If my process has a lock on a file then the file should stay there... But I can see why people dislike that concept and Unix seems to survive fine allowing in-use files to be deleted... Too late to change it in Windows, though, with much code depending on the existing semantics.

- I absolutly don't like Explorers "merge" behaviour when copying/pasting folders (you never know what will be merged in deeper levels of that folder hierarchy and it get's really ugly, if the copy job suddenly stops because it hits a locked file or a disk full or ..)


Personally, I absolutely despise the idea that I could overwrite one folder with another one. Merging seems like the natural operation to me. (Or being asked which operation to perform, I suppose.) Again, though, it's probably more about what you're used to than one being inherently better than the other...

I can't think of many times when I want to replace a whole folder, though. There are loads of times where I want to merge folders. (e.g. An archive or backup of files that I want to merge into a larger collection. I do that multiple times a day.)

...

Now, having said all of that, would you guess that I absolutely cannot stand Explorer? ;) I've always disliked Explorer and I think it's gotten a lot worse in Vista and Windows 7.

I've been using an alternative file manger (Directory Opus) for years and I love it. I've seen quite a few OS X users ask for an Opus port as well. It seems a lot of people aren't that happy with Finder just as people look alternatives to Explorer. OTOH, I know people who like Finder and also ones who like Explorer... They don't know what they're missing from a proper file manger, IMO, but to each their own. Everyone has different needs and tastes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by me
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 29th Aug 2009 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by me"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

- ENTER to rename is way better than F2 (Why the hell F2? What's the logic?)


I agree with you that using F2 for rename operations is pretty random, but that doesn't mean that Enter to rename is much better. FWIW, I find the Ctrl-E (E for Edit) keyboard shortcut in Tracker (the BeOS/Haiku filemanager) makes way more sense than either the Windows or OS X shortcuts.

- CMD+ARROW DOWN to open a file is a consisten behaviour - it also opens folders and is easy to learn together with all the other CMD + ARROW shortcuts


No, it isn't consistent. Do you use Ctrl-Down to activate the default button on a dialogue box? To execute a command in the terminal? Elsewhere, Enter is consistently used for "execute/run" actions - but not in the Finder.

- I don't like the silly UP behavior of Explorer, that sometimes goes to the parent folder - but somtimes not


Examples? The only time I've seen that behaviour is when you try to go "up" from search results; annoying, yes - but understandable. What's the parent folder of a list of search results, after all?

- I do like when Finder tells me that a file is to large to copy to a destination before it starts


Agreed. In fairness, though, I think that has finally been fixed in Win7 (or possibly Vista).

- I absolutly don't like Explorers "merge" behaviour when copying/pasting folders (you never know what will be merged in deeper levels of that folder hierarchy


That can be annoying, granted. But the OS X approach completely nukes the contents of folder that you're overwriting - personally, I think that outright data loss is a much more serious problem than unpredictable folder merging.

it get's really ugly, if the copy job suddenly stops because it hits a locked file or a disk full or ..)


Agreed, although - again - I believe that has (finally) been addressed in Win7.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by me
by mrhasbean on Thu 27th Aug 2009 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Your comments arrogantly suggest that Apple should change the way they have always done things - in other words the way that Mac users (some of us have been using Macs since the original) are used to operating - in order to implement something that you would like to use.

You've chosen to use Windows because you like the way it does those things, and that's great for you, but please don't try to tell those of us who have been using the desktop / finder system since the original Mac that we should change because you don't like it. The Finder isn't by any means perfect, but for every annoyance it has there is at least one corresponding annoyance in Windows (or indeed whatever dedicated file manager you care to name). It all comes back to the user's preferences, and I can't wait to get my legit copy of Snowy today.

Edited 2009-08-27 22:17 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by me
by alcibiades on Fri 28th Aug 2009 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by me"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

This illustrates how deeply conservative the culture of no choice has made Apple. If this were Linux/Unix, the reply would have been, you don't like your DTE or file manager, use try one of the other 10+ ones available, mix and match till you find something you want, and here are a few suggestions to start from.

However, the idea that there is one way, the right way, our way, is so deeply ingrained in Apple culture that the idea that one size might not fit all is quite threatening. It is seen in fact as a demand that we all start working differently just to please you.

When all the guy needs is to be let out of the straitjacket to work how he wants. In a sane environment, he would work how he wants, we would work how we want, everyone would be happy. There would be choice. Yes, very strange idea that.

But it would not be Cupertino heaven. And that is the problem.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by me
by werpu on Fri 28th Aug 2009 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

Cut is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are interested you can read the thread linked in my first post. And Finder is the tip of the iceberg in my OS X 6 month experience.

I could rant for hours about the little annoyances in every Apple application and the OS itself. It's like Apple just has to make all the things different than everybody else whether it makes sense or not.

Actually apple was first (well xerox was) so everyone else did it different than apple ;-)
But seriously the keyboard shortcuts for instance have been mostly there since day zero. Microsoft tried to copy them but in a matter that they do not look like copies.
The same goes for various other aspects in the OS. The dock for instance stems straight from NextStep and it was there at a time no one else hat something similar.
The list could go on. I have been using a mac for 2 years day in day out, and those so called little annoyances usually are exactly those things everyone else copied from apple. The things Apple has copied from everyone else usually do the same.
But why should apple adjust? There are millions of users who instantly would make an outcry if just one keyboard shortcut changes.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by me
by Gryzor on Thu 27th Aug 2009 17:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

This really bugs me, as Finder has a lot of problems with usability and lack of basic features. Actually it's the number one reason my MacBook now runs Windows, the second being Apple's attitude towards its users.


This is funny as hell. You have problems with Apple and the Finder then go to Microsoft and Explorer.
L O L.

Good news is, now that your are a Microsoft user, I guess we won't have to read your comments on Apple news anymore, will we?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by me - it's ironic
by jabbotts on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by me"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If find it ironic that Microsoft is actually less end user hostile than Apple however.. such is the case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by me - it's ironic
by Kroc on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by me - it's ironic"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

So hostile that they release their latest OS for $30 which has no activation, no licence keys, no anti-piracy measures and an upgrade path that reads: ‘Do you have an Intel Mac?’ compared to Windows 7’s insane install chart that punishes you with the task of total backup and restore for doing anything clever.

Apple’s iPhone business is—sadly—not their desktop business. Snow Leopard is a better packaged, cheaper, more consumer orientated, consumer friendly OS than Windows 7.

Reply Score: 6

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I apreciate the reasonably priced upgrade but the hardware/software system is still as closed as they can EULA it and the company practices remain as outwardly hostile. Like Microsoft, Apple is due credit where due; this does not obsolve either company from poor policy though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by me - it's ironic
by Kroc on Fri 28th Aug 2009 06:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by me - it's ironic"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

So in what service pack did Windows get Exchange integration? Windows 7 doesn’t even have a calendar or mail client anymore—Windows users are paying double to lose features!

Reply Score: 2

noodlehaus Member since:
2009-06-03

Ok. Let me change my previous comment to make it more clearer.

Should I be willing to pay Apple $30 so they could give me a patch that's going to make my Mac OS X run faster?

Should you pay the chef extra so he'd cook your food properly?

Don't get me wrong. I only have Mac OS X (Leopard) at home (24" iMac and new MBP), but I have to say this is something that should've simply been a service pack or free patch (if you don't want it to sound like Microsoft's).

Reply Score: 1

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Ok. Let me change my previous comment to make it more clearer.

Should I be willing to pay Apple $30 so they could give me a patch that's going to make my Mac OS X run faster?


Yes. Should I pay Microsoft for releasing a faster Windows Vista? Yes.

Don't get me wrong. I only have Mac OS X (Leopard) at home (24" iMac and new MBP), but I have to say this is something that should've simply been a service pack or free patch (if you don't want it to sound like Microsoft's).


A free patch is 10.x.y. Apple gives you almost 10 of these.

Snow Leopard had major changes under the hood. The Finder and QuickTime rewrites alone are worth it. Not to mention that, unlike Windows, I can enjoy running 64 bit apps on a 32 bit kernel so I know my devices work.

For $29, 10.6 is a bargain. Unlike 7, which costs $129 or something and is a skin to Vista (if you read the E7 blog they mention how all those new features - Superbar included - can run fine in Vista).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by me
by kaiwai on Fri 28th Aug 2009 04:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by me"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I appreciate the speed increase in Finder, but from what I've read in the reviews, this and file previews are the only improvements.

This really bugs me, as Finder has a lot of problems with usability and lack of basic features. Actually it's the number one reason my MacBook now runs Windows, the second being Apple's attitude towards its users.

I won't go into detail about Finder's fundamental flaws, as I've done this before in another comment: http://www.osnews.com/thread?334122


What features are missing? I've read the whole thread and you haven't mentioned a single thing actually missing - the only thing you have successfully done is whine about the fact that Finder does things different to Windows Explorer. I find this whine feast the height of hypocrisy because every time I even remotely criticise Windows in how things are done I find my post moderated down so low it bypasses the lowest levels of Dante's Inferno.

10.6 marked the re-write of Finder in Cocoa and the move to 64bit; it forms the foundation for future development. It makes no sense what so ever adding features to a Carbon based Finder when it is going to be thrown out in the future and replaced with a Cocoa based one. If there are 'killer features' that need to be added, they'll be added in one of the future revisions.

As for what I use it for, I never do copy/past/cut outside of a document; I drag and drop; we've got a GUI, decent size screens and the ability to do spatial based file browsing - why castrate your experience to some hair brained half witted idea that was dreamt up when Internet Explorer 4 was integrated with Windows and fundamentally changed the way in which the Windows Explorer operated (Active Desktop, Single click, browser oriented file management etc).

I find it funny how people like pandronic whine about Finder whilst ignoring that Windows historically is the odd one out if one were to do an honest comparison on how files are handled and manipulated by the end user. So no, I don't want Finder bastardised to keep a few Windows converts happy - its perfectly fine the way it is with a couple of extra features being added making things nicer; but to claim, as pandronic did, that Finder is fundamentally flawed makes me laugh and cry at the same time. It is funny because what he says is absurd and yet I cry because of his ignorance is being masked as triumphant arrogance.

Reply Score: 4

As an amused or bemused bystander...
by alcibiades on Thu 27th Aug 2009 18:44 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

As an amused, and often bemused, observer of the Mac scene, its the social aspects of these things that attract attention. In the present case, look at the following wonderful comment in the Guardian's review:

Any seasoned user can reel off a string of examples of how the old Finder has needlessly got in their way – usually by hanging for seconds at a time displaying the spinning beachball of death. Snow Leopard's Finder is a different beast. While there will always be situations where you have to wait for something to happen (copying data from one place to another still takes time), a hiccup in one place won't now bring everything to a screeching halt. For anybody who regularly works with shared volumes on networks, this is almost worth the $29/£25 on its own.

Yes, we see, that sounds like a load of incredible irritations which have now been fixed, and indeed, it sounds like it would have been worth paying twice as much to fix them. What, one wonders, took them so long?

And how exactly did that inglorious past tie into making me so much more productive as I used my Mac? I guess the other productivity enhancing features must have been so impressive that they more than made up for the deficiencies in the file manager. Made up for them so well, in fact, that until they were all fixed, the deficiencies were not even worth talking about!

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Made up for them so well, in fact, that until they were all fixed, the deficiencies were not even worth talking about!


Really? You've never encountered the initialism "FTFF" (Fix The [expletive deleted] Finder)?

Or to pick another example, John Siracusa's criticisms of the OS X Finder are quite widely-known & they're still applicable for the most part - despite the fact that many of them go back as far as Developer Preview versions of OS X (disclaimer: I haven't used 10.6 yet, so that statement may need an "until recently" equivocation).

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2003/04/finder.ars

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Ars pointed out that upgrading from Tiger is against the EULA.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/08/29-snow-leopard-retail-di...

With all the new performance enhancements, maybe it's time for me to get a new Mac. My Quadra 650 is starting to show it's age.

Reply Score: 3

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

Ars pointed out that upgrading from Tiger is against the EULA.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/08/29-snow-leopard-retail-di...

With all the new performance enhancements, maybe it's time for me to get a new Mac. My Quadra 650 is starting to show it's age.


Just gave you +1. That was funny! I think a Quadra 650 is just a few years behind. But, if you insist on running Snow Leopard, you know... maybe "XPostFacto" might be able to help... :-)

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ars pointed out that upgrading from Tiger is against the EULA.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/08/29-snow-leopard-retail-di...

With all the new performance enhancements, maybe it's time for me to get a new Mac. My Quadra 650 is starting to show it's age.


If a man announces a EULA in public - can anyone be bothered listening? I've yet to hear of a person who reads the EULA and takes every line to heart. Maybe it is time for the EULA to be retired with something simple, "you bought this software, you can make a back up of it; what you do with it in the privacy of your own home is none of our business, if you want technical support, we'll only support you for the number of devices you're licenced for". The worlds shortest EULA.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But...that would put the lawyers out of a job.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But...that would put the lawyers out of a job.


Yeah but it is easier than trying to round then all up and trying to chain to the ocean floor.

Reply Score: 2

Leo Davidson Member since:
2009-06-11

If you're going to buy an upgrade version you're not entitled to and ignore the EULA, abusing the fact it doesn't its the requirements, then you're still going to be running an unlicensed copy in the end.

Sure, you've paid a bit of money to the company so it's "less bad," but it's still an illegal copy. Technically and legally it's no different to pirating the OS for $0 and taking advantage of the fact it has no activation/DRM.

Same goes for people who get "student" versions of software through friends when they don't qualify themselves. (I can see that it's more difficult to be detected, though. Someone who doesn't care about legality/piracy and just wants a copy that will continue to work forever for the least amount of money could abuse the system like that. e.g. Microsoft aren't going to know if the user connecting to WGA/OGA is really a student or not but they will know if you're using a pirate product key. It's still a pirate copy, either way, but they only detect one and not the other...)

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe it is time for the EULA to be retired with something simple, "you bought this software, you can make a back up of it; what you do with it in the privacy of your own home is none of our business, if you want technical support, we'll only support you for the number of devices you're licenced for". The worlds shortest EULA.


Or better yet, replace the content of EULAs with nothing but a reference to the applicable copyright laws (IMHO, if an EULA attempts to prohibit actions that are expressly allowed by copyright law, that should automatically invalidate it).

Which would also do away with the overly-broad disclaimers that most EULAs include. Computer software is the only industry I know of where the maker can unequivocally disclaim liability for any problems that occur as a result of using their product.

Reply Score: 2