• Explore the magic and the mystery!
  • The Tech Night Owl's Home Page



  • Discover the power of GraphicConverter 9



  • Attention Apple: Please Make Snow Leopard Free!

    February 9th, 2009

    Notice, gentle reader, that I use the word please, since I don't want to make this request seem closer to a demand, although I certainly feel strongly about the subject.

    Now why should I make this request? Well, in one sense, the 10.6 release is similar to 10.1, in that it cleans up the system and makes it function faster and more reliably. Of course, the original 10.0 was, according to Apple, meant to be a product for early adopters and folks who might be considering the possibility of moving their companies to Mac OS X.

    Those of you who tried it at the time realize it was quite messy. Features were missing, including CD burning. It was slow as the blazes, and you had to wonder whether this fancy piece of eye candy was really worth it. Indeed, I kept using Mac OS 9 for my "real" work, other than writing books about Mac OS X of course. Even 10.1 took us only part way there, and I didn't transition completely to Mac OS X until 10.2 arrived.

    But the situation with Leopard is vastly different. Mac OS 10.5 is a fully-realized reference release, in use by millions and millions of Mac users at home or in the office. While I realize some of you still regard it as too buggy, most of you seem to be generally satisfied, although it's the right of Mac users worldwide to complain loudly when they feel it's appropriate.

    As you probably know, Leopard's successor, Snow Leopard, is clearly meant as a strong under-the-hood refinement. The visual changes are apt to be extremely minor. You won't see enhanced support for Microsoft Exchange (it'll just be there when you need it for your email setup), and even if the Finder migrates from Carbon to Cocoa, the changes won't necessarily be visible either. That assumes, of course, that there will not be any significant visual changes, and a few will be welcome. But that's yesterday's column.

    This doesn't mean that Apple isn't working, in secret, on a few hundred significant interface alterations, but I really doubt it. For one thing, except for a few highly-competitive issues, developers need to have full access to a forthcoming operating system release in order to test their products, present and future, against it.

    Indeed, Snow Leopard seeds have been available to the programming community since last year's WWDC. While they are provided under strict confidentiality agreements, Apple knows that some folks who don't believe in contracts will nonetheless rush to a Mac rumor site and spill the beans. The one significant issue to be disclosed so far, beyond what you can read on Apple's site, is that the prereleases are only designed to run on Intel-based Macs.

    Of course it's also true that the last PowerPC model, the G5, was retired in the summer of 2006, so there's less incentive to continue to invest in R&D, except for security and critical hardware support issues.

    But the main reason I suggest that Apple give away Snow Leopard is because operating systems are strictly a means to sell Mac hardware, from which Apple makes the lion's share of its profits. Despite the demands of some uninformed media pundits that Apple is missing the boat in refusing to open Mac OS X to PC clones of all kinds, such a boneheaded maneuver would only destroy Apple's earnings and profits, as anyone with a calculator at hand will realize after examining the financial statements and doing the math for themselves.

    Up till now, Apple has sold Mac OS X upgrade kits on the basis of large numbers of visual feature enhancements. Snow Leopard is the catch-up release, where the underpinnings are cleaned up and performance is enhanced. True, that may itself be sufficient reason to pay $129 for the privilege of getting a copy, but it's not going to seem terribly sexy from a marketing point of view.

    On the other hand, telling loyal Mac users that they can get Snow Leopard as a free download, or on a DVD for, say, $9.95 shipping and handling, would be a great publicity ploy.

    Compare that, for example, with Microsoft's approach for Windows 7, which is also presented as mostly a performance and reliability enhancement for the failed Vista release, along with a few interface flourishes. However, Microsoft can't give up its greedy ways, because they have already announced the usual half dozen confusing variations, and even if pricing is reduced, I doubt it will be by very much.

    Of course, Microsoft doesn't sell computer hardware, other than input devices, so they can't just give a new operating system away, or can they? After all, 80% of the income generated by Windows comes from the licenses they sell to computer makers. That business plan doesn't have to change for them to offer upgrade kits to existing PC owners for a relatively cheap price.

    Such a thing won't happen of course. But I can see good reason for Apple to confuse and befuddle Microsoft yet again by providing Snow Leopard free and clear. Isn't that a terrific idea?



    Share
    | Print This Article Print This Article

    50 Responses to “Attention Apple: Please Make Snow Leopard Free!”

    1. Ted Wood says:

      I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. Standard $129 price should apply. For it's cashflow that keeps a company thriving, and I've gleaned way more than $129 worth of value from Leopard over the past year.

    2. ChampagneBob says:

      Not charging is a bad idea... not logical from a long-term point of view in creating value for AAPL stock, especially in the recession year of 2009. However, I would be very pleased with a $49.95 price for the consternation of Microsoft point of view. Generating a profitable cash flow is the Apple way, very much accepted by its legions as the price to pay for the continual innovation and ease of use. Don't change what's working.

      SL Server getting ZFS first is brilliant.... this builds credibility from a technical point of view to those who really need it, giving more time to refine its use on the consumer level where the less technical need a simple implementation that "just works".

      SL will be so far ahead of Windows 7 in so many respects that ZFS can wait for refinements and polish while SL eats Windows 7 lunch, increasing market share incrementally for the next year and becoming the major selling point in 2010 with all the new stuff being created right now.

      Apple has the best of times going for it going forward.....

      Gene Steinberg Reply:

      I'm fine with a lower price. At $49 it would still be a steal. :)

      Peace,
      Gene

    3. hmurchison says:

      I'm for giving Leopard for free for current Leopard users.

      This means if you have Tiger or a release prior you simply need to upgrade to Leopard and you know you'll get Snow Leopard for free.

      This way those of use who cashed out for Leopard don't see those who didn't getting the same benefits and it allows them to continue to sell the Mac Box Set for a great deal for those who still haven't gotten Leopard.

      The benefits here are massive. The quicker we get Snow Leopard to critical mass the faster you see developers taking advantage of Grand Central and OpenCL and 64-bit computing. If Apple charges too much money for the promise of Snow Leopard it will have slow uptake and a summer of 2010 will have precious few apps that have taken advantage of the optimizations of Snow Leopard.

      Apple really doesn't have to make revenue from Snow Leopard. As you state Gene, the money is in wooing PPC users to ante up for that new Mac. Snow Leopard is the gateway to a new era for Apple and if you think they're competing against Microsoft well now you haven't seen nothing yet.

    4. shane blyth says:

      From a logistics stand point how to you lower the price or make it free. Who do you give it to for free or at the lower price? Anyone walking in off the street? I mean if I am running OSX 10.2 would i get it for nothing? Do I have to prove I have a legit copy of Leopard? Will a Tiger owner get all the benefits of Leopard and snow leopard for free. It is like a fee lunch ha I never paid for Leopard as I stuck with Tiger and now I get Snow Leopard for nothing? So next time I they go to Lion or whatever they call the version after this am I going to get annoyed cause I have to pay $129 for it. Why would it not be free also? for $49 as some have suggested? If I spend a year updating the OS with 100's of employees working on it why would I give it away or at a reduced prcie. Did it cost me less to make than Leopard? I think realistically it should be $129 as all the other updates are. How can it be anything else with creating a mess

    5. @ shane blyth: Actually they can make the free DVD of Snow Leopard a Leopard upgrade, so you cannot just install it on a Tiger system. :)

      If you want a full install DVD, you pay the regular $129 price.

      Peace,
      Gene

    6. shane blyth says:

      ok i see that possibility of an upgrade check but hey it still costs Apple alot of money to produce snow Leopard Just cause it doesnt look different on the outside doesnt mean they spend anything less than the previous versions producing it.

    7. @ shane blyth: No, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily an easy sell.

      Peace,
      Gene

    8. hmurchison says:

      Simply make Leopard the jump off spot.

      If you have Tiger you have to get Leopard to take advantage of the low cost Snow Leopard update.

      If you have Leopard then you're already there.

      That way Apple can continue to sell boxed Leopard version without making another run.

    9. Neurotic Nomad says:

      I say Apple should make Snow Leopard available ONLY on new hardware. (Like they did with Intel 10.4) That way, it spins the argument from "Is it worth $129?" to "Hey! Why can't I buy it?!?"

      After 21 days of quotes in the paper from people claiming they "had to pirate it", Apple should THEN "cave".

    10. Andrew says:

      Neurotic Nomad:
      First off, 10.4 was available as a stand-alone, I bought a copy for my 12" PowerBook and did not need to buy new hardware.

      Gene:
      Exchange support WILL be added to Snow Leopard. It is mentioned on Apple's site.

    11. @ Andrew: I know about Exchange. What I meant to say is that it wouldn't make any visual change in your system. It's just there when you set it an Exchange-sourced account. :D

      Peace,
      Gene

    12. Jocca says:

      I think Apple should provide people with an upgrade DVD for Leopard users and a full install for everybody else. The difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard is a lot greater than between 10.0 and 10.1 even through its appearance will be little changed. The amount of time and resources expanded on it is also far greater. I will be very happy to pay for it, even as a Leopard user because my core 2 duo Intel chips and my nVdia graphic chips will take full advantage of this OS.

    13. Chris H says:

      There are rumors that Quicktime Pro will be included in 10.6 and no longer be an additional cost. I'm sure 10.6 will have a few other surprises so I'm willing to pay the normal $129 knowing the improved speed and security I will get as well.

    14. Neurotic Nomad says:

      @ Andrew: 10.4 PPC was available stand-alone, but 10.4 Intel was available only with new hardware. It wasn't until 10.5 that we saw a "universal" release sold stand-alone. Your 12" Powerbook is a PPC machine.

      @ hmurchison:
      The reason Apple writes OS updates is to sell new hardware, not to sell upgrade licenses. This year's Macs have to be "hotter" than last year's Macs. I doubt Apple will give away 2 years of development toward "new hotness" for free.

      Stand-alone OS sales ranks somewhere between stand-alone Mighty Mouse sales and stand-alone iPod shuffle sales in the importance scale. It's large enough to matter, but not by much.

      Making a big deal out of the OS rather than the Machine is what Apple does when it's late delivering a machine. Making a big deal of the Machine rather than the OS is what Apple does when the OS is late. When it comes out, Apple will make a big deal out of it. HOW they will do it will depend on whether or not it comes on/with new hardware.

      If it DOES come with new hardware, I say Apple, Inc. has an opportunity for a bit of a PR stunt.

    15. David says:

      Apple already has an incentive program in place for Leopard. It's the new bundle with iLife and iWork. Making Snow Leopard free might get a few more to upgrade, but at what cost to Apple and their ability to charge for future upgrades?

      Next, the people Apple most wants to move are those still running PowerPC based machines. So far it appears that Snow Leopard will only run on Intel so the price of Snow Leopard is irrelevant for that group of users; they can't use it until they buy a new Mac anyway.

      Comparisons with Windows don't make much sense either. You can't buy any retail version of Windows for $129. I don't think you can even get an OEM version from a retailer for $129.

      Let's not forget that Apple is very generous when it comes to installing the OS on multiple machines. Sales of family packs, which by the way are very attractively priced, are next to nothing compared with the single copies because people know they can use the same disc to update all their Macs. Sure it's against the license agreement, but how many people out there have actually read it? (David thanks the 7 of you who put up their hands).

      After all that there's really only one thing that matters: people trust Apple to provide value for their money.

      The bigger sticker price on a Mac indicates a machine with a better user experience than a lower priced PC. People trust that a $129 upgrade will provide them with lots of added value. If Snow Leopard was free it would indicate that Apple doesn't think it provides much value and thus many people would see no reason to upgrade.

    16. hmurchison says:

      What exactly is hot about Snow Leopard?

      Almost every new technology requires explicit app support.

      Grand Central - should manifest in a more responsive system but 3rd party apps will have to be modified

      OpenCL- Requires 3rd party support. Quicktime may leverage it but the initial results will be low

      64-bit- great if your mac accepts more than 4GB of RAM

      Quicktime X - another tool that's going to take developer adoption.

      I do not believe Apple can get away with selling Snow Leopard for more than $59. While it's great to
      talk about optimizations and all that people expect that to be free. "Why wouldn't you give me an optimized
      OS Apple?"

      New computers will ship with SL but the installed base still need to be migrated as quickly as possible. Developers
      are always facing the decision to support legacy OS versus taking advantage of the new stuff in the most recent OS. If
      a critical mass of Mac users are on Snow Leopard it means more apps will make the jump to utilizing the new features and
      they will do it faster.

      Testing your app for bugs in Leopard and Snow Leopard sure beats testing in Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard. Somethings
      gotta give.

    17. Neurotic Nomad says:

      @ hmurchison:
      Where is the new hotness? Grand Central, OpenCL and Quicktime X will all boost 1st-Party software (including the much-maligned Finder)*. Don't discount that as a real world benefit. It's not glamorous, but shaving fractions of seconds off response time decreases user frustration. It's not really boast-worthy, in my opinion, but little that's actually boasted about in advertising (tech or otherwise) actually is.

      You are correct in that it will do nothing for your existing 3rd party applications. (sarcasm mode ON) And we KNOW how important 3rd party developers are to Apple by how they constantly kiss developer butt. (sarcasm mode OFF) New versions will be required. This happens with every point update. 10.3-only apps gave way to 10.4-only apps, which gave way to 10.5-only (and 10.5-Intel-only) apps. This issue hasn't seemed to harm the platform's growth so far this decade and seems to have benefitted the end user.

      "Why Snow Leopard is/isn't better" and "Should Snow Leopard be [cheaper than Apple's usual/actual price]? " are two different subjects.

      My point, which wasn't very clear, was this:
      If Apple was to hold off selling 10.6.0 at retail (and give no indication that they ever intend to sell it as a stand-alone product) that they can avoid having having the press kick around Question 2 at all (or at least give it a very different spin), as they will be pre-occupied with the lack of a disc-in-a-box.

      Instead of being called greedy for asking $129 for 2 years worth of effort, Apple would be called greedy for NOT selling it. (The argument being that 10.6 requires a $3000 dongle). The PR stunt would build demand and blind people to 10.6.0's inevitable flaws. Then when 10.6.1 shows up @ retail for $129, the sheep will line up without complaint and without talk of free or discounted upgrades and consider themselves winners for "making Apple bend".

      My Reasoning was:
      Apple makes it's bread and butter selling hardware to end users, every software and service related move they do is to sell more hardware.

      *Also, 64-bit is very important to the Mac Pro crowd, small as it is.

    18. John Doe says:

      The first Intel macs were for early adopters.
      Therefore Apple should offer upgraded Intel macs for free.

    19. Adam says:

      Finally someone who actually knows apple's business and realizes that all those pundits (idiots) who call for apple to license OS X are smoking a giant bong! If apple were to license the OS you can kiss the Mothership (tm) goodbye. Apple would die a swift painful death as their revenue falls off the map. Let's get this straight ONCE AND FOR ALL! Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY. 90% of their revenue comes from the sale of hardware. The software is there to facilitate said hardware sales, and NOTHING ELSE. Apple will not and cannot survive on software sales alone. (Anyone remember Power Computing?) Giving 10.6 away will cost them virtually nothing since it's hardware they make their real money from, and it should be given away. This will make many a current mac owner very happy, and will one up Microshaft in a very big way.

      I hope apple does give away 10.6 as a downloadable upgrade or cost cover DVD.

      Thank you.

    20. Billy Offspring says:

      Sure, Apple will have spent 12-18 months developing Snow-Leopard, then will come the marketing and some people think they shouldn't recoup some of those R&D and marketing dollars? Give me a break. Don't be fooled by the lack of whistle and bells and the choice of cat names, this will be a strong and desirable Mac OS X update. How many times does system software get released that actually takes advantage of your hardware's (Intel) existing power and delivers a faster machine? Please stop whining about something you haven't seen not being free, you can only make that judgment when Snow - Leopard is available.

    21. DaveD says:

      Mac OS X version 10.5 is not as bad as 10.0. It was good PR for Apple to provide the free 10.1. Microsoft should do the same for Vista users.

      A lower-priced version of 10.6 for Leopard users would be nice with the regular $129 for all other Mac OS X.

    22. Lachlan says:

      Some charge is justified if new features are there. I'm happy to pay a fee for development costs associated with new features. Otherwise it's just a point update which should be free.

    23. Andrew says:

      Changing the basic plumbing and adding full Exchange support is hardly a point upgrade.

      I would pay the $129 just for iCal to sync with my Exchange server

    24. Duncan says:

      You say make Snow Leopard free so that Apple will sell more hardware. How will making Snow Leopard free sell more hardware? The $129 price tag, on the other hand—once Snow Leopard is out some people are going to go, oh what the heck, I'll save the $129 by buying a brand new Mac now so I can get Snow Leopard free...

    25. JJIrons says:

      Free is already here! Obama's stimulus program will show us what "free" looks like. Bail outs, tax hikes, free healthcare, etc. Don't hold your breath for great results though and even though Apple strongly supported Obama, something tells me they ill never do anything for free. Free doesn't work.

    26. John says:

      Apple should charge $129 for SL. Just because it doesn't add some eye candy is no reason to deprecate the utility of the software. Presumably this will add speed and free up disk space while adding new functions. Where do I line up? I'm ready. If SL really does run faster it may actually postpone hardware sales as users are happier with their machines than they were. In addition there is the rumor of the cocoa finder, at last.

      Apple spends something like $500M a year on product development (not all or even most on the OS). If they can cover the cost of development and actually make some profit I'm all for it. It means Apple stays strong and lasts longer.

      Finally, as you point out, we don't know the final picture yet. I'd wait till I saw what they actually produce before calling for it to be free.

    27. Richard says:

      Gene,

      A lower cost upgrade for existing Leopard users makes sense (with a full price purchase from earlier OS versions), but I wonder how many Leopard users have the requisite hardware to use Snow Leopard? Surely there will be a lot of Macs which are end of lifed with Leopard (and an even greater number with Tiger).

      Still, it is the best way to get the installed base up in a hurry to encourage the software developers to "get with the program". Sooner than later, many of us will be upgrading to new hardware which comes with Snow Leopard.

      In my view, the most important aspect of Snow Leopard is the (reported) ability to make better utilization of multiple cores and, of course, full 64 bit implementation. I can readily see the benefits of the OS assigning one or more cores (and the video card) to processing video in the background while other cores are being utilized to do other things independent of those activities.

      The downside is still Photoshop. It is still unclear when, or even if, Adobe will be committing resources to bring the Mac version up to date to take advantage of all this. Failing that, professional photographers may accelerate the already existing trend of moving away from Apple products.

    28. Tom Andersen says:

      It seems to me that Apple is lining this up to be ''Free" or 'Almost free'.

      A) It is still Leopard. If they wanted to charge more they should have had a whole new name.

      B) I saw a slide somewhere that said the number of new features would be 0, where Tiger had like 200, leopard had like 300. Is that not the biggest hint? All the stuff like OpenCL, etc is 'just' under the hood things we developers are waiting for.

      C) How many intel computers were sold running Tiger? (Millions, I know...) but still 'most' intel boxes have paid for Leopard already.

      I think that they could charge some reasonable delivery / DVD fee, like $29 which was the cost of Quicktime Pro. (so its like it was free!).

    29. gopher says:

      Andrew wrote:

      Neurotic Nomad:
      First off, 10.4 was available as a stand-alone, I bought a copy for my 12? PowerBook and did not need to buy new hardware.
      Gene:
      Exchange support WILL be added to Snow Leopard. It is mentioned on Apple’s site.

      Why should I pay for a feature I don't even use?

    30. @ gopher: Well, if you look at it that way, there may as well be 200 versions of Mac OS X, with a mix and match of features that would appeal to different classes of users.

      In the case of Exchange, it's possible some people might not need it now, but would later join a company where that sort of access is required.

      Peace,
      Gene

    31. hmurchison says:

      Make it Free ....and they will come.

    32. Richard says:

      DaveD wrote:

      Mac OS X version 10.5 is not as bad as 10.0. It was good PR for Apple to provide the free 10.1. Microsoft should do the same for Vista users.

      A lower-priced version of 10.6 for Leopard users would be nice with the regular $129 for all other Mac OS X.

      Let's face it, 10.0 was really a beta.

      10.5 still has a lot of rough edges. I think that 10.4.11 is, in many ways, a better, more stable OS.

      As a PPC user who expects to be left behind by Snow Leopard, I wish that Apple would clean up some of the mess in Leopard before abandoning us to our fate.

    33. MichaelT says:

      @David,

      Let’s not forget that Apple is very generous when it comes to installing the OS on multiple machines. Sales of family packs, which by the way are very attractively priced, are next to nothing compared with the single copies because people know they can use the same disc to update all their Macs. Sure it’s against the license agreement, but how many people out there have actually read it? (David thanks the 7 of you who put up their hands).

      Six of those people were just putting up their hands to ask what a license agreement is.

    34. Chris says:

      After reading over the comments, I feel that those people who directly compare Microsoft's business to Apple's business are missing a piece of the picture. In my opinion, you cannot compare Apple to Microsoft, or apples to lemons (pardon the pun on both counts) because as many of you have said, Apple is a hardware company, with a killer OS and included apps to boot, and Microsoft is merely a software company who aspires to steal the iPod's market share with failed devices and dreamy ideas of future retail chains. That being said, Apple probably could afford to fulfill our wildest fantasies and just handout Snow Leopard to the masses for free, while Microsoft has their normal fiasco of trying to sell the consumer a horribly overpriced OS, that comes in so many flavored SKUs as to confound us all away from the fact that Windows 7 is really just Vista 1.0 (or as it should have been). I believe that Apple should indeed be charging for this upgrade, for their time put in, and the strides they are making in setting an example for the industry by implementing Open-CL, Grand Central, etc. Not to assume that I strictly mean the normal $129 entrance fee, but perhaps a meager $49, or even $99 cost for existing Leopard users. As it seems that the PPC architecture will not be supported by SL, buying a new machine after SLs release would ensure the best of both worlds that Apple has to offer, but for the people still using Tiger on their earlier Intel machines, I believe that the usual $129 fee would still be a bargain. All I know is, I'm running a 2008 Mac Pro (3.1), and I wouldn't think twice having to pay $129 for SL, knowing what I could unleash under the hood of this beast. It's all opinion until Apple makes the announcement, so until then...

    35. ME says:

      I think it should be free anyway because the entire system is based on a free bsd kernel. Steeling work from the people and selling it to them at high prices. Just as bad as Microsoft.

      Robert Werz Reply:

      @ME, This. They have no right to sell it on those absurdly high prices when they used a free language to make the application. It really should be free.

      Not $100, not $50, not even $25! They should give it free. Otherwise, they're just milking every MAC users' cash around the world for a software they don't fully "own".

      Gene Steinberg Reply:

      @Robert Werz, You need to bone up on the subject, because you have a few fundamentals wrong. Although Apple uses open source software as the core of Mac OS X, there are loads of proprietary additions, including their development tools. They have every right to charge a fair price for their work.

      Peace,
      Gene

      Robert Werz Reply:

      @Gene Steinberg, Sure, they might have bundled up some additions but it's still wrong to price it that high.

      I may be wrong on saying that it should be free, but at least they should make it more affordable for the general public.

      Cheers,
      Robert

      Gene Steinberg Reply:

      Sorry, man, what you call "some additions" is all the proprietary code that makes Mac OS X unique. Compare the price of Mac OS X to a Windows consumer license, and you'll see how lame your suppositions are.

      Peace,
      Gene

    36. ME wrote:

      I think it should be free anyway because the entire system is based on a free bsd kernel. Steeling work from the people and selling it to them at high prices. Just as bad as Microsoft.

      No, Apple isn't stealing anything. They are legally using open source software on putting their own proprietary stuff on top of it, which is their right. Leopard is also certified as Unix.

      You are free to use any open source operating system you wish, of course, but Apple's enhancements make all the difference in the world. Besides, a standard $129 price for an upgrade kit is not "high," particularly compared to what Microsoft charges for Vista Ultimate, which is the full-featured version.

      Peace,
      Gene

    37. hmurchison says:

      LOL

      Apple's kernel is a hybrid. Darwin is open source but there's far more to an OS than just the kernel. Try again.

    38. John says:

      First of all, we haven't seen SL released so we don't know what features it will bring.

      Apple should charge what they think is right for SL. To make it cheap or free devalues the product. If you really don't want to pay for it either don't use it or get it for free somewhere. Find a friend who bought it and use their install disk. It's not like Apple is forcing you to pay for this. It is all on the honor system.

      Contrary to what was stated above, SL may do a lot even for existing 3rd party software. I don't have current stats but some time ago I read that something like 60% of a program's execution time was spent executing the OS. In other words, the application software is frequently making calls to the OS to accomplish something. If the OS becomes faster and more stable that helps an existing app. Might even make Adobe apps run well.

    39. Richard says:

      "Might even make Adobe apps run well."

      Now there is an optimist!

      Photoshop CS 5 still needs a lot of work to make use of the number of available cores. Lloyd Chambers has run tests showing how PS actually runs better with some cores disabled!

    40. Can I add to this?

      ATTN APPLE: PLEASE for the love of God and all that is holy, INCLUDE FLASH on the iPads and iPhones, please/ LOL

      Hugh Foster Reply:

      @Jason O'Leary, I agree, it's one of two things that don't just "work": syncing and flash. If there were a consistent solution for both - my life would be complete.

    41. Oh intense discussions in here. I think MAC OS will going to lose some profits if they're going to make Snow Leapard free. I mean not all countries have patronize MAC yet cause Microsoft has been locking their competition to the Internet market especially the Windows 7 OS. But it's better to just lower the price of Snow Leopard for its MAC users.

      Gene Steinberg Reply:

      It's an old discussion. Snow Leopard was released in 2009 for $29 U.S. The real discussion should be how much Apple ought to charge for Lion.

      Peace,
      Gene

    42. Emil says:

      Apple is a big company i think it can afford anything to be its part of the company. if you are talking about the charge, it depends on both nego. I hope i can get leopard, Lion, for free... LOL!

    Leave Your Comment