Absolutely correct on the slimmer, more powerful system. But Grand Central and Open GL are the true shining stars of Snow Leopard.

you didn't mention the other huge Win 7 insult: its price. if you paid cash for Vista - and its price was high - you now get to pay a lot more again to upgrade to Win 7 just to fix what is wrong with Vista. congrats, sucker.

Wow, please someone pass the towel to Mr. Jobs. Hes ass must be very wet after this article.
Great job Christopher, you are true Apple user! Keep on kissing.

This could also be a very smart move on Apple's part to advance in the handheld/embedded OS market. Handhelds are much more resource limited than laptops or desktops. With a lighter, faster OS, Apple now has the flexibility to offer.. hardware devices with fewer resources (less memory, lessor processor), meaning less cost to the consumer/bigger margins to Apple.. or keep the hardware beefed up, and offer a more compelling experience to the user.

Think about it.. spend a couple more $$ per handheld delivered.. or spend a little more on the OS, and pat yourself on the back for the savings/improved margins/whatever with every handheld delivered.

It should be pointed out that some of the most important infrastructural features of Snow Leopard (OpenCL, MPEG4 HW acceleration) do, in fact, require especific GPU models, meaning that many users won't be able to take advantage of them without buying new Macs. Plus the code fat trim is due to discarding old PPC code, again meaning most Macs older than three years won't run this OS at all. Add to that Apple not being confident or resourceful enough to default Snow Leopard to boot in 64 bit kernel mode.

Given all that, one sees Apple wouldn't dare price this update higher, as most of the biggie bullet points are left unticked for many of us.

@GMan

"Wow, please someone pass the towel to Mr. Jobs. Hes ass must be very wet after this article.

Ha ha ha -- that was a good one!

I have just installed it on my unibody MBP and tested the system for about one hour now. So far so good. Everything feels faster especially mail and safari. I tested the new capabilities of the tract pad and am very happy to report that I can use it to input Chinese characters (traditional in my case) without any trouble. It works a little bit differently from the iPhone input method but not by that much. Just this item is worth the upgrade cost, no question about it. I am going to check out Skype next. So far I have not made any phone call but the program opened without any trouble at the same time as the Welcome window, so I presume it will be able to function as expected, maybe better.

@Snafu

Great points. Some of the new features will take advantage of new hardware. But the core OS still runs swimmingly and faster than ever.

And yes, I touched on the PPC-to-Intel migration enforced by Snow Leopard, but I'm glad you went into more detail about it.

My wife and I have four PowerPC macs... two G4 towers from 1999, a G5 from 2004, and a 2005 PowerBook G4. They're all running OS X 10.4.11 (Tiger). I have NO PROBLEM with Apple moving away from PowerPC hardware. Time marches on, and we will eventually replace all of these with Intel machines.

I have a MacBook Pro on Leopard that is fully capable of running Snow Leopard, and I do intend to upgrade it. I'll wait a few weeks until the dust settles to install it, though. Previous OS upgrades have been a little rocky on the first point release. 10.6.2 or 10.6.3 will be a lot safer.

The WinTel world doesn't "get" Apple at all.

This was a complete re-write and re-structure of the OS for Apple. They did it for some fairly selfish reasons: They wanted to break with the past, and break new ground at the same time. Both feats make a statement that most users and most bystanders will not comprehend in the short run.

Oh, users will notice the speed increases, to be sure, but it will be several months to several years before we see the real advantages realized from what was released today. Open CL and Grand Central Dispatch are going to be huge for power users.

Step back and look at the Apple ecosystems. The iPhone, the iPod Touch, and Macintosh are all based upon OS X. Rumors of a tablet device abound. I doubt it will be long before we see another class or two of devices that thrive because they run OS X in some form.

Never underestimate an underdog such as Steve Jobs.

@ Snafu

SL does boot to 64 bit automatically on Mac server editions.
Many intel macs cannot use the 64 bit system. An easy 64 bit keyboard command on other capable systems running client software is fine for me.

Vista and the soon to be released windows 7 have 5 or 6 varieties of software based on the hardware and your needs. Some new features do not work without the newest hardware. Mac still supports Tiger OS10.4 for PPC systems. Leopard OS10.5 for PPC or older intel Macs not 64 bit capable or with older video cards or chips.

Snow leopard is touted as an intel only refinement of Leopard. What part of that did you not understand? Macs have not been intel very long. Only a few systems are 64 bit capable and have the right graphics chips or cards for SL. Not every Mac user needs or should buy SL.

I did. My MacBook Pro unibody screams with it.

@GMan
So that's what they meant by "lots of great reviews coming in for Leopard." ;)

To Windows trolls,and the Apple haters:

Please keep your lavatorial, childish insults to yourselves.

This is pure link bait.

This isn't the age of Windows Vista, it's the age of Windows 7. Or haven't you been paying attention over the past 12 months?

And to say that Microsoft hasn't slimmed Windows down is disingenuous. Photo Gallery, Movie Maker, Mail, Messenger, and a bunch of other so-called middleware apps have been removed from the OS and made available as an optional download (Windows Live Essentials). It's also much faster than Vista was.

Not to mention that Windows 7 runs just as well on old hardware as Snow Leopard would (as has been shown on PCs from the late nineties and early 00s) - except for the fact that Snow Leopard is limited to Intel Macs and doesn't go back as far in terms of support. You're forced to upgrade your Mac to an Intel-based Mac (2006-2009) to take advantage.

Come on. You should also read Ed Bott's "real" price comparison. You fall into the gullible reporter camp - exactly what Apple was hoping for: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1114

Apple says that the space gained by taking out PPC code was lost due to writing 64 bit code. The smaller footprint is due to some use of compression and rewriting code to use less space.

In addition to the announced features I wonder how many secreet features were added? This seems likes Apple's chance to lay the groundwork for future technologies.

WIN only users find it hard to believe that you can upgrade the OS on an old Mac - generally within 45 minutes after starting the process AND in 99% of the cases (other than disc utilities) - all apps run AND again, hard for PC-WIN users to believe - but in every case, the OS upgrades makes the Mac run faster. Just as there have been ZERO non-lab viruses, malware, etc, etc ... PC users think it's a mass conspiracy ... except that after 75 millions users and 10 years, when you still don't believe - it's not really a conspiracy but facts. Look, if you;re happy with your WIN-PC, great but if wonky and usually death-inducing upgrades annoy you & weekly time spent on virus, malware & spyware is not worth your time and effort - then the solution is pretty simple. You have to fact the facts that 99% of switchers from PC to Macs do NOT switch back.

This, I don't understand.

The *reason* that Snow Leopard is smaller is because features were removed -- support for PowerPC. Leopard had dual binaries with support for both PPC and Intel. By removing support for PPC, it gets smaller. Is that such an amazing accomplishment?

I'm sure Windows could get smaller just be removing support for the tens of thousands of devices it supports -- oh, but wait, then you'd be screaming that Microsoft doesn't get it.

I also love that when Vista came out, people pointed at the lists of apps that didn't work, and blamed Microsoft; and yet, when Apple publishes it's list of apps that don't work, people quietly move past that and drool over how much faster it is.

This is a Service Pack, people. And Apple has the audacity to *charge* for it.

This is too biased to let slide.

In the Windows world - you choose what hardware you want - including the choice to make your own system. This choice is missing in the Apple world.

There is no requirement for new hardware with Windows 7 - and will run with older hardware than Snow Leopard - those PPC Mac users will attest to this - while I have happily run pre-release versions of Windows 7 on substantially older hardware - some with the simple addition of memory - but the option exists.

It's $29 dollars because it delivers little - Apple have cleverly defined the omission of PPC binaries as a reduction in disk space.

Absolutely Microsoft dropped the ball with Vista - but XP, and soon Windows 7 will deliver personal computing to millions more users in the world because it is available to a wider array of budgets and user requirements (Netbooks etc).

Apple continue to deliver a nice vertically integrated experience - but it's not for everyone.

Some balanced reporting may reflect that.

Snow Leopard, Carbon, Cocoa...
Just a shame that if you want to use Photoshop 64 bit, as a pro photographer, you need vista x64. Doesn't work on a mac (without vista x64 ;-). Just doesn't exist :-)
Well, it works like a charm, I can tell you.

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

@bobby ´Macs have not been intel very long.´
Yep. Pcs have. Eventually everybody sees the light ;-)

Chris,

Disclaimers:
I work in software for a major company, neither Apple nor Microsoft.
I have never been a Mac user

I think you got the main points right. Yes some new functionality will always have hardware dependencies, but the basic philosophy of making software better and leaner at the same time is incredibly rare in the industry and deserves commendation.

I think Apple did a great service for customers when they preserved the viability of PPC hardware for several iterations of the new OS but at some point the effort to maintain support of old systems on in new versions is outsized.

There are several major factors in writing sloppy bloated code. Emphasis on "features" that no one wants, access to too good hardware, decisions to rewrite the entire code base, and just darned laziness. Sometimes the bottom up code changes make everything slower or hoggier but they hold the promise of a better future path. The others are just stupid and characteristic of MS. Honestly the last MS Desktop OS that made a diff to me was Win2K, the last MS notebook OS was XP Pro, and the last office Suite that offered anything worth the upgrade was Office 97.

It used to be the conceit in SW that everything got better and cheaper. MS has turned that around. Vista was the most expensive and most unwanted MS OS ever. While they appear to have done better with Vista, that is an aberration. I ysed to build my own machines so that I could choose exactly what i wanted, but buying retail licenses mad that obsolete. I now buy $300 "refurbished" desktops that come with a license that at retail would be $150 and replace the parts I don't like.

So why no Mac for me yet? The 3 Ps: Price (excessive) , Proprietariness (hardware), and Pricks (MacTards). I am pretty self supporting and cheap hardware and commodity OSes get the job done. Mac prices have been getter better ( a benefit of the questionable decision to move off PPC), but unless apple decides to change its leopard spots, the proprietary nature will remain. As to the Pricks? Well that goes without saying...

I agree with your comments about Apple's OS, but Windows 7 is lighter and faster than Vista. That's almost the whole reason for its existence, the netbook market revealed what a bloated pig Vist was. Perhaps Microsoft has learned something.

Also, when you first install an Apppe OS X version, including Snow Leopard, it may actually run slower for hours as Spotlight rebuilds its index, so dob;t judge the speed by the first few hours.

Yeah, right. Tell that to 10.4 PPC users.

Or 10.5 Intel users with Parallels or Boxee or Plex or Elgato or Keynote (nice!) or Aperature or...

@

I have a couple of PPC Macs as well as a couple of Intel Macs. I have no problem with Apple moving forward and making Snow Leopard Intel only.

Indeed, I prefer that it doesn't hold back progress and use up resources by supporting PPC further. Also, as I understand it, many of the improvements Apple implemented in SL take advantage of multi-core CPUs and newer GPUs which the majority of the PPC installed base do not have.

Finally, Leopard remains a very capable OS, and I am sure Apple will continue to support plain old Leopard for some time to come.

@snafu "Add to that Apple not being confident or resourceful enough to default Snow Leopard to boot in 64 bit kernel mode."

As I understand it, there are not many tangible advantages to booting into a 64 bit kernel mode for consumers at this time, whereas there are disadvantages.

For example, Safari 64 bit benchmarks are essentially identical whether you run it using a 32 or 64 bit kernel.

Given that this benchmark result is likely to be true for the vast majority of consumer facing applications at this time, I would say it is a sensible decision by Apple to default to a 32 bit kernel but provide an easy switch to the 64 bit kernel. Afterall, the 32 bit kernel does not preclude 64 bit applications from running with all the attendent benefits.

What a joke!
A few points:

Tiger ran MUCH slower on a G4 than Panther. So much that I went back to 10.3 until I could get a new system. Spotlight added a lot of overhead that older Macs just couldn't handle.

PC upgrade cycles have *never* been tied to Windows releases. That's a myth, but you wouldn't know that since you didn't bother referencing any data.

Snow Leopard has been a mess for all of my friends who installed it. Several incompatibilities and nothing new.

You say Snow Leopard is genius for being a "faster and lighter" version of its predecessor, then fault Windows 7 for being faster and lighter than Vista???

Basically this reads like marketing, and none of your premise is true.

Installed Snow leopard onto my 2 year old Imac 24inch Alu and now i am getting 25 second boot times and 5 second shutdown.

The whole system is alot quicker, this speed is without apps being specifically written for Snow leopard's Grand Central and Open Cl so these will be alot quicker when they are.

http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/technology/

Very impressed done a speed test of my machine with a windows 7 unit that i also have as a test machine of higher spec than my Imac and sorry to say but Windows 7 is slow compared Snow Leopard doing the same tasks

Below are some video on youtube:

Snow Leopard Boot with SSD drive 20 Seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-1DRoB1zfU

Check out how slow windows 7 is compared to Snow leopard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFRWkW1pZ6s

Mac OS X Leopard vs Snow Leopard Speed Test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nm5bvh_ric

Don't think windows 7 can boot up this quick

First you paid big bucks for Vista bloatware. Now you're paying big bucks again for a Vista Service Pack renamed Windows 7. This Windows 7 operating system has one main advantage over earlier editions of Vista that Windows bloggers have been gloating about ---> It really does work. Still bloatware, still has security problems, still costs a lot to purchase, and the upgrade path from XP (which most Windows users are still running) is absolutely tortuous.

OS X Snow Leopard costs $29 and will install on any Intel mac. You are asked to buy a license for each of your Macs but it's on the honor system. You're also asked to buy a more expensive version if you are upgrading from the earlier version (Tiger) rather than Leopard. That's on the honor system too. Your $29 install DVD will work on any Intel based Mac. It takes about 45 minutes to install regardless of which Mac you have or which version of OS X you've been running.

Your 64 bit applications will run in 64 bit mode regardless of which kernel version you install. One of the sweetest things about Snow Leopard is that it can run both 32 bit and 64 bit applications and drivers. Unlike Windows 7, the user doesn't have to pick one or the other at install time. You just run the installation process and 45 minutes later your computer is upgraded with exactly what you need.

Windows 7 does add some new features that Vista didn't have. As usual, they've copied them from Apple. Their new taskbar is a knockoff of the OSX Dock. Their new glassy, transparent look 'Aero' is borrowed from OS X. They've beefed up search copying Spotlight. With pin and snaps they've tried to come up with something like Expose, but they've come up short.

As Danlie Eran Dilger says in this linked article: There’s nothing in Windows 7 that makes the generic PC more competitive with the Mac experience. Instead, Windows 7’s borrowed similarities, including Microsoft’s own version of the Mac OS X Dock and Expose, only endorse Apple’s Mac platform as being the leader and innovator.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/08/26/why-windows-7-isnt-competing-with-mac-os-x-snow-leopard/

"It's not clear that Microsoft will ever feel compelled to work the same way. It's got too much riding on it now that the entire PC ecosystem seems to be counting on Windows 7 to drive new a new crop of PC sales."

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Microsoft internalized the feedback that it got from Vista, and DID spend a significant amount of effort streamlining and optimizing Windows 7 for precisely those reasons. And I think you're look at this a bit strangely: The fact that Microsoft has the entire PC ecosystem depending on it means that it has to be sensitive to backward compatibility; that same compatibility is the primary reason why Apple hasn't made more inroads into Microsoft's market share. Apple has made progress in capturing laptop market share, but that wasn't difficult in light of the disaster that was Vista. Apple is going to face a much more difficult competitor in Windows 7.

I switched to a Mac with a G5 several years ago and added a MacBook Pro (Core Duo - Drat!) a few years later. I never regretted the switch, and jokingly say I drank the kool-aid!

The OS is what really drew me to Apple, and with time I began to see how truly important that has become for me. You expressed many points that I try to explain to friends when they talk of replacing their desktops/laptops. I find it somewhat amusing, now that Apple offers both Boot Camp and two exemplary vm choices, when people make excuses as to why they still "need" to buy a Windows PC. The OS engineers at Apple are geniuses!

Well said!

I'm surprised - well - not really - we are often persuaded by the masses - that more people don't smack themselves in the head and say - DUH!

@Mike

"This isn't the age of Windows Vista, it's the age of Windows 7. Or haven't you been paying attention over the past 12 months?"

Hmm. Seems somewhat premature to call this the age of Windows 7, since it's not scheduled to ship until late October. I'm sure some even could make a halfway decent case that it's still the age of Windows XP.

Before we declare the age of Vista (or XP!) over, let's at least wait until enterprise adoption of Windows 7 begins to ramp in earnest.

@neumann

"So why no Mac for me yet? The 3 Ps: Price (excessive) , Proprietariness (hardware), and Pricks (MacTards)."

Thanks for writing. I liked your idea of the 3 Ps -- might have to use that one myself at some point. All three represent a common lament, I agree.

Although with regard to third "P", I should point out that, as I'm sure you know, prickishness is by no means limited to the Cult of Apple; I've had to pass on approving a few dozen profanity-laden posts from Windows die-hards that wouldn't pass muster on any reasonably workplace-friendly IT news site, and which, more unfortunately, don't even attempt to add anything to the conversation. (Although some are commendably hilarious.)

Like religion and politics, we all know that the choice of operating systems has always been a subject almost too touchy to bring up in polite company, and that doing so certainly invites cretins of every stripe to weigh in.

That's too bad for those looking for informed discourse on the subject, but certainly not surprising.

So, I would try to avoid letting the "Third P" dictate anything about your buying habits -- any public conversation on OSes is going to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous buffoonery, and there's not much we can do about that, alas... except to proceed as we ought to also in those other two areas of contentious debate: ignoring the idiots while keeping an ear out for insightful commentary and legitimate criticism.

As for me, I'd just be happy for continual improvements made in all OSes, and in the software industry at large -- which is the actual point of my post. Glad you were among one of the ones who got it.

I find the lack of knowledge the PC users here have to be amusing.

"Windows 7 is lighter and faster than Vista." Great. It also costs like 400 bucks as opposed to Snow Leopard's 29, is still bulkier than Snow Leopard, and comes in like twelve different versions without the drivers you need and, if purchasing a computer too, chock-full-o-bloatware, where as Mac as always is just grab and go with all you need and nothing you don't.

Someone mentioned this being a service pack. Apple doesn't DO service packs. I got soooo tired of dealing with Service pack this, Net Framework SP3, Windows upgrade SP something or other, this program isn't compatible with this service pack so I have to figure out how to do a rollback if I want to use it, and BAH! Why complicate things? I chuckle when I see Office:Mac SP1 and SP whatever. Why all the service packs? Are there that many holes that patches like that are so frequently needed? This isn't a service pack, my friend. This is a refinement. A complete rewrite, a perfection of the awesome. No holes, no way-too-frequent "security upgrades." Just making the best even better. More functional. Better software. Better organization. Blazing-fast speed. All while still upholding the standards Apple has set over the years.

I agree that PC upgrade cycles have not been tied to windows releases, but it is true that PCs are often "optimized" for certain operating systems. The various companies that build PCs fit them with hardware that is perfect for XP, for example, however that hardware may not be as great for Vista. Seeing the improvements in 7 over Vista, however, I don't think that'll be much of a problem in this case.

As for mister 3 Ps, let's go over these three.
1. Price. It's true that Macs are considerably more expensive than PCs, but consider what you're paying for. If you want a PC that matches Mac's timeless quality, you're going to end up paying for a three-thousand dollar Alienware system and still dealing with PC viruses. There ARE Mac viruses, but the foundation Mac is built upon makes them very rare and very few in number compared to PCs. No bloatware. Everything you need. Apple's award-winning, world-renowned customer support. An eco-friendly computer. Ahead-of-the-times hardware. You're paying for a machine with the capability to last far beyond any PC you've ever had. And it can run Windows too if you start to miss it. There's a reason why once you go Mac, you don't go back.

2. Hardware. I really don't know what there is to complain about. Let's check out a 15" Macbook Pro.

15" LED lit screen (full brightness right away with very little energy)
Integrated iSight camera and microphone
Ambient light sensor automatically controls brightness
Backlit keyboard--also automatically controlled by light sensor
TWO high-quality NVIDIA graphics cards
Up to 8 GB DDR3 (Not a typo, DDR THREE) memory (most PCs still use DDR2)
802.11N wireless connectivity, well ahead of the norm for PCs
up to 7 hour battery life (8 on 17-inch)
Up to 500 GB Superdrive STANDARD depending on model
Up to 3.06 GHZ depending on model
MagSafe power cord--avoids yanking your computer off the table when someone trips over the cord.
Bluetooth on every new Mac
Multitouch Trackpad (too much awesome to explain, look it up)

Is hardware really that much of a problem?

3. MacTards. Yeah. They're out there. I probably sound like one myself, but don't get me wrong. I'm very comfortable using Windows. I've used Windows all my life. I just prefer Mac and I happen not to like the way Microsoft tends to operate. However, don't you go there, because while there are the offensive Mac users who will take every cheap shot they can at PC, with either true or false information, there are also the ignorant PC users who haven't even used a Mac for more than an hour and a half yet proclaim to the skies that they despise Mac and it's "soooo hard to use" (the reason being they don't know how and don't care enough to figure it out, which TRULY isn't difficult at all.

I'm aware that the last two don't begin with P. I got lazy.

notice no comparison to the better. cheaper, and open source... linux

general public and beginners use windows, but given the freedom of windows, inexperienced users tend to mess things up, they then switch to a mac (kinda like having a baby sitter) because they dont have to think or be knowledgeable.

give me freedom, its called linux. I can choose the hardware i wish, the os i wish. the rest of you can live in proprietary land and kiss jobs ass

I love the extra space I've gotten on the drive and the faster shut down and start up speed with Snow Leopard. It's performed flawlessly for me using photoshop CS4 and the whole suite 8 hours a day.

Macs aren't for people who need babysitters - they're meant for people who've got work to do and don't want to mess around. Use a car as a analogy That's like saying having a car that works consistently is made for people who want to have the manufacturer make a car that works. Linux is for the guy who wants to build a car from scratch. Windows is for the guy who wants to send his computer to the shop all the time.

As to Linux, just about any program you can think of can't be used by LInux. linux is poorly supported, has inferior software and is awkward to use especially on laptops. If you're into experimenting and messing around programing, have fun with Linux. But it's not a serious production OS.

If you're serious about producing product, crunching numbers, organizing or just having fun, if you want ease of use and horsepower, go with a Mac, slap in OS 10.6 and enjoy.

NOPE SORRY BUT WINDOWS 7 IS WAY BETTER.. THE BETA VERSION HAD BE BLOWN AWAY MUCH LESS FOR THE FULL RETAIL VERSION OUT INA FEW HOURS :D

A very short list. I can think of only DEC, while they lasted.

Thx, this has definitely made my day!

_______________________