Apple's New OS Rotten at its Core

There were clearly "versioning" issues between Mac OS X applications/utilities and some drivers. This resulted in a kind of "indian burn" for users; the OS progressed, yet some software did things that were not supported and did not get allowed in the new OS. Snow Leopard's security changes might have tripped up some benign software that was doing things in an unorthadox or sloppy fashion too.

These are not good signs but they are not necessarily signs that Apple messed up. You would have to look at each individual application as a separate case. Then, make a determination of whether a feckless change in the OS or a risky piece of code in an old application was at fault. If you looked at "root causes" for enough cases, you could determine if changes made to the OS were at fault or not. I have not seen anyone writing articles bother to do that yet. This one was no exception, so I see no justification for the title.

Including an outdated Java in Snow Leopard was not ideal, however, running Software Updates in the Apple icon menu will install the latest Java. Apple actually contributes a lot of the bug fixes to the main Java baseline, so just by having a Mac users are typically getting fixes not included in say the same version number for a different platform, like Windows or Linux. Go back and look at 1.4.1->1.4.2. It was a boatload of fixes by Apple to Java for everybody. Obviously, Apple had those fixes first.

The article missed the fact that the Flash plugin was out of date. Looking at the havoc that has visited on Windows in 2009, I would have focused on that instead. Also, the fact the that Adobe Acrobat Reader plugin was not installed saved most Mac users from the nightmare many Windows users and companies had from July 2009-December 2009. Just one of the issues it was responsible for is the email and source code hacking that infuriated Google, as it expressed this weak in the China-gate hacking issue. Acrobat Reader plugin, not Java, was the ball to have your eye on the past two quarters.

Snow Leopard upgrade from Leopard did some great things for Mac users: 1) freed up 4-5 GB of disk space (yep, anti-bloat), 2) made "Services" in the Apple icon menu more manageable for users, 3) improved the Mail application again, 4) added some security features to cope with today's cybercrook-addled Internet/Web, 5) incorporated new features that software developers can take advantage of now for faster performance.

In general, Snow Leopard seems faster than its predecessor. It certainly boots and shuts down faster - which Windows 7 upgrade also accomplishes. Snow Leopard (10.6) was a small to medium OS upgrade and was priced very affordably for 10.5 users ($29). Some apps and utilities broke, and needed to be upgraded. Almost all such upgrades were free. Personally, I had one that was not, and that is it.

Hahaa. You Applers, calm down too.

I think that the original poster's sentiment is slightly exaggerated (out of frustration, maybe?), but it is not so far fetched.

For example; after installing Snow Leopard, my Mac Pro wouldn't detect the second monitor, and furthermore, my attempt to open some of Adobe Flash files that I was working on just before the installation, has caused the application to crash continuously.

So, I had to go through every official documents that Apple has released with regard to Snow Leopard, to see if I could find out why it was happening. No help. Then, after I've heard the usual ( "We have no idea what's going on since Adobe Flash is the third party software." "We don't know what is causing the problem since the OS is fairly new.") from Apple and Adobe, I had to come up with a bypass by myself (It turned out nothing was wrong with Adobe Flash nor the files. It was the OS' new font-embedding-procedure related, and I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why the Flash Player is automatically downgraded when the new OS is installed).

Fine, I will let go of this new OS' problems with my second monitor, Griffin Firewave, or USB printer, since they don't greatly trouble my work schedule. However, considering Adobe Flash is one of the major design applications, Apple's failure of fixing this glitch before the new OS' release (or notifying it to the users after the release) seems less professional to me. And what disheartens me more is that I have never had this kind of problems with their previous OS upgrade / update before.

So, yeah. Is Snow Leopard as bad as Vista? I don't think so. But if I say those ruckus I ran into on the installation didn't remind me of the incidents when Vista was installed, I'd be lying.

Right now, I don't have enough energy to proof-read what I've just wrote. Your pardon is begged.

Oh for crying out loud - what is wrong with people that they need to think their chosen consumer product is the be-all and end-all of everything?

Of *course* there are problems with the new mac OS. There were problems with the old one. And the one before that. There will be problems with the next one, and the one after that, and the one after that.

Same goes for MS.

Why do people get personally involved in their OS? I'd understand the evangelical articles and comments if they were coming from the code monkeys who *write* operating systems - but the folk only using them? That's just sad.

Wow, troll article TO THE MAXX!!!! There are always going to be some incompatibilities with the first gen of software/hardware. There was another article that said developers already have 10.6.1 in their hands and are testing it out, so just chill.

P.s. I want you to watch the 7 launch very closely and if I don't get a similar article written your ass is going on troll alert.

Where are these horrible reviews? Everything I've seen has been positive. I've seen the incompatibility list and the number isn't 100+ it's 27. A lot of it is weird and wildly old stuff like software for the clie' (a sony palm pilot clone from the 90's)

There is some similarity to vista though in that it is a primarily under hood change that doesn't do much to the GUI. Unlike vista the changes generally make machines run faster rather than slower. Except for the software incompatibilities, which I haven't run into myself, I would say it's worth the 30 bucks. Not $160 for the full upgrade (you need leopard for the $30 upgrade to work), but definitely $30.

This sounds to me like microsoftie spin.

I am using Snow Leopard as of right now and I dont have any complains. Of course, like all mayor updates, some bugs are to happen, but then comes a software update that fixes the problem up.

SL is tigher, faster and less RAM hogger. I like it. Im sticking with it.

It is not as bad as Vista's initial version. I am highly positive on that.

Still, it's quite ... underwhelming. Nothing to go on and exercise 10 hours road rage for, but the biggest problem I am having right now is its incompatibility with the newest version of Adobe Flash and Griffin Firewave, and its clumsy behavior with printer drivers of Bonjour / USB printers.

Anyway, it looks like its first patch is already on its way. (http://gizmodo.com/5352907/first-snow-leopard-patch-released-to-developers).

I have been running Snow Leopard for a few days now and it's pretty awesome. I got around 10 gigs of HD space back, the OS seems more stable, and it runs faster as well. Even FCP seems more stable now than it was before.

i've been running Snow Leopard fine. people are just over reacting. it is in now way Vista.

I haven't upgraded since Tiger (if it ain't broke...).

And I dumped Windows on my PC for Ubuntu (if it is broke...).

OS X isn't perfect, but at least there are reliable versions that work just fine, which clearly distinguishes it from Vista. Also, knowing Apple, 10.6.1 will be available via Software Update soon, which will remedy some, if not most, of the problems, yet another distinction between the OS's.

So glad I didn't upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard.

What's with all the cat names? Can't we go back to numbers?

I've been running Snow Leopard since it was released and I have no problems with it. In fact my Macbook is running faster now.

To compare a $30 unnecessary upgrade to Vista is a bold and implicating statement that dies with a bit of commonsense. Don't sensationalize.