RSSMac OS X Snow Leopard is coming: Yes, do upgrade!
By Carmi Levy | Published August 27, 2009, 2:50 PM
If nothing else, the operating system market these days is infinitely entertaining. Consider the humble upgrade.
Some OS upgrades, like XP-to-Vista on a marginally capable machine, demand more up-front planning than the end result is often worth. You end up spending money and time on a machine that, while it may look prettier, runs slower and gives you more headaches than it solves. Other upgrade scenarios, like Vista-to-Windows 7, are a lot more straightforward and easier for most folks to justify.
There's a third class I like to call the no-brainer upgrade. And Apple fans with relatively recent Intel-based Macs find themselves blessed as the Cupertino company prepares for tomorrow's general release of Mac OS X 10.6, otherwise known as Snow Leopard.
In the overall scheme of things, Snow Leopard isn't a huge deal over 10.5 Leopard. Now that release was a pretty major bump over 10.4, so anything short of an OS capable of making breakfast and serving it up in bed for us would likely be greeted by a yawn from the Apple faithful. But evolutionary as it is, 10.6 packs enough goodness into itself that it's difficult to see too many Macs running 10.5 by year's end. Here's why:
- It's smaller. In a world where every new version of a thing is inevitably bigger, fatter and heavier than the thing it replaces, it's pleasantly shocking to see Apple swimming against the tide. Once the upgrade process is completed, the average Mac's hard drive will have available about 6 GB more space. Sure, that's barely enough to stuff a couple of movies, but merely the principle of making the OS smaller in the first place is enough for me.
- It's cheaper. We've been conditioned to paying triple-digit prices for operating systems almost since the beginning of the PC era. If Apple had asked for $129 for a 10.6 upgrade (the same price it asked for 10.5) I'd probably have carefully weighed the nice-to-have-but-hardly-necessary benefits against the price approaching that of the iPod nano I need for the car. But for 29 bucks, enough to cover a few frames of bowling for me and the munchkins, it's a fast, discretionary purchase. (Amazon has marked prices down even further, to $25 for the basic upgrade package, or $43.99 for the five-user package.) I could get used to this mad money OS pricing strategy, and I'd rather spend it on this than on a game I absolutely abhor.
Snow Leopard also has enough goodies stuffed inside that it'll provide far more than $29 in entertainment value alone. Since that money will go a lot further on my wife's and son's Macs than it would watching a lousy movie next to a bunch of unruly theater-goers and munching overpriced, stale popcorn, I'm voting we cancel the family movie night on Saturday and stay in. My wife and son are already backing up their data, and have scheduled some time on the weekend to bump their machines. And I didn't even have to work on them.
Coming on the heels of my recent writings on Windows 7 upgrades, this might sound a bit odd. Am I not the same guy who railed against shrink-wrap upgrades on some older hardware? Am I also not the dad who refused to force his kid to dump XP?
Yes, and yes. And I'm sticking to my story. Because you can't compare Apples to...uh, Windows. Upgrading an OS in Apple Land is worlds apart from doing the same thing in Windows. By virtue of the fact that Apple builds and controls the hardware, upgrading a Mac is by definition a more controlled process than upgrading a Windows box, whose iterations after all possible hardware combinations are considered can easily run into the billions. The cynic in me says Macs are dumbed down enough that everyday folks can confidently update their own OS. The realist in me wonders why Microsoft, whose Windows 7 is justifiably being praised for raising the state of the OS art, is only figuring that out just now.
Delivering an OS upgrade for under 30 bucks is one of those game changing moves that forever alters how consumers view a given product or service. The tech industry is full of price-driven moments like this, like when PCs finally dropped below $1,000, cell phone rate plans went from $2/minute to unlimited, and digital cameras plummeted from the $1,000 range to $100 or less. These days, sub-$300 netbooks are redefining our perceptions of price and value, and giving hardware vendors fits in the process. In all cases, drastic price reductions thanks to rapid, economies-of-scale-driven advances in technology turned former luxuries into everyday appliances that even kids could afford. It's only natural that OS pricing would follow.
Now, there's nothing that says Apple won't crank the price up again when it releases v11, which will obviously be a much more significant and fundamental change than a mere decimal point product. But its pricing strategy for the 10.6 upgrade shifts consumer pricing expectations downward, and we all know that once they descend, they don't easily rise back up again.
Cheap, however, doesn't mean free. Various flavors of Linux, including some superbly well baked distros like Ubuntu, continue to thrive as shining examples of open source goodness. I thank my lucky stars every day that they exist, as they exert a definite influence on the broader market and keep pressure on major vendors like Apple and Microsoft to keep the innovation pipeline on their own products well stocked. And as much as we'd all like to believe every OS and app we load onto our machines should be free, free doesn't pay the rent, and at some point there's got to be a business model to ensure the product survives. Since operating systems don't benefit as cleanly from the advertising baseline that supports so many Web services, the user's got to fork out something come upgrade time. (We'll leave Google Chrome OS for another day.)
But in pushing the pricing envelope for a commercial offering and challenging other expectations about what an upgrade is and should be, Apple's thrown yet another gauntlet down in a growing battle for OS supremacy. With less than two months to go before Windows 7 goes gold, this may yet be the golden era of the operating system. Where's my popcorn?
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
I have a question. How does Apple get a 64-bit OS to install on a 32-bit EFI implementation? My Mac Mini (early 2009) computer has EFI ver 1.10 which is 32-bit.
Score: -1
|"How does Apple get a 64-bit OS to install on a 32-bit EFI implementation? My Mac Mini (early 2009) computer has EFI ver 1.10 which is 32-bit."
Well, sorry to say, but 99.999% of the time, OS X is still a 32bit OS.
The OS X Snow Leopard kernel is 'capable' of booting a 64bit kernel, but ONLY if very specific conditions are met, and no Mac exists that meets these conditions.
1) Must have 64ibt CPU (Early Intel Solo Macs don't.)
2) Must have 64bit EFI
3) Must have 64bit driver available for EVERY DEVICE (Same thing XP 64 and Vista 64 users went through)
4) Apple must approve the booting of the 64bit kernel on your Mac.
#4 is where it gets sticky, as it seems, even Macs that follow rules 1 - 3 still aren't allowed to boot the 64bit kernel.
So, your Mac Mini is running the same kernel as the latest and greatest Xeon based Power Mac, sadly.
As for OS X Snow Leopard finally being a real 64bit OS, in theory yes, but for all current Mac users Nope and NOT going to happen.
The only Macs that are allowed to boot with the real 64bit Snow Leopard kernels are a couple of OS X Servers. PERIOD.
Why does this mean anything? Well, the OS kernel running in 32bit mode means that OS X itself can't use 64bit registers, memory tables, or even more advanced tricks of dual reading/writing 32bit memory access from 32bit applicaiton in one cycle.
(These things along with natively crunching 64bits at a time is what gives Vista x64 and Win7 x64 about a 10-20% speed boost across the board, even when running 32bit applicaitons on the OS.)
Why did Apple do this? Mainly DRIVERS.
Their attempt to thunk in 32bit driver support failed, as the OS X kernel just isn't designed for tricks like this and performance would have been bad.
So you have a lot of users with Video cards and printers and scanners and etc that only have Mac 32bit drivers, and so they sacrificed the abilities and performance of the OS for compatibility instead of biting the bullet.
PS...
People below arging about 32bit applications running well on Snow Leopard, you are right, as Snow Leopard is still the same 32bit OS that Leopard was, so 32bit has no weight on application compatibility.
Snow Leopard's 64bit reality is not the only feature that was stripped, Apple removed most of the new SPU scheduler code that would have helped to eliminate the funnel locks - meaning an application, driver, or OS X itself can lock all processes to ONE CPU in the system.
So dual-core and even 8 core Mac users, Snow Leopard is STILL only using one core most of the time, as these locks are frequent.
The exception is they added the new multi-core development code so that NEW APPLICATIONS written specifically for the new multi-core platform can bypass this locking, but it don't fix the current applications and drivers locking your multi-core computer to a single CPU system.
(I know non-OS engineers and kernel architecture nerds won't know what I'm saying here, so go look it up if you want to know why your multi-core Mac seems to get sluggish when it should have enough CPU power to decode M theory.)
Score: 0
|Caution: Windows fanboy site!
Score: -6
|Where's the button to thumb down the article for trolling?
Score: -1
|I've just upgraded my Leopard installation to Snow leopard and to be honest there is nothing dramatically different. As for the speed increases, I can only notice speed decreases! The internet seems a bit slower and iTunes is very slow at importing my library (I know iTunes hasn't be written in 64 bit but in comparison to the using it on leopard, its slower!).
Score: 0
|Yeah no need to plan unless that $30 OS upgrade cost you $800 on software upgrades since some of the software is no longer compatible. I remember all the vista bashing about this but I guess its not important for the apply fanboys
http://snowleopard.wikidot.com/
Score: 4
|@kappen: A VERY good point you just raised there...
Score: -1
|This is very surprising considering Snow Leopard is 100% compatible with all 32-bit software and PowerPC software since Rosetta is included. Even the 32-bit extensions in Microsoft's Intellitype ver 6.3.1 software are fully compatible despite the string of error messages during install.
Score: 0
|OOF.. Carmi...
This article tells me nothing.
Spend 30 bucks because it is cheap?
I repeat, OOF!
Oh, as if we didn't know, you love apples. Not sure you should have been paid for this one.
Score: 1
|Depends on if he was paid by Betanews or Apple.
Score: 0
|Good point! May-haps Carmi in on the A payroll! LOL
Score: 0
|hmm whats so impressive about the 'new' install footprint after upgrade really? i've been running an alternate modern OS with footprint of 5.2GB for awhile, see http://is.gd/2DX42
i could maybe go a bit smaller ;)
i've even, with no major tweaking got my bootup, sleep, login and shutdown combined down to 60s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUemDmOFcMg
all on an old acer aspire
i will be extremely pleased when said OS retails, this Carmi fella obv has no idea how to take advantage of software *shrugs
Score: 0
|A Mac ALWAYS wins: http://bit.ly/ZQTY
Score: -11
|BTW this is what Trend Micro has to say about the "virus free" and "the most secure OS ever"
http://countermeasures.t...-anti-malware-snow-joke/
Score: 1
|No way, Snow Leopard is Faster than Leopard. The proof is I upgraded to it from Leopard on my osx86 PC. Yes PC! (if you are wondering how, here is the guide i used - http://www.taranfx.com/blog/?p=1744 )
And I found it to be at-least 20% faster at all moments. And I love it.
Score: 0
|This crap is slower than Leopard, proof: http://reviews.cnet.com/...05-3673_7-33676737.html
Just look at the benchmarks, Leopard beats that crap in all almost every tests
LOL. After copying some features from Vista and 7 it still sucks!!
Editors have rated Windows 7: 10 and endangered OS: 9 LOL
Score: -3
|That's actually quite interesting. They claim Windows 7 is worse because it's "slower" than XP (though it's GUI response is greatly improved over the same), so logically, Snow Leopard would also be labeled as worse (I do not know anything about GUI response in Leopard/SL).
It would seem to me that balls-out speed is taking a backseat though, to the interface performance in the eyes of most users.
I do not have a Mac at this time, so I have no way to test it, but I would love to hear some unbiased comparison of the response-times of the two UIs. I would bet they're nearly identical...both excellent.
Score: 0
|Endangered OS that will be the first to get knocked off next year in the hacking contest AGAIN for the 3rd time in a row. Cool.
Score: 0
|Woohoo! I can't wait to get Mac OS X Snow Leopard tomorrow! Unlike bloated Vista 7 this is a significant enough upgrade worth writing about. Apple continues to lead the pack. This is pure OS innovation at it's best.
Score: -10
|Guys, I am an ignorant SOB and MOFO so forgive me for my ignorance
Score: -4
|What exactly are you gonna do when you get it? Why are you this excited about a piece of software?
Something not right here...
Score: 0
|If you could afford a Mac you would understand but like most here it is not worth the time to explain it...
Score: -8
|Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You f**king moron... hahahahahaahahaha! Money doesn't buy you friends. Or a decent computer, it seems.
I could buy a mac with one months wage, but I have parties to attend and friends to spend time with doing things other than wanking over a snow leopard disk and an aluminium box with a half-eaten tramps apple on it.
Windows logo = I HAVE A HOUSE! And a computer!
Mac logo = I need food cuz I spent all my money on this computer... /cry
Have fun being alone in the dark, you sad, sad person.
Anyway, you didn't answer my questions. What you said doesn't really follow the rules of the English language. I did (I think) understand your intended crap, however... Please answer my questions... I'm interested!
Score: 5
|Please...
More expensive does not automatically imply that it is not affordable. You're trying to make draw a correlation that doesn't exist. I'm glad you like Windows better, but you're doing no favors to anyone by being disingenuous.
People will buy what they can afford. I doubt anyone is choosing a Mac over food, as you would seem to be trying to imply.
Score: -1
|"People will buy what they can afford. I doubt anyone is choosing a Mac over food, as you would seem to be trying to imply."
Only thing I'm implying is that you get more from Windows computers. than you do from Apple computers and it comes out cheaper,,, more for less.... especially with windows 7.
Score: 1
|I was making rediculous comments, as is Internetworld7. I was mainly using the comment to slate the idiot.
People buy what they think is best for them, or what they think will highten their status (and don't deny this); not what they can necessarily afford. I can afford WAY more than I have, but can't see any need for it.
I have an Asus P5k-e board, q6600 @ 3ghz, 4bg ddr3 1066, Asus Geforce 8800GTS 768, 2tb of storage, M-audio Audiophile 2496 all in a Coolermaster Wavemaster case.
Cost me about £600 over a year ago. Try and get that in a mac today for the same money.
And it's not about liking Windows more; it's more accessible than Mac OS's. Everything (other than a couple of programs) runs on Windows. The only reason I have OSX installed is because I use Logic, which Apple were kind enough to buy out and stop producing for Windows systems. Nice.
He still hasn't answered my questions...
Score: -1
|Yeah that's true. Waaaaay more accessible than Mac OS's. I'm sure people who have MAC's think it's more "Hip" that's why they get them. Just my opinion.
Score: 1
|Considering this is basically like a service pack and only $30, of course you don't have to swallow your tongue to purchase it. On the other hand, Windows 7 upgrade, like Matrix pointed out, is quite a bit more money but it's also a whole new operating system, so yeah it will cost more money. Another thing you gotta point out is that Apple computer's arn't cheap compared to windows pc's, so in the short and long run, windows is cheaper also more customizable.
"You end up spending money and time on a machine that, while it may look prettier, runs slower and gives you more headaches than it solves."
I haven't had one problem with Vista. Even back when Vista didn't have a service pack, only error's I encountered was from manufacturer's poor driver's which wasn't Microsoft's fault.
I'm a gamer, I choose Windows.
Score: 1
|LOL. You're too funny. How in the world is Vista 7 "a whole new operating system"? It only makes minor corrections to Vista and adds some Macintosh features. It's still the same bloated code.
Score: -8
|Why are you f***in retards calling it 'vista 7' like you're cool? Did you call Microsoft 'M$' as well? Man, I wish I was you...
Paying for an update will never be right in my mind; MS or Mac.
Windows 7 is the best operating system I've ever used. Absolutely rock solid, and I've not found any software that doesn't work yet, or hardware that I've had to manually install.
The only reason I'd ever consider getting a Mac is for Logic Pro, and as it stands now, other software is rapidly catching up (or even surpassing it in some ways). Until then, I'll stick to my dual boot.
Stop crying about yourselves not having to pay an extra few dollars when us PC users still have about $1500 in our pockets because we didn't buy a rediculously priced case with a PC in it.
Oh, and Windows 7 was written from scratch. OS TEN POINT SIX is a update to TEN POINT FIVE. You have to pay for either.
In a way, you have the Pot Noodle ready to eat and are about to pay extra for the sauce. We just bought the Pot Noodle with everything.
Pot Noodle for President!
Score: 0
|"Oh, and Windows 7 was written from scratch."
No. It wasn't. The Vista code was optimised and rejigged to make is more modular.
If you're going to take the piss out of the idiot above, please get it right.
Score: 1
|I was just going to say that Paul Skinner. Windows 7 is BASED on the Vista kernel, NOT written from scratch. +1
Score: -1
|Well, Micrsoft would typicall release one major, one minor release Window 2000 being the only exception (It was released after NT 4.0, which was also a major release)
Score: -1
|So rub that line out... it wasn't far from the truth. The rest was fine, no?
Score: -1
|no.
Score: 2
|All you people make me laugh. Lets see here.....Heres a link to the Windows 7 pricing:
http://windowsteamblog.c...ricing-bring-on-ga.aspx
Here is a list of the upgrade costs for Windows 7:
* Windows 7 Home Premium (Upgrade): $119.99
* Windows 7 Professional (Upgrade): $199.99
* Windows 7 Ultimate (Upgrade): $219.99
Here is what Apple is charging people to upgrade their OS to:
Apple Mac OS 10.6 (Upgrade): $29.00
Hmmmmmmm I wonder which one is a better deal. I think most of Mac haters only put down Macs cause:
1. They work better and are more reliable than Windows PC's
2. They can't afford a Mac therefore they have to settle for PC
3. They are too dumb to figure out how to use a Mac.
4. They don't crash like Windows PC's Do.
5. Mac Tech support is free and they are not in India and they are actually Americans who speak English.
5. Mac users don't complain as much as Windows PC users about getting viruses.
So don't get me wrong here I use all different types of platforms. If you ask me I am more about Linux than Windows or Mac. But hey thats just me. Anyways Ever since I have owned my Macbook and iPhone I don't see Microsoft's products comparing to it. Sorry people but that's the truth and reality. Maybe one day Microsoft will wow us with something that Apple came up with years before.......LOL!!!
Score: -9
|If it weren't for the fact that a Mac was a dumbed down overpriced PC, I may consider getting one. But considering thats exactly what it is, I'll be sticking to my more useful Windows 7 upgrade in Oct. for which I paid no where near $119 for.
Score: 0
|I use Mac's everyday at work for the office network: I'm not a fan. Mac OS X Server has proved to have a lot of instabilities, and as for Mac's not crashing? When the OS X Server goes down, a lot of the Macs we have just hang.
Macs will crash, and they will have stability problems. If you wonder why PC users complain more, you have to first look at the statistical difference in the number of users. Of course Windows will get targeted with viruses because it will affect the maximum number of people that way. What's the point in targeting a fraction of the market?
A lot of viruses simply come down to people giving something permission to run when they know very little about the source. Mac users could be impacted the same way, I've no doubt on that. Anything which becomes popular will be affected by the end user's decisions greatly.
The cost is often brought up but Microsoft make their money from software while Mac makes it from more expensive and limited hardware. For the pricing argument you're comparing Apples to... oranges?
Lastly, if we want to talk about brilliant Apple ideas, we could always talk about firmware for a keyboard. What a great place to add a keylogger :) Oh sorry, that was just me picking a hilariously easy target ;)
Score: 0
|Repeat after me...
One makes their money designing software
One makes their money putting their specs on pc hardware
One if their OS was made for all pc configurations would terminate one of their incomes
Guess who is who?
Score: 0
|LOL this is the best one yet:
Claiming that OSX is somehow the "better deal"...yet in the VERY next paragraph says:
"2. They can't afford a Mac therefore they have to settle for PC"
Wait...if mac is a better deal...how come they're more expensive?? LOL that was a good one there Matrix, it at least made me laugh, thanks. :)
Score: 1
|LOL. Good one Matrix. The truth really does hurt.
Score: -6
|Babylon2x = BeeEss
Score: 0
|hmmm... $119 for a very dumbed down version of Windows Vista SP3 vs $29 for an uncompromised "ultimate" fully optimized state of the art OS with a UNIX foundation that MS is constantly straggling to imitate. Or you could pay $220 for the full version of that OSX wannabe.
There's a sucker born every minute.
There really is no comparison here. It's Apples-to-Idiots.
Argue away but those in the know won't.
Score: -3
|Contradictorily enough, mac hardware is selling like hot cakes now more than ever precisely because it runs Windows better than most other PCs. Best Windows PC I've ever owned is this MacBook Pro I'm typing on this very moment. And I've owned LOTS of PCs. The main reason apple won't support OSX on other hardware is too avoid subjecting themselves and their users to the COLOSSAL headaches PC users go through everytime they need to put a new version of windows on their PCs. Precisely one of the reasons why the Mac-OSX experience is so superior. I make up the extra cost of a Mac in the first 5 days after purchase with the hassle-free elegant enjoyable productivity. After that it's pure bonus.
Score: -4
|Niro - to clarify for you, "deal" price. "deal" = good value for the price. ok?
Score: -5
|"There's a sucker born every minute." LOL.
Score: -6
|You are aware there is no such thing as Mac hardware, right? Macs Asus or Foxconn for the mobo and then the standard Wd, Toshiba, Seagate, Nvidia, Kingston, etcetc. Yes, you are right Windows has issues because it supports everything. Calling Win 7 a clone of OSX is laughable since everything that is in 7 - OSX doesn't have and the "new" updates OSX received have existed in all other platforms, couple that to not all users will get the benefit of 64 bit...
Score: 0
|terminalX - two chefs can take the same ingredients and turn out completely different culinary experiences based on their skill and taste.
Score: 3
|..... cool story bro
have fun with your dumbed down machines
Score: -1
|Nope. Done playing this game.
It's not worth giving him the page-views anymore. Not even going to check and see if there's at least some glimmer of rational though in the comments section on this one.
Have fun, guys.
Score: -1
|"Since I seem to have struck a nerve" article to arrive tomorrow.
Score: 4
|Lol, I doubt it, since most people have had enough of this and dont bother even posting a reaction to this clown.
Score: 1
|lol yeah, thats how it seems to be.
Score: 0
|Sweet! Looking forward to the release of Windows 7!
Score: 0
|"free doesn't pay the rent, and at some point there's got to be a business model to ensure the product survives." Linux is 18 years old. Unix is 40 years old. Add one more reason to wait before upgrading... Because Carmi Levy recommends it in a completely nonsensical article. Could you scream any louder "I've been told to write recommending 10.6 and it doesn't really matter what words I actually type out. Thanks Carmi!
Score: 2
|Just a Windows 7 knock-off!
http://www.infoworld.com...-windows-7-knockoff-798
Score: 1
|*Sigh*
Score: -4
|First!
I bought my first mac July 20th and on the 28th I pre-ordered snow leopard for only $9.95!!
yup, not $30, but $9.95...thanks apple!!
Score: -2
|LOL... "yup, not $30, but $9.95...thanks apple!!".
Don't go spending that $20.05 anytime soon. Steve is still eyeballing it.
Score: 1
|This may sound a bit harsh, but really, after reading your last two articles, who cares??!
Btw the reason its 6GB less, is manly because of the removed support for 32bit.
Because of this, perhaps you want to see a list of programs that does not work with 10.6? No You dont want to?
Score: 2
|Oh, and when it comes to pricing, you should read this interesting article :)
blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1114
Score: 1
|Actually, no. The reason it's ca. 6 gig lighter is that the system. the Finder, and the apps have been stripped of useless and redundant PowerPC code. Some older and smaller machines will not boot the 64-bit kernal, but the 32-bit kernal is fully 64-bit capable: You can happily run both 32- and -64 bit apps at the same time. PowerPC code is still supported via Rosetta. Rosetta is an optional install, but if you neglect to install it and try to run a PowerPC app and are on the net, it will download and install it (after prompting), with no reboot.
It's a very rational, "Brave New World" upgrade, and the price is just right.
Score: -1
|You're right, I should have read this first: http://www.infoworld.com...64-bit-snow-leopard-319
Score: 0
|Ah, you see, we differ in opinion again (though this time less so).
No, don't upgrade yet.
Apple's releases have a tendency to be a bit flakey round the edges at release time as they're generally rushed out to market that little bit earlier than they say it will be just to make the company look good. Leopard was quite ropey until the .2 upgrade in my opinion and from what I've heard of Snow Leopard it's much the same again. That, and you need to give time to developers to support it.
Score: 0
|I say don't upgrade at all, and get Win 7. I have to say I love how Apple gets away with selling what is basically a service pack. MS would never be able to get away with that.
Score: 3
|You've probably all have stock in Microsoft which explains why you defend Windows WAY beyond reason. It won't be long until Windows has the same marketshare as your beloved Zune. Sell, Sell, Sell OSX wannabes. lololol
Score: -1
|Uh, yeah thats it, ahh looks like bill gates is fatty that explains everything...Windows will have the same marketshare as Zune? What world are you living in? Unless MS does something that causes all pcs to melt down or something truly tragic keep dreaming...
Score: 0
|"Unless MS does something that causes all pcs to melt down"
Yes. It's called Windows. ;)
Score: -1
|