Hardly fair to describe it as a 'point upgrade' - I have the latest beta installed on one of my Macs at home and it is a lot more than this. And 29 quid for an upgrade is hardly a lot of money. Riddle me this, how much is a Windows 7 upgrade? More or less than 29 quid?

"But charging any amount of money for a point release in the current economic climate, let alone a hefty $30, is a step too far in anyone's book, even a confirmed Apple fanboy's."

I'd happily pay the extra $30 for a decently stabilised Leopard with (just for instance) a Time Machine that actually works with my screen resolution, instead of turning it into flickering snow.

Shame I'm a PowerPC MacMini owner.

Yes, Steve and thank you. I have already spoken to Apple and like everyone other than 10.5 users we will have to pay full retail price - which is why I wrote my first commemt. But, I do thank you for your civil tone.
It's only a special price for 10.5 users. I'm hopeful that more people complain. However, as a stock holder I want the company to make as much money as possible.

Did it not occur to you to wait until Snow Leopard is released and then simply upgrade directly to it? You can get exactly the same package from Amazon, with free postage. If you really want to spend $170, then for $169 you can have Snow Leopard + iLife '09 + iWork '09 as a box set.

Did you sleep though math class again? Yes $130 + tax for 10.5.6 then another $30 + tax for the awaited upgrade. Oh, and I'm not sure if I have to pay $10 "packaging" per OS Apple charged the last time. And I pay a little more to get the Mac Box sets.

These are gifts to my kids so I buy all the Mac stuff directly from the Apple Store.

I (that's me) never said the Mac's were unstable - Apple gave that as one of the reasons for the upgrade in their stockholder's letter and press release.

nice to see that someone shares this opinion with me; and i code a bit :)

You are obviously clueless. "$170" to upgrade. Funny, you can buy stand alone OS X for $129, someone is ripping you off.
"Apple's big reasons given for the upgrade is that it does some stuff faster and "crashes" less often."
Really? I bet the closest you have ever been to using OS X is at your local Best Buy Apple display, right?
As a Mac user since Panther I can say that OS X is far more stable than Windows ever has been. It is easily on par with Linux, maybe because both OS X and Linux are based on UNIX. Hmmm.
OS X is a pleasure to work with and I admit I am no programmer and using Linux (using Ubuntu to write this) can be a hassle at times, OS X on the gorgeous Apple hardware just works and does it well.

...and if you can't find list of new features/improvements try to look harder, it takes few seconds to get full list :) as i said few times, what's wrong with you inq?

why do you hate apple so much guys? :) don't get it at all, get over it, there are ppl who will never touch win and there are ppl who will never touch mac os. but mac os is a good os and this release i would call major with loads of improvements and features as many of ppl already pointed out.

If you are running Mac OS X version 10.5, then the upgrade is $30. however you are running a "distant" version like, say OS X version 10.4, then it will cost you $170 to upgrade.

Apple's big reasons given for the upgrade is that it does some stuff faster and "crashes" less often.

I think I'll stop both this Windows/Mac crap and start looking into Linux-Mint.

Apple just lost half of its OS X market share!
Over the past couple of years, Net Applications has reported OS X market share to rise from about 7 to 9%.
This figure was grossly exaggerated due to a bias in reported figures and an overemphasis on the US market.
Look at the worldwide figures now: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9
Less than 5 % worldwide which translates to over a 50 % drop "overnite"!. The Snow Pussy has to look out for Windows 7 being released on October 22 with a better feature set and a huge. Apple is now playing Catch Up on the OS scene and Windows 7 will run well on all intel Macs...

It means what he damn well means it to mean, I mean, innit? No one Brooklyn owns the charmer under me.

I agree with all the above comments about the usefulness of Snow Leopard, and I will be one of those Macolytes shelling out long green for the upgrade.

All that aside, I see that you have latched on to the trendy mis-use of the phrase, "beg the question." Please review the real meaning (at Wikipedia or where-ever), and use it correctly in the future. It does not mean what you think it means.

So how many coffees would this buy you?

Sooo tiresome reading people making huge fusses over such small amounts of money. As Bruno outlined, the internal changes are huge.

If you don't think its worth it for you don't upgrade, isn't that the simple solution?

Many however, don't agree and will go for it. Do whatever makes the most sense for you... the obvious FUD just doesn't cut the mustard here.

"In fact, reading through the pages and pages of marketing cobblers for Snow Leopard, it's very difficult to find any tangible changes at all other than minor cosmetic tweaks and arcane under-the-bonnet jiggery-pokery."

Either you are not being honest about researching the changes and new features in Snow Leopard, or after doing this research your short term memory failed you.

Try to actually read and understand the information on Snow Leopard that is available.

I have personally test-driven the beta of Snow Leopard, and I can assure you that there are many "tangible changes" in this new OS.

As well as complete 64-bit support, OpenCL & Grand Central Dispatch, QuickTime X is another great improvement. Among other things, it allows developers to tap into the H.264 hardware acceleration rather than restricting it to Apple-sanctioned apps.

I'm way more excited about Snow Leopard as a developer rather than an end user - the new APIs & technologies make it so much easier to tap into the power already present in the hardware. I can't wait to see what cool new apps/features people can come up with.

The complaints I've heard about OS X have all come from Windows users who have never owned a Mac.

Just to clear up a minor detail: you DO realize that within the consumer realm of things it is quite difficult to bump up the price of a Mac to $3000, right?

Even on the professional side most machines end up below the $3000 mark.

If you buy a Mac monitor and include that as part of the cost, ok, it's easier to splurge. But you could just as easily buy that overpriced monitor for a PC.

You really sell the release short. The exchange integration is worth double that, and ms easily charges triple for the same functionality. I guess you haven't used entourage very much.

That sure is some snazzy point release with Grand Central Dispatch, OpenCL, complete 64bit system and Exchange support built-in.

I see this editorial as something coming from someone not very well informed. Snow Leopard brings a lot to the table in terms of optimizations so it is not like it is over prized or anything. If you wanna see over prized look at the coming Vista Service Pack aka. Windows 7.

Here are some highlights on tech side:

- Complete support for 64 bit addressing. Max memory = 16 TB (Compare this to W7!)
- Reworked multi-core support
- OpenCL = support for GPU usage for more than graphics.
- MS Exchange server support. OS X can now go corporate.
- Much faster startup and shut down.

BTW. A story to look into. Not all places get the Windows 7 family pack - this for instance includes Denmark.

The author might think $29 is too much to ask for a new version of OS X, but clearly Apple knows their public better than that, since, like the release of other updated products, the line is already long and the customers eager to pay. Apple knows what they're doing.

"concentrate on reducing the operating system's footprint and making it more stable and secure."
Also it is now full 64bit and also kernal level optimized for speed and multi-core chips, named Grand Central Dispatch, hence the reason it will not work on the old G4 machines. Then there is Open CL, nice.
I think it will turn out nice and what I have been waiting for before I pick up my next Powerbook.

It's a speeded up, bug fixed point release of Vista. How much do Microsoft want for an upgrade again?

There's quite a lot of re-engineering happening under the hood here that, while not immediately obvious to users, will let developers create faster, better applications. All rumors to the contrary people buy computers because they want to run software. If that software runs faster and better on a new OS release then this is a major reason for people to want to upgrade, and $30 isn't a big ask.

I totally disagree with the opion expressed in this article. The $30 or £30 asked is a small price to pay for improving security and improved performance. Although is true that companies should not ask more money for improvements to the software that should have been delivered in the first place. Its also true that most security exploits are only exposed sometime after the mass release of the OS. Furthermore it is very expensive to maintain a big team of people dedicated to improving a product that was finished rather then having the same team working on a new version.
On a windows machine most people have to pay the amount or even more just for the year membership of their anti-virus, to some extent I would mind paying that much everyear to see security and performance improvements to mac OS.

I have not read on single bad review of Mac OS X, so I don't know why you reference 'love or hate', when all of the computer critiques seem to only love it. Also 29 pounds for the update seems fair enough, as it has more enhancements than windows 7 does and cost a whole lot less. Windows Ultimate is the only thing that comes close to Mac OS X and that costs around 270 USD more.