No iCloud on Snow Leopard? THIS IS A JOKE, APPLE!

beto mac man wrote:

SL is still a solid, top-notch OS - even on my Core Duo iMac (1st gen intel) - it effin' rocks!

At this point I'd have to say I don't know what the point of Lion is, other than to help Apple sell iTunes products. I "upgraded" three of my Macs to Lion and none of them perform better now than they did under SL. Wifi is unstable, bluetooth is unstable, startup and shutdown take much longer, the finder is sluggish. Until Apple comes out with the bug fix updates necessary to address the Lion performance issues, there's not much point in upgrading for those who haven't already.

Dave13 wrote:

One point I don't think has been raised:

When we (a small business of two people) buy a new Mac it becomes the main work-horse and the older Macs are used for less demanding work, and the oldest of all is for secretarial work only. I should think some other users do the same.

So it is precisely the *oldest* Mac that needs compatability with the cloud!!

That has been ongoing problem when using Macs for a business. Remote access to my Time Capsule via MobileMe was very useful in transferring files between my home office and my office office. That useful feature was left out of iCloud. Apple's consumer oriented focus leaves businesses in the dust when it comes to legacy support compared to companies like Microsoft or Red Hat Linux that have a long-term commitment to provide business support.

Lion Server is a case in point. I was so impressed with the SL version of OS X server that I replaced some leased Linux servers with Mac Minis running SL server. Then along came Lion Server, which was dumbed down to make it easier for consumers to set up home servers with the power features stripped out of the admin tools. After dumping Xserve and then dumbing down OS X server in Lion, it's clear that Apple has no commitment to the business server market. Apple wants to cash in on the home server market (and give the bad guys a field day when it comes to expanding their botnets).

I agree. I love my macs, iPhone and iPad, but I won't be trusting any Apple apps/solutions for professionals or business - my pro business will be going to other developers who respect long term support and don't go destroying things like FCP and MobileMe seemingly on a whim.

After seven years of imploring everyone I spoke to about computers that they should buy Apple because 'they just work', it's telling that I have long since stopped doing that. I don't recommend buying Mac OS X anymore to anyone, and I've myself put off buying a new MBP this year because I do not want a machine that only runs Lion.

I know there's many people who feel - and are reacting - just like me, and what price Apple put on that once-positive word-of-mouth marketing turning into a quiet but persistent buzz of negative dissatisfaction will of course only be determined by sales figures. Since its iOS and app sales that have catapulted Apple into the stratosphere of mega-riches, its unlikely that they'll give a hoot about users such as us.

And so, if Apple's policy is to replace its pro-end computers with nothing other than scaled-up, app-enabled, iOS home-entertainment machines as it appears, then that means those of us who want a serious computer that the user controls and which does what the user tells it to, are going to be forced into the **** of Microsoft or learning the innards of Linux.

Neither much appeals to me, not least because the machines aren't of the same quality, let alone the OS and software, but I refuse to lock myself into this dead-end, 'the user-is-an-idiot' philosophy of disposable computing that Apple is pursuing.

I'd rather give my money to the Gates' Foundation, thanks very much.

softwater wrote:

After seven years of imploring everyone I spoke to about computers that they should buy Apple because 'they just work', it's telling that I have long since stopped doing that. I don't recommend buying Mac OS X anymore to anyone, and I've myself put off buying a new MBP this year because I do not want a machine that only runs Lion.

I know there's many people who feel - and are reacting - just like me, and what price Apple put on that once-positive word-of-mouth marketing turning into a quiet but persistent buzz of negative dissatisfaction will of course only be determined by sales figures. Since its iOS and app sales that have catapulted Apple into the stratosphere of mega-riches, its unlikely that they'll give a hoot about users such as us.

And so, if Apple's policy is to replace its pro-end computers with nothing other than scaled-up, app-enabled, iOS home-entertainment machines as it appears, then that means those of us who want a serious computer that the user controls and which does what the user tells it to, are going to be forced into the **** of Microsoft or learning the innards of Linux.

Neither much appeals to me, not least because the machines aren't of the same quality, let alone the OS and software, but I refuse to lock myself into this dead-end, 'the user-is-an-idiot' philosophy of disposable computing that Apple is pursuing.

I'd rather give my money to the Gates' Foundation, thanks very much.

I'm in te exact same situation.

It's really a pity as I was really looking forward to replacing my aging 17" Macbook Pro with a new one that had Thunderbolt but with the loss of Rosetta I won't be able to open files from my clients.

And to make matters even worse none of my Macs will sync with my iPhone and iPad after June of next year.

I absolutely agree with You!.....it is a real shame!.

Csound1 wrote:

Michael

You are in violation of Apple Licensing running Snow Leopard in VM.

I have printed out and read the copy of the licensing agreement that is attached to the copy of Snow Leopard that I purchased. I see no such prohibiition. Perhaps you can point me to the express language!? Especially since you feel that the prohibition is "not amiguous" to you. I just do not see it...

This post is NOT to be contrued as legal advice.

You read it and I read it, so we differ in interpretation, and practically (bearing this announcement from VMWare in mind) there are no VM's that allow it either

Update: VMware has noted that the Snow Leopard and Leopard client virtualization was made possible by an omission of a server edition check from the new Fusion 4.1 software. WMware will be releasing an update to address the issue.

That revision was made in Fusion 4.1, Parallels and VBox also will not virtualize Snow Leopard.

So let me know when you find any way (legal or otherwise) to do it.

Let me know when you find language in the Apple Snow Leopard license that prohibits use of Snow Leopard in virtualization in Lion and be sure to quote it here for us all to read.

Other than that:

(1) I care little about a quote from VMware especially when I do not know the context in which the quote was made (don't bother clarifying the context). Your point was that I was in violation of Apple licensing, not some other company's license; and

(2) Your interpretation of the Apple license has no value until you point to the specific language under which you base your interpretation.

(3) I virtualize Snow Leopard under Lion and use it every day (primarily for Rosetta).

I'm with MichaelLAX on this. He is running Snow Leopard on Apple hardware which is what he agreed to when he bought Snow Leopard. Let the lawyers battle this out in the courts if Apple wants to but it's not like Apple's lawyers are going to break down his door over this.

You do what you have to do in order to run a business. If Apple doesn't want people doing this then either release new Macs that run Snow Leopard or release Rosetta for Lion.

The only other alternative is to buy a Windows computer. Actually this is already what one of my clients has done.

Correct. And as I posted earier in response to CSound1

The hosts quickly remove posts advocating illegal behaviour from these forums, and yet there are countless threads over the last few months that mention this that have not been removed...

That suggests to me that the issue is not clear-cut. Further, the EULA licencsing agreement is, among other things, intended to stop people using Apple software without paying Apple their due. In the situation under discussion, we're talking about using two copies of paid-for Apple software on paid-for Apple hardware. At least prima facie, there is no detriment to Apple's interest here. In terms of how much s/w and h/w is being employed, it is no different than running one OS on an external and one on an internal disk.

The only issue, it seems to me, is a technical one. Can it be done (apparently it can be done in Parallels 6 but not P7) and will it be stable?

Running the two OS's as separate installs would be far more stable solution.

softwater wrote:

...The only issue, it seems to me, is a technical one. Can it be done (apparently it can be done in Parallels 6 but not P7) and will it be stable?...

I run it under P7 on my Mac Mini 2011 i5, which I upgraded to 8GB RAM and allocated 2GB to P.

Perhaps the initial release of P7 did not work, but the later version (Build 7.0.15050 [Revision 707095; October 28, 2011]) does (I am NOT upgrading P7 any further for now...) and it is VERY stable for me: it runs 24/7/365 on my primary desktop machine which I log into via screen sharing and afp from around the world as travel necessitates.

Here is a screenshot (I have updated Lion to 10.7.2 since this shot). Click the image for it to enlarge:

Thanks for the info Michael, that's interesting to know! A lot of people ask me about this issue.

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/system-requirements/

Apple's SLA for Lion says you are allowed:

Now what makes this vague is that this is the SLA for Lion bought from the App store, but it says 'Apple Software' being run on a virtual machine under Lion. Therein lies the confusion.

Until Apple clear this up, the situation remains open to interpretation.