Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57163 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen <gratefuldead@xs4all.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-02-27 16:53 +0100 |
| Last post | 2014-03-08 20:38 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Snow Leopard retires.. Stephen <gratefuldead@xs4all.nl> - 2014-02-27 16:53 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Stephen <gratefuldead@xs4all.nl> - 2014-02-27 17:00 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Another John <lalaw44@hotmail.com> - 2014-02-27 18:27 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Stephen <gratefuldead@xs4all.nl> - 2014-02-27 19:50 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-27 17:13 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-02-28 14:08 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2014-02-27 11:39 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Stephen <gratefuldead@xs4all.nl> - 2014-02-27 18:41 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-27 18:35 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2014-02-27 23:26 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-27 18:34 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-27 13:03 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-27 21:22 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2014-03-03 17:53 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-04 15:37 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-04 22:20 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-05 12:51 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-05 22:33 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-03-05 17:50 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-05 23:59 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-03-06 07:40 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-03-06 18:49 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-06 17:06 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-07 02:54 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-03-07 11:41 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-06 17:03 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-05 16:54 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-06 01:20 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-06 17:01 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:35 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-08 14:25 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2014-02-27 23:26 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:53 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-28 17:58 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-02-27 20:50 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-02-27 21:44 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-27 18:36 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-28 00:49 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-02-27 20:45 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-28 10:43 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:52 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-01 06:41 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-01 15:29 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-01 11:42 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-01 18:09 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 11:38 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-02 17:28 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 11:40 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 12:23 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-03-02 18:17 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 19:28 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-03 18:39 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-03 13:25 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-03 00:47 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:29 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 03:11 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-03 16:52 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 04:06 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-04 12:02 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-03 18:38 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-04 12:55 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-03 19:51 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-04 01:32 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2014-03-05 12:33 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-05 18:11 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 00:18 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-03-04 06:43 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-04 17:04 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 17:59 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-05 12:49 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-03-04 14:55 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-04 17:05 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-05 12:49 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dob@trwxxa-2.local (David Blanchard) - 2014-03-09 18:16 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-09 21:56 -0400
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dob@trwxxa-2.local (David Blanchard) - 2014-03-10 16:45 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-01 18:08 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-02 17:28 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2014-03-01 12:50 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-01 18:21 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2014-03-02 12:16 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-02-28 11:02 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-28 18:38 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-02-28 20:47 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-02-28 18:37 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRonnieBateman@earthlinc.net> - 2014-02-28 13:09 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-28 21:57 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:52 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-01 08:08 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-02-28 20:49 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:50 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-03-01 13:29 +1100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2014-03-01 12:48 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-02-28 21:23 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:50 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-01 06:40 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-01 09:31 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) - 2014-03-01 19:24 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-03-01 19:44 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 23:38 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-02 17:51 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-03-02 11:25 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 05:21 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 01:59 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 02:39 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 07:49 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-02 21:34 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 17:59 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-03 13:25 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 03:14 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-03 17:05 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:12 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 03:22 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 04:29 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 20:02 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 03:17 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-03 03:47 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 23:02 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-03 05:12 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 00:39 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2014-03-03 07:27 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 01:29 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Andreas Rutishauser <andreas@macandreas.ch> - 2014-03-04 06:51 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 04:11 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-03 04:27 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-03 05:09 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 16:16 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-03 16:29 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 12:35 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 20:28 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-03-04 22:51 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-04 22:19 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-01 23:38 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-02 01:56 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-02 02:39 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 07:50 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-03-02 08:05 -0700
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-03 13:25 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-03-01 21:13 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 05:20 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-02 10:07 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-02 16:28 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-03 09:13 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_lebrun@googlemail.com> - 2014-02-28 17:23 +0100
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Ronnie Bateman <OurOwnRonnieBateman@earthlinc.net> - 2014-02-28 13:07 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:49 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2014-03-01 12:30 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-02-28 12:04 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-27 18:40 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-02-28 19:48 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2014-03-01 12:22 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 11:54 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-02 11:59 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-27 18:31 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-06 12:20 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-03-06 09:39 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-03-06 10:57 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-06 19:05 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-03-06 11:41 -0800
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-07 12:12 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-07 02:47 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-07 03:13 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-07 09:38 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-07 14:43 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-03-07 07:50 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-07 14:45 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-03-07 11:24 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-07 16:39 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:43 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-03-07 18:06 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-08 03:37 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-07 15:04 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-03-07 19:37 +1300
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-07 18:38 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 19:21 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-08 00:31 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-07 19:36 -0500
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-03-08 01:35 +0000
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-03-08 14:25 -0600
Re: Snow Leopard retires.. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-08 20:38 +0000
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-01 23:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <010320142338445561%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57326 |
In article <vilain-CCBDA4.19441801032014@news.individual.net>, Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > > Is the upgrade from SL to Mavericks free? I haven't seen that mentioned > > in this thread. > > It's only "free" if you bought a machine with 10.8 installed on it > within a few months of 10.9 being released. I did that and now > Mavericks is free for ALL my machines that can run it. where in the world did you get that idea? mavericks is free no matter what you have. the only requirement is access to the app store to be able to get it. > If you have an older system that you haven't upgraded past 10.6, > probably not. I think it's $29.95 in the Apple Store. That is, > assuming your system can run it. i don't know what you're thinking of but whatever it is, it sure as hell isn't mavericks. > So it's free, for varying values of free. it's free. period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 17:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lhw5zq.1p9r3trarz6cgN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #57326 |
Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > In article <1lhugji.1ysshjwc4ilrgN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, > RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) wrote: > > > Is the upgrade from SL to Mavericks free? I haven't seen that mentioned > > in this thread. > > It's only "free" if you bought a machine with 10.8 installed on it > within a few months of 10.9 being released. I did that and now > Mavericks is free for ALL my machines that can run it. > > If you have an older system that you haven't upgraded past 10.6, > probably not. I think it's $29.95 in the Apple Store. Wrong. Mavericks (10.9) is a free upgrade for 10.6 or later, as anyone on 10.6.8 can see by looking at its entry in the App Store. The free price is also mentioned here: http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ You can upgrade directly to 10.9 from 10.6.8 or later (no need to get 10.7 and/or 10.8). If your Mac is still running 10.5 and is supported by 10.9, you need to upgrade to 10.6 first. Apple is still selling 10.6 on DVD from their online store for US$19.99: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard (The same option works to upgrade to 10.6 for Intel Macs which are still on 10.4, and there are some mid 2007 MacBook Pro and iMac models which originally came with 10.4.9 or later which are supported by 10.9). For those who want or need to upgrade beyond 10.6, but whose Mac is not supported by 10.8 or 10.9, you can still buy 10.7 (Lion) from the online Apple Store for US$19.99. http://store.apple.com/us/product/D6106Z/A/os-x-lion This gives you a redemption code for the App Store. (You need to be running 10.6.6 to 10.6.8 to install this.) Apple is also selling 10.8 (Mountain Lion) via that route (also US$19.99), but there isn't much point now unless you _really_ don't want to run Mavericks for some reason (they have identical system requirements and model compatibility, and Mavericks is free). http://store.apple.com/us/product/D6377Z/A/os-x-mountain-lion > That is, assuming your system can run it. True. Requirements are available via http://www.apple.com/osx/specs/ (The "how to upgrade" page I linked to above doesn't mention some of the requirements such as minimum memory, which is 2 GB compared to Snow Leopard's minimum of 1 GB; it is a good idea to at least double the minimum for better performance.) -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vilain-CB8AB3.11253102032014@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57335 |
In article <1lhw5zq.1p9r3trarz6cgN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote: > Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > > > In article <1lhugji.1ysshjwc4ilrgN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, > > RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) wrote: > > > > > Is the upgrade from SL to Mavericks free? I haven't seen that mentioned > > > in this thread. > > > > It's only "free" if you bought a machine with 10.8 installed on it > > within a few months of 10.9 being released. I did that and now > > Mavericks is free for ALL my machines that can run it. > > > > If you have an older system that you haven't upgraded past 10.6, > > probably not. I think it's $29.95 in the Apple Store. > > Wrong. > > Mavericks (10.9) is a free upgrade for 10.6 or later, as anyone on > 10.6.8 can see by looking at its entry in the App Store. The free price > is also mentioned here: > > http://www.apple.com/osx/how-to-upgrade/ > > You can upgrade directly to 10.9 from 10.6.8 or later (no need to get > 10.7 and/or 10.8). > > If your Mac is still running 10.5 and is supported by 10.9, you need to > upgrade to 10.6 first. Apple is still selling 10.6 on DVD from their > online store for US$19.99: > > http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573Z/A/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard > > (The same option works to upgrade to 10.6 for Intel Macs which are still > on 10.4, and there are some mid 2007 MacBook Pro and iMac models which > originally came with 10.4.9 or later which are supported by 10.9). > > > For those who want or need to upgrade beyond 10.6, but whose Mac is not > supported by 10.8 or 10.9, you can still buy 10.7 (Lion) from the online > Apple Store for US$19.99. > > http://store.apple.com/us/product/D6106Z/A/os-x-lion > > This gives you a redemption code for the App Store. (You need to be > running 10.6.6 to 10.6.8 to install this.) > > Apple is also selling 10.8 (Mountain Lion) via that route (also > US$19.99), but there isn't much point now unless you _really_ don't want > to run Mavericks for some reason (they have identical system > requirements and model compatibility, and Mavericks is free). > > http://store.apple.com/us/product/D6377Z/A/os-x-mountain-lion > > > That is, assuming your system can run it. > > True. Requirements are available via http://www.apple.com/osx/specs/ > > (The "how to upgrade" page I linked to above doesn't mention some of the > requirements such as minimum memory, which is 2 GB compared to Snow > Leopard's minimum of 1 GB; it is a good idea to at least double the > minimum for better performance.) Well, that's a lovely surprise for a Sunday morning. Thanks for enlightening me. -- DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically ignored]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 05:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh5fvg.r7d.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #57326 |
In message <vilain-CCBDA4.19441801032014@news.individual.net> Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> wrote: > In article <1lhugji.1ysshjwc4ilrgN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, > RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) wrote: >> bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> wrote: >> >> > In article <slrnlgvn8c.k04.g.kreme@oswin.local>, >> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> > >> > > In message <530fcc16$0$17118$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> >> > > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> > > > On 14-02-27 16:44, Király wrote: >> > > >> Apple supported Snow Leopard >> > > >> for much longer than it did any prevous version of OS X. >> > > >> > > > This may be the case when referencing how many releases of OS since Snow >> > > > Leopard. But is this truly the came when referencing time ? >> > > >> > > > As the article stated, with annual changes to the OS, the versions >> > > > numbers now change much faster. >> > > >> > > > What I would like to know (which I am sure Apple won't reveal) is >> > > > whether Apple has unbiased data on why people are still on Snow Leopard. >> > > >> > > Of course they do. >> > > >> > > The vast majority are on 10.6 because they cannot update to 10.7 or >> > > later. >> > >> > Some of us are still on 10.6 because it does everything we need it to, >> > it's familiar, and no features of later versions have sounded compelling >> > enough to upgrade. Now that support for 10.6 is being dropped I'll have >> > to reconsider. I'm loath to go to Mavericks, though, because I >> > understand it will break my newsreader and possibly some other older >> > apps I keep around. >> Is the upgrade from SL to Mavericks free? I haven't seen that mentioned >> in this thread. > It's only "free" if you bought a machine with 10.8 installed on it > within a few months of 10.9 being released. I did that and now > Mavericks is free for ALL my machines that can run it. This is completely totally wrong. > If you have an older system that you haven't upgraded past 10.6, > probably not. I think it's $29.95 in the Apple Store. That is, > assuming your system can run it. If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store and get Mavericks. For free. > So it's free, for varying values of free. No, it is free, period. There is no charge for Mavericks. Period. -- And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 01:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57341 |
On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: > > If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store > and get Mavericks. For free. It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. It is free if you are willing to zap your disk drive and install from scratch. But you lose a whole lot of stuff which is preserved through upgrades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 02:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <020320140239225843%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57346 |
In article <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store > > and get Mavericks. For free. > > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. what's not tested?? > It is free if you are willing to zap your disk drive and install from > scratch. But you lose a whole lot of stuff which is preserved through > upgrades. it's free, but if you a clean install, you can always migrate from a backup during setup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 07:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh5okj.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #57346 |
In message <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: >> >> If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store >> and get Mavericks. For free. > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. > It is free if you are willing to zap your disk drive and install from > scratch. But you lose a whole lot of stuff which is preserved through > upgrades. WTF is "zap your disk drive" supposed to mean? Fact: OS X 10.9 Mavericks is FREE. It costs NOTHING. It will run/install/upgrade on any hardware that meets its requirements. -- Demons have existed on the Discworld for at least as long as the gods, who in many ways they closely resemble. The difference is basically the same as between terrorists and freedom fighters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 21:34 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lhwg3m.1ay4tir1qyxddmN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #57349 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: > > >> > >> If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store > >> and get Mavericks. For free. > > > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. > > What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. I think JF is trying to say that 10.9 probably cannot be installed to a drive which currently has 10.5 installed, i.e. it can't do an in-place upgrade of 10.5, only 10.6 or later. As it happens, he's right. I just tried: a disk containing an installed copy of 10.5 is greyed out in the list of available volumes in the Mavericks installer, and if you try to choose it, you get a popup message saying "You can't upgrade this version of OS X". I recall seeing the same with the 10.8 installer, but don't remember offhand whether I tried with 10.7, and don't have a computer handy on which I can test that combination. Interestingly, a disk containing an installed copy of 10.4 is not shown greyed out by the 10.9 installer, but I haven't tried to do the install to see what happens, as I want to keep that copy of 10.4. > > It is free if you are willing to zap your disk drive and install from > > scratch. But you lose a whole lot of stuff which is preserved through > > upgrades. > > WTF is "zap your disk drive" supposed to mean? I assume he means "erase your drive". Mavericks will install on a drive which has no installed copy of OS X. > Fact: OS X 10.9 Mavericks is FREE. It costs NOTHING. It will > run/install/upgrade on any hardware that meets its requirements. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh6sc4.1uj.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #57351 |
In message <1lhwg3m.1ay4tir1qyxddmN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> > On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: >> >> >> >> >> If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store >> >> and get Mavericks. For free. >> >> > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. >> >> What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. > I think JF is trying to say that 10.9 probably cannot be installed to a > drive which currently has 10.5 installed, i.e. it can't do an in-place > upgrade of 10.5, only 10.6 or later. But he's wrong, it can be installed on a machine running 10.5. > As it happens, he's right. I just tried: a disk containing an installed > copy of 10.5 is greyed out in the list of available volumes in the > Mavericks installer, and if you try to choose it, you get a popup > message saying "You can't upgrade this version of OS X". That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. There is no "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as a new install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it was. >> WTF is "zap your disk drive" supposed to mean? > I assume he means "erase your drive". Mavericks will install on a drive > which has no installed copy of OS X. >> Fact: OS X 10.9 Mavericks is FREE. It costs NOTHING. It will >> run/install/upgrade on any hardware that meets its requirements. -- "If this was a dictatorship it would be a lot easier; as long as I was the dictator." -- George W Bush
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 13:25 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lhxeww.n2pax416tw6qN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #57388 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1lhwg3m.1ay4tir1qyxddmN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> > David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > >> In message <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> > >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> > On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> >> If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store > >> >> and get Mavericks. For free. > >> > >> > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. > >> > >> What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. > > > I think JF is trying to say that 10.9 probably cannot be installed to a > > drive which currently has 10.5 installed, i.e. it can't do an in-place > > upgrade of 10.5, only 10.6 or later. > > But he's wrong, it can be installed on a machine running 10.5. > > > As it happens, he's right. I just tried: a disk containing an installed > > copy of 10.5 is greyed out in the list of available volumes in the > > Mavericks installer, and if you try to choose it, you get a popup > > message saying "You can't upgrade this version of OS X". > > That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. Please explain how you would do that. 10.9 refuses to install if the target volume contains a 10.5 system. 10.6 and later don't have a way of doing a "full install" on top of an existing installation of an older version of OS X. If there is an existing OS X system on the target drive, they will upgrade it, or refuse to install if it is an unsupported version for upgrade. They do a full install if there is no recognised OS X system on the drive. The typical way to achieve that state if there is an incompatible old version is to erase the drive before trying to install. > There is no "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as > a new install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it > was. The only way I know you could this would be to manually delete or move aside all the folders containing bits of the operating system, particularly System, Library and all the hidden unix-layer stuff, then run the 10.9 installer. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh7ssn.8ik.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #57439 |
In message <1lhxeww.n2pax416tw6qN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> In message <1lhwg3m.1ay4tir1qyxddmN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> >> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: >> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> >> >> In message <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> >> >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> >> > On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple store >> >> >> and get Mavericks. For free. >> >> >> >> > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. >> >> >> >> What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. >> >> > I think JF is trying to say that 10.9 probably cannot be installed to a >> > drive which currently has 10.5 installed, i.e. it can't do an in-place >> > upgrade of 10.5, only 10.6 or later. >> >> But he's wrong, it can be installed on a machine running 10.5. >> >> > As it happens, he's right. I just tried: a disk containing an installed >> > copy of 10.5 is greyed out in the list of available volumes in the >> > Mavericks installer, and if you try to choose it, you get a popup >> > message saying "You can't upgrade this version of OS X". >> >> That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. > Please explain how you would do that. > 10.9 refuses to install if the target volume contains a 10.5 system. > 10.6 and later don't have a way of doing a "full install" on top of an > existing installation of an older version of OS X. If there is an > existing OS X system on the target drive, they will upgrade it, or > refuse to install if it is an unsupported version for upgrade. Is there not a "Clean Install" option? > They do a full install if there is no recognised OS X system on the > drive. The typical way to achieve that state if there is an incompatible > old version is to erase the drive before trying to install. >> There is no "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as >> a new install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it >> was. > The only way I know you could this would be to manually delete or move > aside all the folders containing bits of the operating system, > particularly System, Library and all the hidden unix-layer stuff, then > run the 10.9 installer. Hmm. Interesting. If there is no Clean Install option in 10.9 then it is rather more complicated. I doubt it requires deleting everything, the Installer would be looking for a specific file I would think. Or... No, the recovery partition came with 10.7, so it can't be requiring that. It will certainly install onto a disk with no OS X, even if that disk has data. It doesn't require a reformat. -- I hear hurricanes a-blowing, I know the end is coming soon. I fear rivers over-flowing. I hear the voice of rage and ruin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 17:05 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <1lhxyxh.in7tuw1tg23paN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> |
| In reply to | #57476 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <1lhxeww.n2pax416tw6qN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> > David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > >> In message <1lhwg3m.1ay4tir1qyxddmN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz> > >> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote: > >> > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >> > >> >> In message <5312d6d8$0$35019$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> > >> >> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >> > On 14-03-02 00:21, Lewis wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If you do not have 10.6.8, you can take a thumb drive to an Apple > >> >> >> store and get Mavericks. For free. > >> >> > >> >> > It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. > >> >> > >> >> What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. > >> > >> > I think JF is trying to say that 10.9 probably cannot be installed to a > >> > drive which currently has 10.5 installed, i.e. it can't do an in-place > >> > upgrade of 10.5, only 10.6 or later. > >> > >> But he's wrong, it can be installed on a machine running 10.5. > >> > >> > As it happens, he's right. I just tried: a disk containing an installed > >> > copy of 10.5 is greyed out in the list of available volumes in the > >> > Mavericks installer, and if you try to choose it, you get a popup > >> > message saying "You can't upgrade this version of OS X". > >> > >> That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. > > > Please explain how you would do that. > > > 10.9 refuses to install if the target volume contains a 10.5 system. > > > 10.6 and later don't have a way of doing a "full install" on top of an > > existing installation of an older version of OS X. If there is an > > existing OS X system on the target drive, they will upgrade it, or > > refuse to install if it is an unsupported version for upgrade. > > Is there not a "Clean Install" option? No. The last installer which had a choice of install method was 10.5. (I remember the old "Upgrade", "Archive & Install" or "Erase & Install" choices.) For example, if you want to do an "Erase and Install" with the 10.6 installer, you need to boot from the DVD, run Disk Utility, erase the drive, then return to the installer and proceed as normal. For 10.7 and later, that gets a little harder as you need to be started up from the recovery partition or a separate bootable installer to be able to erase the main partition. > > They do a full install if there is no recognised OS X system on the > > drive. The typical way to achieve that state if there is an incompatible > > old version is to erase the drive before trying to install. > > >> There is no "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as > >> a new install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it > >> was. > > > The only way I know you could this would be to manually delete or move > > aside all the folders containing bits of the operating system, > > particularly System, Library and all the hidden unix-layer stuff, then > > run the 10.9 installer. > > Hmm. Interesting. If there is no Clean Install option in 10.9 then it is > rather more complicated. I doubt it requires deleting everything, the > Installer would be looking for a specific file I would think. You might be able to trick it by getting rid of certain key files, but if you didn't move or delete the rest of the System, Library and similar folders, you might end up with a tangled mess of two versions, unless the installer is smart enough to stop and complain, or do something resembling the old "Archive & Install" method if there are conflicting folders or files. > Or... No, the recovery partition came with 10.7, so it can't be > requiring that. That gets created as one of the first steps when installing 10.7 or later, and control gets transferred to it to complete the install. The 10.6 installer actually used something resembling the recovery partition: it created a temporary bootable partition, copied the installer and packages to it, booted from it to complete the installation, and deleted it once the install was complete and control had been transferred to the main partition. > It will certainly install onto a disk with no OS X, even if that disk > has data. It doesn't require a reformat. Agreed. It just doesn't like another OS X version being in the way, unless it knows how to upgrade that version. -- David Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 20:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5313d708$0$32622$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57388 |
On 14-03-02 12:59, Lewis wrote: > That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. There is no > "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as a new > install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it was. I doubt any unix utilities you added in the /usr/bin or other similar unix directories survive. I also doubt any of your preferences survive such an overwriting install. In the case of Adobe software, the software keys are stored in the /Library/Preferences, and I strongly suspect they get zapped in such an install. Not sure how it behaves for the /Applications folder. Consider the Netinfo application which disapears. Does INSTALLING (instead of upgrading) preserve old applications that no longer exist ? Or does it just zap /Applications and recreate it from scratch ? I would not trust an INSTALL over an exosting OS-X verison to preserve anything in the directories used by the operating system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 03:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh7tbf.8ik.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #57456 |
In message <5313d708$0$32622$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-03-02 12:59, Lewis wrote: >> That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. There is no >> "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as a new >> install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it was. > I doubt any unix utilities you added in the /usr/bin or other similar > unix directories survive. I don't install into /usr/bin, but usr/local/bin has survived on my machines since 10.5. > I also doubt any of your preferences survive such an overwriting > install. In the case of Adobe software, the software keys are stored in > the /Library/Preferences, and I strongly suspect they get zapped in such > an install. Adobe shit gets zapped all the damn time, so no difference there. However, an OS install does not usually touch anything in your home folder. For example, when upgrading the OS your first launch of mail will usually cause a DB rebuild and may reorganise the folders in ~/Library/Mail/, but the installer will not do that. > Not sure how it behaves for the /Applications folder. On an Clean Install folders like /Applications and /System go into the "Previous System" folder. > I would not trust an INSTALL over an exosting OS-X verison to preserve > anything in the directories used by the operating system. Apple's installers are smarter than that. -- What would be the point of cyphering messages that very clever enemies couldn't break? You'd end up not knowing what they thought you thought they were thinking... --The Fifth Elephant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 04:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bnieokFc8ppU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57479 |
On 2014-03-03, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <5313d708$0$32622$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> On 14-03-02 12:59, Lewis wrote: > >>> That's true, you can't upgrade it, but you can install it. There is no >>> "disk zapping" involved though, you just have to install it as a new >>> install, everything previously on the disk remains exactly where it was. > >> I doubt any unix utilities you added in the /usr/bin or other similar >> unix directories survive. > > I don't install into /usr/bin, but usr/local/bin has survived on my > machines since 10.5. Yep. It definitely wouldn't be a good idea to install things in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin and expect them not to change when you install system updates. I have never had anything in /usr/local get modified by system updates. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 20:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5313d4b2$0$58725$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #57349 |
On 14-03-02 02:49, Lewis wrote: >> It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. > > What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. When Apple says the installer for Mavericks will work on Snow Leopard and up, chances are extremely high that there is code in the installer to refuse to upgrade older versions of OS-X. The installer may not have the logic to upgrade various files/configs/plists from older pre Snow Leopard formats to newer ones. (lots of config stuff wwas changed such as netinfo datbase etc)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 03:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlh7t30.8ik.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #57454 |
In message <5313d4b2$0$58725$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-03-02 02:49, Lewis wrote: >>> It is not tested and likely will refuse to upgrade an older version. >> >> What the hell are you talking about? You are making shit up. > When Apple says the installer for Mavericks will work on Snow Leopard > and up, chances are extremely high that there is code in the installer > to refuse to upgrade older versions of OS-X. Snow Leopard is required to access the Mac App Store and download Mavericks. However, it is possible to get Mavericks without accessing the Mac App Store (or with accessing it at another computer, like at and Apple Store). > The installer may not have the logic to upgrade various > files/configs/plists from older pre Snow Leopard formats to newer ones. > (lots of config stuff wwas changed such as netinfo datbase etc) Normally OS X has an option to do a Clean Install. Or it did. If that is gone from 10.9's installer then yes, installing over 10.5 may be a bit more complicated. -- I CAN'T SEE DEAD PEOPLE Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF05
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 03:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lf0u0s$3fs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57477 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > Normally OS X has an option to do a Clean Install. Or it did. If that is > gone from 10.9's installer then yes, installing over 10.5 may be a bit > more complicated. What is a "Clean Install"? Apple has never used that terminology. -- K. Lang may your lum reek.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-02 23:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <020320142302439786%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57480 |
In article <lf0u0s$3fs$1@dont-email.me>, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote: > > Normally OS X has an option to do a Clean Install. Or it did. If that is > > gone from 10.9's installer then yes, installing over 10.5 may be a bit > > more complicated. > > What is a "Clean Install"? installing a new system from scratch instead of upgrading an existing install. usually that's done to a newly formatted hard drive but that is not always the case. > Apple has never used that terminology. so what? they can call it whatever they want, but they definitely offered the ability to do it. officially it was called erase & install, and also archive & install which is almost the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-03-03 05:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lf12v9$p8r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57482 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > officially it was called erase & install, and also archive & install > which is almost the same. You have a very odd understanding of "almost the same", considering that one of the above would destroy all user data and the other wouldn't. -- K. Lang may your lum reek.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web