Why Apple’s new Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is truly disruptive

“The reviews for Apple’s latest Operating System, OS X Snow Leopard, have been written. And, well, they’ve missed the point,” Brian Caulfield writes for Forbes. “Most have noted that Snow Leopard offers a few new features, performs a little quicker and then go on to spend a few hundred words delivering the written equivalent of a shrug. ‘It isn’t a big breakthrough for average users,’ The Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg writes.

Caulfield writes, “Here’s the breakthrough: Apple’s OS X, Snow Leopard, which goes on sale Friday, uses less code than its predecessor to do the same job. It’s a remarkable act of discipline that has broken a decades-long trend toward ever more bloated operating system software… [Plus] the user experience has also been refined in scores of small ways that users will be stumbling upon for months.”

Caulfield reports, “‘There are a lot of users who wish vendors would perfect the gazillion features that are in an operating system rather than adding more features that they won’t use,’ says Michael Silver, an analyst with market research firm Gartner. Wish granted.”

Full article here.


  1. Amen to that.

    I related news, which I picked up from the comments on another Snow Leopard post. You can see your Intel, PowerPC and Classic!? (can’t run them but they’re still there) apps all in a neat list by bringing up System Profiler, clicking Applications and sorting by type.

    Seems like every pundit writing an article wants you to do a Cmd-I and waste your afternoon.

  2. Dare I say it yet again: Apple has become masterfull at skating to where the puck is going to be, not to where it already is. SL is another in a long list of examples.

  3. According to FedEx, mine is on the delivery vehicle making its way to my door step as I write this. It’s a family pack. My plan is to install the snowy cat first on my MBP, run it for a while, read all the discussion boards through the weekend, then move on to my iMac and MacPro when I know more about any issues that would be of any interest to me.

  4. A friend sent me a story from a German IT publication that is targeted to IT Managers and Directors

    (I translated it from German, I’m a bit rusty so, be warned)

    Von Gubar, Windows 7 is coming! But, is it worth the cost?

    The benchmarks are in!! and XP over all is faster then Windows 7!!
    Windows 7 and Windows Visa tied in most categories but Windows 7 did manager to pull in a slight win over Windows Visa.
    Windows 7 does on average require more hard drive space then Windows Vista by a few Gigabytes and it just smacks XP on hard drive usage requiring double to triple the drive space on average.

    (Over the next 6 pages he talks in depth about each test and the results and the comparisons with nice colorful graphs and charts which is all a bit pointless here really, so here is the meat)

    The recommendations are: If you’re using XP and everything is working for you, there is no reason to upgrade to Windows 7. If you deployed Vista and did not role back to XP now is your chance (XP is smaller, faster and requires no enduser training). If you’ve deployed Vista to your enterprise already and do not want to (admit failure) roll back to XP there still is no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7 from Windows Vista. It’s going to require another round of enduser training, the slight speed increase is minimal over Windows Vista, there are no new compelling features that justify the IT cost or it’s effort.

    In short the recommendations are if you’re running XP don’t upgrade to Windows 7, if you’re running Windows Vista role back to XP or keep Windows Vista as Windows 7 as nothing to justify the cost or effort of upgrading.
    Furthermore, it would be easier to justify the cost of upgrading to the Apple Mac platform with Snow Leopard OS then upgrading from XP to Windows 7.

    by: Von Gubar Janokowski – IT Director Ziviil

    (Next: Von Gubar, Berlin office migrated from XP to Apple Mac OS, what were the lessons learned)

  5. Wow, though, his last paragraph is confusingly written. Does he really mean the second sentence?

    “Guessing Apple’s long-term plans is a losing proposition.”

    Or was it intended to be a question for doubters? If it is a question, then reply to the question in his next sentence is grammatically incorrect. If it was a statement of his belief, then why does he title his article “Snow Leopard is truly disruptive?” He could title it “Snow Leopard may be disruptive” but to title it “”Snow Leopard is truly disruptive” suggests there is no doubt.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.