Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard

Bad Math
"Although some users have reported hard drive gains of 10-20 gigabytes over the advertised 7 gigabytes, this observed figure is due to Snow Leopard's Finder reporting data size values using decimal conversion (1 GB = 1000 MB) rather than binary conversion (1 GB = 1024 MB)"


 * Can we do better math? 15 GB = 14 GiB not 7GiB. We don't even know that Apple was referring to GiB.  Emuroms (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since nobody seemed to care, I just removed the false statement. Emuroms (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apple has released an update to fix Snow Leopard to display file sizes in base 2 counting instead of base 10 counting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 11:37, 2010 April 26 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't. There's nothing to fix, it is the intended behaviour in Snow Leopard. GoldRenet (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * in the developer technologies - 64 bit architecture section, the article says " snow leapoard supports up to 16 terabytes of RAM" can it possibly support 16 TERABYTES of ram, gigabytes sounds much more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.96.106 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The "64-bit" section of Apple's page on "New Technology in Snow Leopard" says "For example, Snow Leopard is ready to support up to 16 terabytes of RAM — about 500 times more than today’s Mac computers can accommodate.", so apparently Apple really did say that the operating system could support up to 16TB of RAM. They also indicated that the Macs they were selling at the time could only support about 32GB of RAM at the most - that was probably a fully-loaded Mac Pro or Xserve. Guy Harris (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

10.6 Apple support status
Neither of the two references note Snow Leopard is unsupported today, just that it is expected to lose support when Mountain Lion comes out. I cannot find any data to suggest that it is unsupported even that 10.8 has been released. I am changing it back to supported -- can anyone else verify its status? aerotheque (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we start by defining what "supported" means? Somebody argued that Lion is "supported" because Safari 6 is still offered for it, even though Apple are only releasing security updates for it. Guy Harris (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I would move for the removal of security status in the OS X infoboxes, if only because Apple *never* announces end of life for their operating systems -- it's all third-party conjecture on their security practices, and therefore unverifiable from the software vendor itself. --112.203.61.195 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Snow Leopard isn't supported anymore, as revealed in their developer documentation… Apple said that despite Java being deprecated in 2010, they would continue to update Leopard and Snow Leopard through the "standard support cycles of those products." They don't outline exactly when does that happen, but for the most part we have a general idea: Leopard didn't receive a newer version of Java when Lion shipped, and Snow Leopard didn't receive Java 6 update 34 when Mountain Lion shipped. You can't argue that they're just being late since Snow Leopard did get Java 6 update 33 from Apple, on the same day all other platforms got it from Oracle. 

Until the day comes when Leopard/Snow Leopard receives the latest Java 6 runtime which Apple is supposed to maintain, the reasonable assumption is that these operating systems are not supported anymore. --112.203.21.234 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically to sum up my point -
 * Apple maintains the Java port for OS X 10.5 and 10.6, and they said they'll update it until those operating systems are no longer supported.
 * As of August 2012 they no longer update Java for Leopard and Snow Leopard.
 * Therefore, Leopard and Snow Leopard are no longer supported.
 * At least that's what I conclude from their developer documentation, and it's the closest thing they have for a support policy on OS X. --112.203.21.234 (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated my macbook pro today and software update showed new drivers for my HP printer in 10.6, doesn't that mean it's still supported? http://support.apple.com/downloads/#macosx106 --112.203.86.120 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013
Some of this article is written in the present tense, where it should be past tense

AdamLechowicz (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which parts should be in the past tense? Keep in mind that Snow Leopard is still widely used and its developers' intentions should, for the most part, still be in effect. Rivertorch (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format.-- TOW  talk   06:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827150345/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/08/24macosx.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/08/24macosx.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720115100/http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/ to https://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722202124/http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/ to https://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611151415/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09snowleopard.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09snowleopard.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6128jTzFS?url=http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/08/24Apple-to-Ship-Mac-OS-X-Snow-Leopard-on-August-28.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/08/24macosx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice regarding current article's protection
Hi. Can somebody consider eliminating the protection set on that page ever since it had been protected back in February 2019? I realized that the frequency of edits being reverted on this page had significantly dropped nowadays. I have no solid clues Y it is still protected up to this day.197.240.169.9 (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, the 'frequency of edits being reverted on this page had significantly dropped nowadays'…sort of self-referentially supports that the protection is doing its job.
 * Is there a specific edit you'd like to request be made?
 * That said, that is a long time for page protection, so removing it for a trial probably can't hurt. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit seemed to have no effect appealing the article's protection. I suggest that you should try semi-protecting the article until 17 October 2022. I believe that way, the protection spell will be broken immediately following its expiry.197.240.216.113 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Guys, I have requested the page be non-protected and it seems that accepted my request. I hope those help.197.14.66.123 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)