As I recall, there were plenty of legitimate user gripes when the very first iteration of Snow Leopard (10.6.0) was released. But by the time of the very last point-release (10.6.11?), the OS was rock-solid. It was only after all the initial bugs were ironed out, that Snow Leopard achieved the legendary status that it has enjoyed ever since. The blogger doesn’t take this factor into account.

▲

cosmic_cheese 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mavericks played out similarly as far as I can recall. Earlier releases had issues but by the last minor update it was quite solid.

10.9 my personal “Snow Leopard”. It has most of what made the Aqua era releases good with some QoL/polish improvements. If I could patch it with non-flat scrollbars and 10.5/10.6 2D grid spaces it’d be perfect.

▲

kccqzy 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was 10.6.8 v1.1. They didn’t want to increment the version number so they made a version number on top of a version number.

	▲	frollogaston 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Wow, 10.6.8 is burned into my brain because I was on that release for so long. Totally skipped Lion, and was sad when forced to update to whatever tail end version of Mountain Lion.

▲

snowwrestler 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is true, but it’s also true of many other OS X and MacOS releases over the years.

You’ve definitely hit on the core of the issue with the Snow Leopard myth, though: comparing the final battle-hardened bug-patched version of an OS, to a newly released version. Seems like “Snow Leopard” always gets trotted out whenever someone is unhappy with the latest release.

	▲	bitwize 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		See also: Windows XP. Upon release it was a security/stability CF. Today there are retrocomputing forums dedicated primarily to it. What they are gazing rose-coloredly back on is likely Windows XP SP3, not how the OS was upon its release.