First, thanks for the "props" (blush); but now I feel ashamed.

Why? Because of what you mentioned about dual-booting two versions of OS X. And then it hit me: you're right! That's the ZERO-Cost (not counting download bandwidth) solution! So, here you go...

And also, since all accessible partitions automatically mount at startup (unless you do some simple command-line witchery), you should have no problem accessing/moving any desired stuff from the "old OS" to the new one. IIRC, these Partitions appear in the Finder like any other Volume.

Now, like any other dual-boot system, you really are only "in" ONE OS at a time. So, if you want to start migrating your "life" to the newer OS, but still seamlessly incorporate your Legacy apps into your workflow, then dual-boot is NOT for you. In that case, use the Virtualization method instead.

But if you only occasionally need to run some apps in the "old" OS, then dual-boot might be for you!

Sorry for replying to my own post.

When I mentioned running PPC apps under OS X Server 10.6, an alarm went off in my head about the Server install not including Rosetta. Seems I was right. But there is an easy solution. Rosetta can be installed from the 10.6 Server DVD by executing a Command Line in Terminal.

Also, while searching for the above, I ran into an Apple Support Forum thread that talked about installing the 10.6.8 OS X client under Parallels. However, the method for that unauthorized virtualization is left as an exercise for the reader...

As the owner of many PPC Macs, including a G5 tower that runs 10.5, (as well as "modern" Macs that can run Yosemite), and who has Mac consulting clients that still run 10.6.8'for the same reasons you mention (familiarity and software investment), I fully understand!

However, for at least the Intel Macs, there is a relatively inexpensive solution: Run 10.6 SEVER under virtualization.

So, for $69, you can purchase VMWare Fusion 7 (standard edition) direct from VMWare and then by CALLING Apple, for $19.95, you can (still) purchase the only version of OS X which is authorized by Apple for virtualization: MacOS X 10.6 Server Install Retail disc, part #0Z691-6495. So, for under $100, you can keep your Snow Leopard environment for your stuff that won't run on current versions of OS X, and still have a Mac that can enjoy security updates, newer features, etc.

Is it ideal? No. Do I wish Apple would support OS versions forever? You bet! However, it DOES provide a relatively inexpensive way to "bridge the Lion-gap", especially for those who have significant investments in pre-Lion software). Heck, you could even still run any PPC stuff under Rosetta!

So, how does this help with vulnerabilities? Simple. Like my friends who have both OS X and Windows on their Macs, you simply don't use your "vulnerable" OS to access the Internet. However, in the case of OS X, I'm not sure whether malware targeting new versions of OS X would have much luck running under Snow Leopard, anyway.

And as for having to use SL Server, I couldn't find a reasonable " guide" online to doing the same thing with a "client" version of 10.6.8, so I decided that using Server was a good enough solution.

And as for OS X being "ruined" in recent versions, I think that, if you start actually using newer versions, you'll find it is actually not nearly as "iOS-ified" or "ruined" as people would have you believe, and that the new features, such as vastly improved Multi-monitor support, Convergence, being able to do calls and texts from your Mac, etc, are really pretty damned nice!

Wish I had mid points! Mods: Mod the Parent "Insightful".

Wrong.

Gatekeeper's default setting allows only signed apps; but the user can opt for lesser security. But that's on the user, not Apple.

so, IOW, about 100 Mac Users worldwide.

Apple updating Gatekeeper in 3... 2... 1...

There! Problem all gone!

In fact, there is.

In the plural form of the possessive, the apostrophe comes AFTER the pluralization; e.g., "users' ".

That was an excuse a decade ago; but have you visited an Apple Store in the past 8 years or so? They could keep them open 24/7 and they'd still be mobbed!

so, again, like every other OS X exploit, this depends solely on Social Networking to propagate.

So, IOW, after about 100 or so Macs worldwide get infected, whatever package was responsible for spreading malware via this method would be added to Apple's malware list, be pushed out automatically to all users of OS X, and, like those infrequent times before, that would be that...

Then, Apple simply adds checking of DyLibs and other add-ons to OS X, and closes this hokey forever. Problem solved!

So, thanks to the black hat who brought this exploit to Apple's attention; so that they can take care of it.

Never heard that expression. Ever.

Oh, I see now; that refers to a low-paying EMPLOYMENT, as in a job a McDonald's. Hence "McJob" (prounounced "Mac-Job").

Nothing to do with Apple. Nice try, hater.

That's what I get for posting from work, sorry.

Oh puh-lease. Do you even believe that?

Yeah, Java is the pride and joy of the Android Development community. Riiiiight.

HOW much bitching have I heard here on this site alone about Java? Hmmmm???

You're just Butthurt that Android doesn't have anything as clean and modern as Swift.

Yeah, but that never stopped Pascal!

I also agree that there is nothing wrong with Obj-C; but OTOH, is there anything wrong with attempting to update and/or clarify syntax?

For example, I doubt you would find that many developers that would argue that C++ can be arcane, and most that have developed in both would say that Obj-C is much "cleaner" than C++ overall; so why can't Swift be seen as simply a further refinement on Obj-C, especially for less "ambitious" projects?

Bottom line, I don't think Swift is in danger of displacing Obj-C anytime soon; so why all the hate?
br. Oh, I know: Because Apple.