toggle

AAPL Stock: 562.29 ( -3.03 )

MacNN News

Apple makes old operating systems obsolete quickly

updated 10:10 am EST, Wed March 2, 2005

Mac OS updates

The research firm IDC estimates that among the 19 million Mac OS desktop and laptop installations IDC surveyed, just about half were running releases predating Mac OS X. Meanwhile, almost 21 percent of PC users were running the aging Windows 95, 98 and Millennium Edition releases. "On the Mac side, there have been -- the downside of that being a quick sunset for older releases," Yahoo! News says. Mac OS 8 is "as dead as Windows 95, thanks to their own lack of USB support." Mac OS 9 is "slightly better in terms of software support -- there still aren't any good browsers, but you can run an old version of iTunes." Meanwhile, Mac OS X 10.0 and 10.1 "have been so badly outclassed by succeeding releases that there is no good reason to run them." Finally, Apple is giving the 2 1/2 years old Jaguar "the Windows 2000 treatment -- the current versions of its Safari Web browser and iPhoto and iLife packages require OS X 10.3 Panther."

by MacNN Staff

(34)

TAGS :

industry

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

03/02, 10:27am | report spam | close Reply |
As I posted earlier...

4 yrs & $400 later...

OS-X still has some critical little bugs like reversed surname entry from mail into address book, browser speed/compatability, isync/palm field mapping, etc. and with the importance of the web it amazes me that such essentials are not better executed...

10.3 is the first version that I have recommended to friends & I'm looking forward to 10.4, although OS-X will then be a $520 OS... Keeping an older Mac up to date is costly both in terms of $ & time...

purpleshorts
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

03/02, 10:41am | report spam | close Reply |
Half empty.

If it takes the other guys a long time to upgrade their OS, why does that mean that speedy updates are a problem? What a gloomy view of progress. If you don't want to upgrade, don't. If the features are worth it to you, go ahead.

macnews
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/02, 10:42am | report spam | close Reply |
worth upgrade cost

To stay current with OS X it can be costly and yes, the frequent yearly updates do "sunset" older, still usable versions earlier than the windows camp. However, you can not compare this to windows - at least not recently. About the closest comparison would be comparing windows 3.1 to win 95 or higher. Even then it isn't the same. OS X is a complete redesign from the core of the os up (something even win95 vs win3.1 wasn't).

To completely replace your installed user base I think Apple has shown a great way to do this. Yes, it can be costly and early versions get outdated quickly but with out this I don't think Apple would be where it is today. The iPod may be a hit but I don't think you would see mini's or Xserves being picked up if we had OS9.9 or a non-unix based system.

abe2
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

03/02, 10:49am | report spam | close Reply |
Expensive

The article is right, anything below 10.3 was basically rubbish and didn't step up to the performance of OS9 (and even missing some of its features), which you'd expect as an upgrade to an OS.

This is yet another reason people say the mac is expensive, and rightly so.

MhzDoesMatter
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

03/02, 10:52am | report spam | close Reply |
uh

...what?

Mac OS 10.4 didn't cost $400. It cost $129. You haven't been buying pieces of an OS. You've bought 3 separate operating systems. And no one is forcing your to buy any more. You still have the same functionality of each of those OS's that you had when you bought it. Apparently you thought each release was compelling enough to pay for.

And whats up with this story anyway?

Firstly, we are saying this is a good thing right? I'd think Apple "seriously outclassing" previous releases each time would mean nothing but improvement for most users. And what's with the whole Windows 2000 treatment? New software requires other software that wasn't around when this OS was created? Is this really that hard to believe? Or is the issue that Apple won't bolt what ever is necessary onto Puma, Cheetah, and Jaguar in a free upgrade, thus giving away the selling features of a newer OS that costs them more money to make?

Apple shouldn't have continued the X.X naming convention. It cause too much confusion in people thinking they're paying for a single iteration of an operating system 4 or five times.

mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie

Joined: Feb 2000

0

03/02, 11:00am | report spam | close Reply |
Are you at all surprised?

This is the only way Apple can compete IMHO. Apple essentially made a Windows 3.11 to windows XP jump in less then 5 years. The only way they could do it is by constantly innovating (and arguably burning some bridges along the way by quickly "killing" off old versions of OS X)

Apple doesn't have the resources to sit on a quasi-crippled OS for years like Microsoft can.

bobolicious
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

03/02, 11:15am | report spam | close Reply |
re: uh

Mac fans seem to be math challenged...?
$129 10.1 (non-beta HAH!)
$129 10.2
$129 10.3
$129 10.4 ?
$520 total

10.3 still has some very serious 'issues' - try moving 1500 contacts from ACT! (which Apple recommended/sold) /FaxSTF/Powertalk or the Mac Palm desktop software (formerly Apple's own Claris Organiser) to OS-X's address book/ical/mail/isync combo...

MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

03/02, 11:23am | report spam | close Reply |
Features = upgrade....

I know people still using OS 9.... they don't need OS X... for what they use their computer for, there is no need to upgrade. There are people in the Windows world that have upgraded from 3.1.... 95... 98... XP.... others that haven't. Personally I want to use the new iLife... so I will upgrade my OS whenever needed.. You want new features and programs... get the new OS.... if not.... then shutup and play on your OS 9.

rblanchette
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2002

0

03/02, 11:43am | report spam | close Reply |
Article seems pointless.

According to the article Windows users are upgrading far more frequently. Only 21 percent of them have an older OS versus nearly 50 percent of Mac users. What exactly is their point? It seems to me that they have disproved their own headline. If the Mac OS is obsolete quicker then why are nearly half the users still using it? Is it just me or is this article badly written?

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/02, 11:53am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: as I posted earlier

OS-X still has some critical little bugs like reversed surname entry from mail into address book, browser speed/compatability, isync/palm field mapping, etc. and with the importance of the web it amazes me that such essentials are not better executed...

I can't really fathom calling a bug 'little' and 'critical' at the same time, at least not in bug-importance terms. And I think Palm is responsible for their syncing, aren't they? (Don't know, don't use palms).

Of course browser compatibility is a tough subject, because if a site is written with IE in mind, it won't work. So do you want to add IE-compatibility bloat to the browser, making it even slower and heftier?

MacScientist
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2000

0

03/02, 11:53am | report spam | close Reply |
re: re: uh

bobolicious, Mac users are not math challenged. In fact this issue was addressed by MHzDoesMatter in his post. If you paid full price for each point release of MacOS X, you paid for four complete operating systems. If indeed you bought them, we must presume that you thought they were worth the price. Afterall, you did it four (4) times.

This is really a silly issue. At the outset of MacOS X, Steve Jobs told you that the foundation of Apple's new OS would allow much faster innovation than in the past. Apple is making good on Jobs's word.

SomeToast
Senior User

Joined: Jan 1999

0

03/02, 11:56am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: uh

Mac fans seem to be math challenged...?
$129 10.1 (non-beta HAH!)
$129 10.2
$129 10.3
$129 10.4 ?
$520 total

You forgot...
$99 9.0
$99 8.0
$99 System 7.6
$817 total

Then there was $5,000 for my IIcx with 4 meg of RAM, $1,499 for an iBook and finally $3,899 for a dual-GHz G4. Of course there's also the cable modem at $45/month for 3 1/2 years... Holy s***! That's over $13,000! I'm going over to the PC side where everything is free.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/02, 12:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: are you all surprised

This is the only way Apple can compete IMHO. Apple essentially made a Windows 3.11 to windows XP jump in less then 5 years. The only way they could do it is by constantly innovating (and arguably burning some bridges along the way by quickly "killing" off old versions of OS X)

Wow, gotta love the revisionist history. I could've sworn everyone said that when Windows 95 came out, it was finally getting to where OS 7 was at the time. Now OS 9 (not even 7) is considered on par with 3.11? Interesting. 3.11 was a 16-bit OS with no functional UI or standards that I recall (boy was that thing hideous!). OS 9 to X was more of a Windows 95/98/Me upgrade to XP, but with a different concept of backwards compatibility.

Of course backwards compatibility is what keeps Windows from being upgraded more often. The amount of effort needed to make sure those 10 year old word processors and 18,000 USB cards people use still work just adds up.

As for '5 years', thats kind of an understatement. Apple bought next in dec of 96, I believe, for the sole purpose of using it as the core of the next OS. It wasn't until 10.2 that OS X because usable (yes, its usable, because there's still lots of people who still use it vs. upgrading to 10.3), with the requisite drivers and infrastructure so certain obvious things like printing, scanning, etc. actually can work. And that came out in October 2003. So you've got close to 7 years there.

Stephane
Forum Regular

Joined: Sep 2001

0

03/02, 12:11pm | report spam | close Reply |
new upgrade cycle

The transition was rather quick from pre X oses to X because the jump was so enormous both in terms of system technology and in terms of egonomy. Now that the things settled a bit, the upgrade cycle has been slowed (see 10.4) : the X system is now mature.
In far less years used to go from Win 95 to XP, Apple successfully adopted a new OS (different architecture, different developers, different OS genetic, different users) to the point that OS X is now upgraded on a 18-24 months cycle.

Also retrocompatibility is far more true under OS X classic environment that it is under Windows : every new Mac still has the classic environment just in case and that's why I am still able to use XPress 4 without glitches (except GUI inconsistency).

trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

03/02, 12:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
BUT!!!

I understand the argument that you get new features with the new versions of the OS.

What about the beachball that made my system wait, and wait and was fixed in the 'upgrades'. I upgraded to get the spinning beachball fixed (and it was).

The issue is should I have to pay to essentially get bug fixes/cleaner code?

In Canada, the upgrades are $199, so it's not $540 ($860?) so it really hurts.(Basically a third of the cost of a Mac Mini ($629), so maybe better off buying a new computer each time instead? ;-)

I almost like the Windows way of doing things as it does take longer to come out with new Operating systems, but your commodity computers last longer as developers are forced to work with what they have! ... may not be such a bad thing!

trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

03/02, 12:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
re:new upgrade cycle

Also retrocompatibility is far more true under OS X classic environment that it is under Windows : every new Mac still has the classic environment just in case and that's why I am still able to use XPress 4 without glitches (except GUI inconsistency).

Funny, In some instances I'm more compatable with earlier versions of the OS (8/9), than with earlier versions of OS X!

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

03/02, 12:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
no upgrade = free

the fact that nearly 50% of the mac base still uses OS 9 is proof that you don't HAVE to upgrade.

Personally I'd prefer to pay $129 per year and keep current.

But to each his own. I have a good friend, a great mac user, that is that 'near 50%' group. Runs OS 9.2 on a beige g3/233.

No need to upgrade when you keep the software version, hardware, and everything else the same.

He will upgrade though (these are real apple customers)

He'll jump on the mac mini bandwagon after tiger is pre-installed...and then it'll be another 5 year wait before he spends a dime, I bet ya.

Deal
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Apr 2001

0

03/02, 01:01pm | report spam | close Reply |
Eager to get

I am always eager to get the OPTION to upgrade my OS with a newer version with newer functionality.

If I didn't like having the option, I'd stick with XP.

:)

redwood
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2003

0

03/02, 01:14pm | report spam | close Reply |
USB support in windows

It should be noted that the most stable windows release before windows 2000s or XP was Windows NT. Many companies are just now getting off Windows NT and that never had USB support either. I didn't see Redmond going back to add USB to Windows NT because it was stable..... no, they want you to buy XP.

This article is just pure FUD. Yes, it sucks that we pay for OSes over and over again, but that's computing, nothing stands still. If you don't like it, live with being out-of-date. You can't be cutting edge without spending your hard earned dollars. So quit yer whinnnnnnning.

sadmachine
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/02, 01:27pm | report spam | close Reply |
2 things

There are 2 issues tha have not been considered here at all.

1) Mac users replace their computers less often than PC users. When you buy a new computer, you get the most recent OS. So obiously, less PC users will have outdated OS's.

2) Since Apple makes the hardware and software, it has full control of how they work together. Therefore developing the OS is much more simple and efficient. Microsoft has their work cut out for them. They have to develop an OS that will work on thousands of different computer brands and configurations.

I agree that the article is futile. I use Panther (10.3) on my almost 5-year-old Mac. Yeah it's slower than 9.6 that it came with, but that's to be expected. Try running XP Pro on a 5-year-old PC and you'll get a slow system with less features.

fluk3
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2004

0

03/02, 01:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
Sigh

When you buy a new mac (since 10.1) you get the OS for free. So if you bought a mac at 10.1 or 10.2 it did not cost you $129.

10.1 was a FREE (as in beer) upgrade to 10.0 users I know because I got it that way. Local resellers handed out free 10.1 upgrade discs.

The rapid development of the OS was due to the fact that it was almost completely new when it was at 10.0 - not an 'update' or 'upgrade' to 9. (yes I know OSX uses parts of BSD and NEXT which were not new, but you understand much if not most of 10.0 was essentially brand new).

There were plenty of updates to 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 that were free (x.x.8).

Nobody was forced to upgrade at any time. If you "wanted' the new features in an upgrade, you pay for them.

Apple has already announced that after 10.4 they will slow the upgrade cycle significantly.

This is such a non issue. This story is flame-bait.

ibugv4
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

03/02, 02:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
flame bait it is

The "other half" of the mac people are upgrade-a-holics. They must stay trendy and keep feeding their need to live vicariously though their hardware. As such, they are what fuels the low low cost of used G4s and G5s on eBay, and keeps Apple floating with their impulsive spending. I was a member of this category (still could be when talking iPods, I love my shuffle).. but I'm now a part of the "b" column.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/02, 03:17pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: but

What about the beachball that made my system wait, and wait and was fixed in the 'upgrades'. I upgraded to get the spinning beachball fixed (and it was).

Well, who says that's a bug. Just because its slow doesn't mean its needs fixing. Anyway, there's still people who get the beachball in 10.3 (esp with networking), so Apple still has a ways to go on that one.

As for the $520, bobolicicious, it really is $400, because no one's bought 10.4 yet. Plus I know I got 10.3 for $100, and I think 10.2 cost that much as well (buying on-line is so much fun).

To fluk3, who said When you buy a new mac (since 10.1) you get the OS for free. So if you bought a mac at 10.1 or 10.2 it did not cost you $129.

I bought an iMac for my mother back in 2001 or so, in July, and it came with OS X in the box (10.0). I think apple was including it with new computers almost when it shipped (although it was either not installed or set up with OS 9 the primary OS).

RobertMac
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2005

0

03/02, 03:39pm | report spam | close Reply |
You want me to upgrade?

I'm already running the highest version of the Mac OS for my WallStreet which Steve Jobs is willing to publish -- Jaguar.

If Apple wants me to spend money on an upgraded operating system, they're going to have to make one which is compatible with the Mac I already own!

Please, I know about XPostFacto. I want real support, not a kludge.

Tongo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

03/02, 03:44pm | report spam | close Reply |
FUD

This all is so much FUD. I run OS8.6 in a production workflow at a printing company. No need to upgrade hardware or software and they still outperform the latest Windows boxes. And they have USB, so I don't know what that was about. Oh - USB2.0. Okay. So what? Firewire is ginch, too (and my new iPod plugged into my ancient OS8 as a hard drive without any additional drivers - that's class, IMO).

And I run OS9.1 on an original iBook at home. Still runs well enough, still does it's job, and my only complaint is the battery no longer holds a charge for 5 hours like it used to. Go figure. It's FIVE years old.

I even got a Powermac with a 3rd party G3 card installed, running OS9.1, too. It's more than five years old, and I keep it around because I still use it from time to time. It's slow and crashes, true; but it runs and runs and runs with all the software I've gotten for it over the years. Great place to keep my archive of old files and old applications, as well as a second auto-processing machine if I want to free up any of the others.

Then there's my shiny iMac, one of the original flat-panel type. I bought OSX 10.3 for it...but haven't installed it yet. I will when I have the inclination; for all that I have no complaints about 10.2. $130 is totally worth it for the new features, but I'm not salivating to get them running...just plan to when I feel like it.

Every single upgrade for the OS I've gone thru, which seems like many if not a lot, have been 100% worth their cost - both in purchase price and in time/headache involved getting them upgraded. I have saved my company tens of thousands of countless dollars by keeping a streamlined 8.6 system, avoiding support and upgrade costs, and keep apps running and still able to grow the system to meet the new demands of our business. Who would have thought that FileMaker web server could do all it does - I beat the dot-Net freaks to the punch every time. Maybe not as massive, but for in-house automation, data serving, and 90% everything graphic art I've got it covered.

I've had countless hours of fun, learning, and profit with my home machine on every iteration of OSX and all the hardware and software before and in between. I hear lots about the horrors of version 10.1 or 10.2 or whatever. I don't see it. There may be occasional problems along the way - but nothing has ever been a show stopper.

Fact is, I've never seen a Windows box or OS that has been so useful for so long, or so cheap to maintain and upgrade (remember, cost is more than dollars - it's also time and stress).

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/02, 03:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: 2 things

1) Mac users replace their computers less often than PC users. When you buy a new computer, you get the most recent OS. So obiously, less PC users will have outdated OS's.

This actually is a minus, not a plus, for the Mac. Windows users who upgrade aren't getting a newer version of the OS, they're getting the same version they had (going on the theory they're upgrading every 1-2 years).

Plus, the reason Mac users don't upgrade as much isn't because their machines are still 'useful' and all that c***. They don't upgrade because they forked over so much money on the first that they either can't afford to update, or want to eke out as much time on their current one so they don't feel like they wasted their money. Adding on $100+ a year for OS updates only makes it more painful.

2) Since Apple makes the hardware and software, it has full control of how they work together. Therefore developing the OS is much more simple and efficient. Microsoft has their work cut out for them. They have to develop an OS that will work on thousands of different computer brands and configurations.

And yet Apple still can't fix some of the basic bugs, like getting the Finder to actually be consistent (I'm not one of those 'OS 9/spatial finder or bust' zealots, but it would be nice if, for example, I set a folder to calculate folder sizes, that the setting actually hold for more than 5 minutes. Or that if I change the view of a folder and click the "all windows" button on the view options, the changes to the column sizes/positions actually hold).

ecrelin
Junior Member

Joined: Oct 2000

0

03/02, 04:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
apples to, well, oranges�

Its not FUD its a smokescreen. There is no real comparison. I have several 233 iMacs (7 year old machine!) running 10.3.8, if I bought a Dell with Win 9x I would've had to buy a new machine to have a new OS, let's do that math shall we?
To the beachball brain, wallstreet PB OS X beta - 10.2 no beachballs, no kernel panics, if you knew how to use your Mac you shouldn't have beachballs.
Many happy users with OS 9 and older who is forcing anyone to do anything?
Computing is getting SO much cheaper every year. If you have a 5 year old OS 9 mac buy a mini, 10.3.8 and an a** kicking machine (smokes many a G4 tower in everyway but slots) for $500-$600, I like that math.
There is NO issue here, when I went from 512KE to SE to SE30 in in four years at $3000. - $5000. a pop (RAM was a little pricey then), and then PB170 - PB 540 - Lombard in nine years at $4500. a pop, I'm ecstatic that my 1 year and 5 month old 17" 1.25Ghz PB, 1 Gb RAM, wireless, bluetooth et al came for $3000. to my door and will last me for a long time to come. See a pattern? Macs are lasting longer (and now getting cheaper), back then the OS was free, Apple made a lot on hardware, that's changing, margins on machine are pretty thin and now they get revenue from the software.
Well there may be minor bugs and Tiger will only run on G4s and up but its still more stable and less buggy than anything that a certain software-only company with the world's largest number of developers on the payroll has EVER put out.
$129 to moderize your old computer and you're whining? I can see Mr. Powers, there is no pleasing you. Personally I'll take the bong and the blintz, my Mac and the newest OS X any day of the week.

technohedz
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2000

0

03/02, 05:21pm | report spam | close Reply |
ROI

The ROI argument is getting ridiculous. Macs just don't cost that much anymore. Try buying something other than a computer. Consider an iBook. It works, it comes with a modern os, is portable, has build in buzzwords, and costs under a grand. There are a lot of those in distribution. People will upgrade if they want to, not because they dented their wallet on that machine. WIth the mac mini ROI retention becomes ludicrous. You still get the ROI, but you end up w/ multiple computers because you might just want one in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, office, and your car. I upgraded all the way, but some of my machines are still running 10.2.8. The last thing I'm going to do is complain about available upgrades to the OS. Also, there are things called family packs that save you a bunch of money so a lot of those upgrades didn't cost that much. Apple hasn't foisted some junk off on us and made us pay for it. Each upgrade has been an expensive work for Apple and it works for us. There is this thing called R&D.

The article is FUD because the only possibly significant argument that be detrimental to Apple's upgrade strategy is the cost of upgrading THIRD PARTY applications. That's the only thing that's a killer. But hey, feed the trolls. There has to be something to whine about that isn't perfect right? I mean...damn that M$ stock is doing so great. I'm glad at least our OS is made in the US and designed in California.

sadmachine
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/02, 05:31pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: 2 things

1) Stupid argument. So what if Windows users are still getting the same OS they had from 1-2 yrs ago, it's STILL THE LATEST. Your argument only validates my point. Mac users don't upgrade because their machines don't break after 1-2 years! AND yes, that means they are still useful.

2) If you want to nitpick, fine. It's not perfect, but it's the best. Would you ever trade OSX for any other OS?

Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Oct 2001

0

03/02, 06:43pm | report spam | close Reply |
It not just OS upgrades..

It's that many of the latest programs (iLife, etc.) require the latest OS. Want iChatAV? Gotta have Panther.

I don't see the big problem with OS upgrades. Apple is making the computing experience better faster than Microsoft and so-Long-horn.
FUD indeed.

ff11
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

03/02, 11:03pm | report spam | close Reply |
Testudo

I couldn't disagree with you more on reasons to upgrade. Why on earth would you upgrade your OS if the old OS was doing everything you wanted? I have paid a total of about $120 for OS X, because frankly I was quite happy with OS 9. I finally upgraded at X 10.2 because by then there were some programs that I wanted to use that would not run under OS 9. I got 10.3 with a new computer because I found Expose to be a compelling and powerful new feature (I had wanted to upgrade my computer, and knew that the new OS would be coming out in a few months, so I waited on the new computer until the OS was announced and got it for $20 when it was released). There is simply no reason to upgrade to EVERY new release the day it is released, any more than it would be to buy a new car every single year. But if the new OS makes a significant improvement to your user experience and has powerful new features, then it may well be worth the price. In the end, if it's worth it to you, buy it. Otherwise no one is forcing you. Apple certainly didn't force anyone to buy 10.0 or 10.1.

Regarding your comment about the little bugs you find in OS X, I wish there WAS such a thing as the perfect OS. Unfortunately there isn't, but IMHO OS X, as imperfect as it is (and I agree there are some flaws), is the closest thing to it (try using the search function in Windows some time to actually FIND a file you KNOW is there!)

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

03/02, 11:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: 2 things

1) Stupid argument. So what if Windows users are still getting the same OS they had from 1-2 yrs ago, it's STILL THE LATEST. Your argument only validates my point. Mac users don't upgrade because their machines don't break after 1-2 years! AND yes, that means they are still useful.

Actually, there still seems to be a flaw in your argument. If the OS doesn't get updated for 3 years, why bother getting a new computer. Theoretically, you'd think mac users would be buying more macs, because they'd need faster/bigger machines to run the latest software. But if I bought a PC in 2002 with XP on it, I should be able to use it until 2007, at the least, when Longhorn comes out, right?

PC users don't upgrade every 1-2 years to get new OSes. But they don't do it either because they 'break' after 1-2 years. They do it because they want faster/better, and they can afford to because you can get a decent PC (even from the likes of Dell) for less then a grand (which was much easier in the PC world because, before the mini, you couldn't just get a mac and keep your display and other stuff, because you'd need to spend $1500+ just to get a new computer sans monitor).

All you Mac-zealots can pretend that Macs somehow manage to stay up and running for 10 years, but PCs are worthless after 2, but that's just c***. There's still a huge percent of PCs running Windows 95 or 98, which means your talking 6-10 year old computers, still humming along for users, just like those who say they still run Mac OS 8 or 9 without issue.

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

03/02, 11:22pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: apples to...

To the beachball brain, wallstreet PB OS X beta - 10.2 no beachballs, no kernel panics, if you knew how to use your Mac you shouldn't have beachballs.

OK, could you please explain to us how we should be using our mac's correctly, since we apparently don't know what we're doing if we're seeing beachballs. Maybe we should use networking.... Oh, I know, we made the mistake of logging in to the Finder. I bet if we booted up in single user mode, we'd never see a beachball. That's it, isn't it? Thanks for the tip!

z10n
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2003

0

03/04, 06:31pm | report spam | close Reply |
Personally

I think it's quite annoying how many times OS X has been updated where the release quickly broke or made obsolete existing software. I understand apple is dealing with a new OS, and it takes some time for an OS to become stable, blah, blah, blah. Still, the rate of releases pretty much tells me two things:

1) Apple did not take the time and effort required to properly design OS X before the original release. This was evident if anyone remembers the first designs of Aqua, where apple was doing stupid UI things like putting an apple logo in the center of the menu bar, which when clicked, did absolutely nothing. Thus newer releases are required to "fix" poorly planned UI decisions, as well as impliment missing features.

2) Apple knows that mac users are upgrade freaks. In the windows world, people don't upgrade that much because microsoft typically screws everything up with their upgrades. Mac users are used to sitting on the doorstep outside the Apple Store on the day of a new OS release and installing it as soon as they get home. Thus, it makes more financial sense for apple to make more releases and market every release as the next best thing since sliced bread, since most mac users will believe them.

Sorry guys, but that's how I see it. OS X is a great OS, and in many ways apple has impressed me with what they've done with it. Still, I have no problem faulting apple for some of their more obvious mistakes. They should have designed OS X not only for rapid progress but also with scaleablity.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple hiring new chip engineers for...
05/25	Third-gen iPad coming to Philippines...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/25	Apple to integrate Baidu search into...
05/25	Google picks up webOS Enyo team, Open...
05/24	Apple submits surprise optical stylus...
05/24	Yahoo releases Axis 'visual search'...

Show All

05/25	Sotheby to auction Jobs Atari memo,...
05/23	Google launches redesigned Search app...
05/22	Leaked next-gen iPod touch part hints...
05/22	Hulu Plus updates with iPad Retina...
05/22	TiVo Stream to push TV to iPhones,...

Show All

03/02	Save $330 on refurb. 15.4-inch, 2.4GHz...
03/01	Pre-owned 8GB iPod touch 2G, drops...
02/29	$150 off Nikon Coolpix S80 Compact...
02/28	Plantronics BackBeat 903 Bluetooth...
02/27	Refurb. Seagate 1.5TB GoFlex Portable...

Show All

toggle

Apple makes old operating systems obsolete quickly

updated 10:10 am EST, Wed March 2, 2005

Mac OS updates

Related Articles

Recent Articles

As I posted earlier...

Half empty.

worth upgrade cost

Expensive

uh

Are you at all surprised?

re: uh

Features = upgrade....

Article seems pointless.

Re: as I posted earlier

re: re: uh

Re: uh

Re: are you all surprised

new upgrade cycle

BUT!!!

re:new upgrade cycle

no upgrade = free

Eager to get

USB support in windows

2 things

Sigh

flame bait it is

Re: but

You want me to upgrade?

FUD

Re: 2 things

apples to, well, oranges�

ROI

Re: 2 things

It not just OS upgrades..

Testudo

Re: 2 things

Re: apples to...

Personally

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace