I definitely concur - I am finally starting to recommend the 'upgrade' from OS-9 after 3 years of exasperation - critical density of OS-9 features now exists & many new ones are compelling... My only regret is that I jumped in so soon - I think MS actually has the right idea - wait long enough to have things worked out - the law of diminishing returns now applies to Mac OS, which could actually still learn a lot from XP functionality & features such as system restore...

Mac OS-X is actually a $387 US OS if one has kept 'up to date', which compares to XP, but it has set the bar higher in many areas, and is stunningly beautiful in comparison...

And DOS 1-6 + Windows 1-XP is how much? What's with the stupid comparisons? If OS X met your needs at 10.0 and you wanted to be on the bleed edge of what was known to be an incomplete OS (even publicly so by Apple) then good for you. If Jag or Panther justified the price to you then great. If not, why are you complaining.

Every year car makers release new cars. People don't go out and buy the new model just because it's there, they buy it because the difference between what they have and the new model are compelling enough to justify the price. Nobody complains each time Ford or GM release a new car.

Apple has had an amazing release cycle. 10.1 was great and a vast improvement on OS 9 even though it was slower. 10.2 was much better all round and 10.3 is better still. Along the way they've introduced all sorts of new technology like hand writing recognition, better universal access and heaps of new features for programmers to take advantage of like web kit.

For me the huge improvements in each new version were compelling enough to buy. It was like 10.0 being a 1912 car, 10.1 being a 1940 Ford Coupe, 10.2 was like a 1967 Corvette and 10.3 is like an F40 Ferrari. We are seeing truly generational changes under the hood so quite the complaining, it makes you like much less intelligent than I'm sure you actually are.

Now there's hope for 10.2.9. Apple should 'fully support' every Mac OS X release for at least 2 years!

10.0 = Wasn't worth the trouble
10.1 = Okay, maybe I'll consider it
10.2 = Time to learn Mac OS X
10.3 = Mac OS X is really good
10.4 = ????? Must have OS!!!
10.5 = Well, 10.4 is good enough...

Well I remember 10.0 - for a bublic BETA you'd think there might be an uninstall or restore option...

Then there was 10.1 - it couldn't even import my OE email group addresses & drivers were still lacking for many, many peripherals - so it wasn't particularly useful for much beyond starting from scratch - that wouldn't seem to define 'upgrade'...

Enter 10.2 with GIMP - at least we could hobble together a working system - hardly intuitive or easy - but starting to show promise - still lacking basic OS-9 features like file labels & networking seemed quite quirky...

Panther finally has me going 'woh' more than 'doh!'

The marketeers at Apple were claiming 'panachea' & non-beta from 10.1, as I recall... So when one pays for a non-beta OS what should one be willing to put up with? Hmmm Apple has had it's fans... Many I suspect with rose colored glasses on...

I'm finally falling back into the fold, but it has been a while, and costly...

"People don't go out and buy the new model just because it's there, they buy it because the difference between what they have and the new model are compelling enough to justify the price. Nobody complains each time Ford or GM release a new car."

While you may be correct in that people shouldn't be driven to always upgrade their software or expect free upgrades, I disagree somewhat with your analyogy. First of all, most car models do not change much from year to year, and the expense of buying a new car is so great that it makes "upgrading" on a regular basis impractical for most people. It used to be that you could easily tell the difference between say, a 1948 and 1949 Chevy. It's not like that any more: most of the time the new model is hardly different at all.

Whereas in the computing world, things change at a blinding pace. Example: several years ago we didn't even have Mac OS X, and now we have an extremely powerful version of it. Since the computer world is so fast paced, I would argue that the ability to stay current factors into people's understanding of their return on investment when they buy a product. I typically will not buy from a software company if reviews state that developers refuse to upgrade the program on a regular basis or neglect to offer upgrade pricing for newer versions of their software. I don't think I'm alone in this, and I also don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. Also, there's a difference between saying current with the operating system vs just a regular software program. The operating system is the basis for your computer, and many times programs rely on that basis for new functionality. If you want the new functionality, you "have" to buy the OS upgrade.

Your point is valid, that people are irrational with this desire. Many times, you really don't NEED the upgrade as much as companies try to make you think you do. But who ever said people are rational?

New operating system upgrades are more like automotive accessories or fuel enhancements than new vehicles. The "driving experience" is improved/expanded but it's still your same car.