Guess I should have made one thing more clear in my original post. Apple stripping features from the OS is what created a lot of the current bugs. Try taking any software and dropping major features and subsets of the code out of it and see what problems it will create. From a programatic standpoint, Apple keeping its "secrets" under wraps is THE major reason that we see the bugs in the developer releases.
Yes it does. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for their OS upgrades. XP was released in 2001 and that license could be upgraded to SP2 and beyond cost free. Apple charges ~US$129 for each upgrade. Cheetah was released in 2001 as well and each subsequent upgrade (Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger) requires a new license (with the exceptions mentioned by others above). So if I bought a Mac with Cheetah and skipped Puma I would still have paid ~US$400 for the other three upgrades vs zero for the XP upgrades. I'm not defending Microsoft, just pointing out the truth.
You are pointing out what you think is the truth.
What you are forgetting, and others here are as well in their replies, is that Vista is two years late. Almost two and a half, actually.
In fact, almost all of MS's OS's have been late. Some others by years as well.
XP was almost a year late. Windows 2000, which was supposed to be out in 1998 was originally to be called Windows NT 5. But, to get people's minds off the delays, had its name changed. 98 was almost a year late, and was considered to be no more than an upgrade to 95 by those in the industry, which was itself 6 months late.
Basically, if MS had come out with all of the OS's since Windows 3.1 (which itself took 6 years from ver. 1 to become useful) on time, Vista would have come out sometime in 2002, and we would have seen two more major releases (and paid for them) since then. Ballmer has already said that MS will no longer do so much in one upgrade, and that we should expect to see new ones closer to two to two and a half years apart?as they wanted this one to be.
How much would you have paid then, over this time?
[?] But, to get people's minds off the delays, had its name changed. 98 was almost a year late, and was considered to be no more than an upgrade to 95 by those in the industry, which was itself 6 months late. [?]
Heh? if anything, ?98 was considered a downgrade. Not in terms of claimed functionality?it featured several very interesting new ideas?but in terms of stability and reliability. Along with ME, ?98 First Edition was one of the most embarrassing things ever to come out of Microsoft. How did they solve the problem? With Windows ?98 SE, a paid upgrade.
Heh? if anything, ?98 was considered a downgrade. Not in terms of claimed functionality?it featured several very interesting new ideas?but in terms of stability and reliability. Along with ME, ?98 First Edition was one of the most embarrassing things ever to come out of Microsoft. How did they solve the problem? With Windows ?98 SE, a paid upgrade.
And yet, 98 first edition is what I'm typing on at work right now.
I was in COSTCO with my financee picking up the toilet paper, soap, and GIGANTIC size doritos. On my way in the store I saw their laptop display and FINALLY got to play with VISTA a little bit.
I'm shocked that there has been so much hype. I actually found it to be a bit more confusing that XP and never did figure out how to do the window stacking.
I liked the new desktop icons (more apple-like). I hated the WIDGETS or GADGETS or whatever they were calling it... and the search feature was still pretty sluggish (faster than XP, but compared to OS X).
I guess I can see why people do not feel the necessity to upgrade. I just hope we take our time. I'm in no HURRY for the new OS X features (also not ready to upgrade my 3rd party software), and you don't want to ship it without knowing it's going to be flawless.
This new "WATCH ME" automator program sounds promising though.
My Theory - I'm sure there are a lot of issues and problems in the stripped down, feature barren releases that Apple is letting outside of its doors. Remember that this is the same company that is so guarded about its secrets that it created fake iPhone prototypes to throw off partners and people inside the company while developing that product. Leopard isn't any different. Steve Jobs has already said that there are these "top secret" features to the new OS and we've not seen any of those - indicating to me that they're stripping these from the beta software that they're giving to developers. I'm sure there is another set of code around the Cupertino campus which includes the full set of features and probably a lot less bugs. I could be wrong, but that's my theory. 8)
I think you're wrong. While I'm quite sure there are two versions of Leopard hanging around, I highly doubt the one Apple is releasing to developers is the least buggy of the two. Any fixes Apple has made to the code is folded into the devleoper release (minus the secrets.) Now, if some features are inoperable (I don't consider this buggy, but turned off) it may be because they are related to the secret features.
Apple has every reason to send the developers the latest fixes to the bugs. Any programmer knows that a bug fix must instantly be checked to make sure the fix didn't break something else.
Sorry, but a buggy pre-release means a buggy pre-release.
Yes it does. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for their OS upgrades. XP was released in 2001 and that license could be upgraded to SP2 and beyond cost free. Apple charges ~US$129 for each upgrade. Cheetah was released in 2001 as well and each subsequent upgrade (Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger) requires a new license (with the exceptions mentioned by others above). So if I bought a Mac with Cheetah and skipped Puma I would still have paid ~US$400 for the other three upgrades vs zero for the XP upgrades. I'm not defending Microsoft, just pointing out the truth.
Time and time again I've read posts that argue that OS X point releases are like "Service Packs" and should be free or whatever. Its now got to the point that I feel the need to post on it (sorry if this is off-topic):
How many of you know the windows version numbers? (sure you know the marketing names such as "Windows XP", equivalent to "OS X Tiger", but clearly the actual version numbers for windows are not well known)
DOS Based:
95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
NT Based:
NT 4 = 4.0
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
Server 2003 = 5.2
Vista = 6.0
Get the point? LOL
Vista is the first new version since Win 2000. XP was a mere point release along with 98, ME and Server 03, none of them were free and none of them were labelled "service packs". Microsoft also charge for point releases, thats my point.
How is this possible? TS still maintains that a late March release for Leopard is probably on schedule. I just cannot swallow this. It is just about three weeks until then. What about the so called "secret features"? A bad S. Jobs farce? I just don't get it.
Could it be remotely possible that the bugs in the current developer versions are actually mostly caused by the "top secret" features being stripped out from the internal apple version?
If possible, this could explain the discrepancy between the end-of march rumors and the bugginess of current developer versions....
Could it be remotely possible that the bugs in the current developer versions are actually mostly caused by the "top secret" features being stripped out from the internal apple version?
It does not makes sense. The developer does not receive a buggy build just to laugh at how buggy it is. Apple cannot ask for developer assistance about bugs created artificially because they hide features. This would be like making fun and messing around with developers. Not fun at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear
If possible, this could explain the discrepancy between the end-of march rumors and the bugginess of current developer versions....
It does not makes sense. The developer does not receive a buggy build just to laugh at how buggy it is. Apple cannot ask for developer assistance about bugs created artificially because they hide features.
Does apple actually ask for developer assistence??
I believe betatesting of osX is done in-house at apple, where the whole leopard (ie with all top-secret stuff) is being tested. The sole purpose of the developer-previews would then be for developers to test THEIR OWN code against osX. That would mean that as long as all necessary bits that interact with developer code are working, these builds are actually just fine for developers. Bugs in other parts would not really matter.
Comments
I hope a dark glossy theme is one of the secret features!!!!
I hope a dark glossy theme is one of the secret features!!!!
Uh, that's Vista.
Uh, that's Vista.
I believe that is what (s)he was getting it.
I believe that is what (s)he was getting it.
I assumed the iPhone. It also has a black glossy interface.
No it hasn't. They said Spring '07, which ends in June.
No. The original statement by Jobs was for around the end of 2006, beginning of 2007. Later, they changed it to spring, 2007.
Guess I should have made one thing more clear in my original post. Apple stripping features from the OS is what created a lot of the current bugs. Try taking any software and dropping major features and subsets of the code out of it and see what problems it will create. From a programatic standpoint, Apple keeping its "secrets" under wraps is THE major reason that we see the bugs in the developer releases.
You're making that up.
No, he's not.
Yes it does. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for their OS upgrades. XP was released in 2001 and that license could be upgraded to SP2 and beyond cost free. Apple charges ~US$129 for each upgrade. Cheetah was released in 2001 as well and each subsequent upgrade (Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger) requires a new license (with the exceptions mentioned by others above). So if I bought a Mac with Cheetah and skipped Puma I would still have paid ~US$400 for the other three upgrades vs zero for the XP upgrades. I'm not defending Microsoft, just pointing out the truth.
You are pointing out what you think is the truth.
What you are forgetting, and others here are as well in their replies, is that Vista is two years late. Almost two and a half, actually.
In fact, almost all of MS's OS's have been late. Some others by years as well.
XP was almost a year late. Windows 2000, which was supposed to be out in 1998 was originally to be called Windows NT 5. But, to get people's minds off the delays, had its name changed. 98 was almost a year late, and was considered to be no more than an upgrade to 95 by those in the industry, which was itself 6 months late.
Basically, if MS had come out with all of the OS's since Windows 3.1 (which itself took 6 years from ver. 1 to become useful) on time, Vista would have come out sometime in 2002, and we would have seen two more major releases (and paid for them) since then. Ballmer has already said that MS will no longer do so much in one upgrade, and that we should expect to see new ones closer to two to two and a half years apart?as they wanted this one to be.
How much would you have paid then, over this time?
[?] But, to get people's minds off the delays, had its name changed. 98 was almost a year late, and was considered to be no more than an upgrade to 95 by those in the industry, which was itself 6 months late. [?]
Heh? if anything, ?98 was considered a downgrade. Not in terms of claimed functionality?it featured several very interesting new ideas?but in terms of stability and reliability. Along with ME, ?98 First Edition was one of the most embarrassing things ever to come out of Microsoft. How did they solve the problem? With Windows ?98 SE, a paid upgrade.
Heh? if anything, ?98 was considered a downgrade. Not in terms of claimed functionality?it featured several very interesting new ideas?but in terms of stability and reliability. Along with ME, ?98 First Edition was one of the most embarrassing things ever to come out of Microsoft. How did they solve the problem? With Windows ?98 SE, a paid upgrade.
And yet, 98 first edition is what I'm typing on at work right now.
HAlong with ME, ?98 First Edition was one of the most embarrassing things ever to come out of Microsoft.
Windows ME? What is this? AppleInsider or the Friday night horror film?
I'm shocked that there has been so much hype. I actually found it to be a bit more confusing that XP and never did figure out how to do the window stacking.
I liked the new desktop icons (more apple-like). I hated the WIDGETS or GADGETS or whatever they were calling it... and the search feature was still pretty sluggish (faster than XP, but compared to OS X).
I guess I can see why people do not feel the necessity to upgrade. I just hope we take our time. I'm in no HURRY for the new OS X features (also not ready to upgrade my 3rd party software), and you don't want to ship it without knowing it's going to be flawless.
This new "WATCH ME" automator program sounds promising though.
This new "WATCH ME" automator program sounds promising though.
What are you talking about?
My Theory - I'm sure there are a lot of issues and problems in the stripped down, feature barren releases that Apple is letting outside of its doors. Remember that this is the same company that is so guarded about its secrets that it created fake iPhone prototypes to throw off partners and people inside the company while developing that product. Leopard isn't any different. Steve Jobs has already said that there are these "top secret" features to the new OS and we've not seen any of those - indicating to me that they're stripping these from the beta software that they're giving to developers. I'm sure there is another set of code around the Cupertino campus which includes the full set of features and probably a lot less bugs. I could be wrong, but that's my theory. 8)
I think you're wrong. While I'm quite sure there are two versions of Leopard hanging around, I highly doubt the one Apple is releasing to developers is the least buggy of the two. Any fixes Apple has made to the code is folded into the devleoper release (minus the secrets.) Now, if some features are inoperable (I don't consider this buggy, but turned off) it may be because they are related to the secret features.
Apple has every reason to send the developers the latest fixes to the bugs. Any programmer knows that a bug fix must instantly be checked to make sure the fix didn't break something else.
Sorry, but a buggy pre-release means a buggy pre-release.
Yes it does. Microsoft doesn't charge anything for their OS upgrades. XP was released in 2001 and that license could be upgraded to SP2 and beyond cost free. Apple charges ~US$129 for each upgrade. Cheetah was released in 2001 as well and each subsequent upgrade (Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger) requires a new license (with the exceptions mentioned by others above). So if I bought a Mac with Cheetah and skipped Puma I would still have paid ~US$400 for the other three upgrades vs zero for the XP upgrades. I'm not defending Microsoft, just pointing out the truth.
Time and time again I've read posts that argue that OS X point releases are like "Service Packs" and should be free or whatever. Its now got to the point that I feel the need to post on it (sorry if this is off-topic):
How many of you know the windows version numbers? (sure you know the marketing names such as "Windows XP", equivalent to "OS X Tiger", but clearly the actual version numbers for windows are not well known)
DOS Based:
95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
NT Based:
NT 4 = 4.0
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
Server 2003 = 5.2
Vista = 6.0
Get the point? LOL
Vista is the first new version since Win 2000. XP was a mere point release along with 98, ME and Server 03, none of them were free and none of them were labelled "service packs". Microsoft also charge for point releases, thats my point.
Could it be remotely possible that the bugs in the current developer versions are actually mostly caused by the "top secret" features being stripped out from the internal apple version?
If possible, this could explain the discrepancy between the end-of march rumors and the bugginess of current developer versions....
Just throwing this out for the experts here:
Could it be remotely possible that the bugs in the current developer versions are actually mostly caused by the "top secret" features being stripped out from the internal apple version?
It does not makes sense. The developer does not receive a buggy build just to laugh at how buggy it is. Apple cannot ask for developer assistance about bugs created artificially because they hide features. This would be like making fun and messing around with developers. Not fun at all.
If possible, this could explain the discrepancy between the end-of march rumors and the bugginess of current developer versions....
I believe TS for some reason is misleading.
It does not makes sense. The developer does not receive a buggy build just to laugh at how buggy it is. Apple cannot ask for developer assistance about bugs created artificially because they hide features.
Does apple actually ask for developer assistence??
I believe betatesting of osX is done in-house at apple, where the whole leopard (ie with all top-secret stuff) is being tested. The sole purpose of the developer-previews would then be for developers to test THEIR OWN code against osX. That would mean that as long as all necessary bits that interact with developer code are working, these builds are actually just fine for developers. Bugs in other parts would not really matter.