Originally posted by AmorphHeh. Apple could always do what the FreeBSD guys do, and put a feature-frozen build of the OS out in the wild for five years of testing and bug fixing before calling it stable.
We'd all be able to look forward to OS X 10.0 stable this time next year! Yay! \
That's actually not as funny as you think it is.
When mainframe OS's and the OS's for personal computers, as well as the hardware is compared, the reasons given for the incredible stability and reliabiliy of the former as compared to the latter is that very fact of continous upgrades, low prices, and poor testing on the pc side.
Really now, do we NEED a new OS every 12 to 18 months or so? Do we really NEED a new computer every 12 months or so? Or is it that we merely WANT a new one?
How many people get a new machine sooner than every 2, 3, or even 4 or more years? Business would be just as happy if they never had to upgrade. As long as their competitors couldn't either.
The manufactures have to stay in business, so they constantly upgrade. Growth, growth, growth.
But would it be so bad for the user if we could keep our machines and OS's for five years, and then upgrade to something MUCH better. Something that had been tested and reworked so that it was actually what it was supposed to be?
Not as much fun, no doubt, but certainly better.