Apple simultaneously developing several Mac OS X updates - Page 2

I agree, frequent updates aren't a bad thing. Yet they aren't neccessarily a good thing either.

Granted, it does cost apple to finalize each releasable version. Fewer versions means that they can spend more time eliminating buggy minutia from each free upgrade. However, it also means that bugs will go longer before a patch is available to the public.

I would tend to characterize Apples track record as good and I am not on the quality-crisis bandwagon. There have certainly been major flaws in Apple OS releases and upgrades. Yet compared to the industry as a whole, Apples upgrades have been quite good. This isnt much consolation to those who lost data in the firewire drive disaster, but this type of problem should be put in perspective.

Is a user of an apple machine more or less likely to suffer lost data and time than if they were running another OS? I tend to be of the opinion that were safer running OS X. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that windows users experience far more complete system failures and associated data loss.

Is it possible for an OS upgrade to be considered commendably safe and stable despite some users experiencing catastrophic data loss? I vote yes. Sad but true, software as complex as OS upgrades will result in catastrophic data loss for some users. This is why IT professionals get paid to manage backup plans and the risks associated with upgrades.

[edit: spelling and grammar]

But my point is valid. Apparently Apple thinks every update to their software requires re-jiggering every freakin' thing in the OS. Some might make sense, others are just stupid (the loss of the internet prefernce pane was just stupid, it should've been expanded to cover all apps, not lost). They also changed Process Viewer to Activity Monitor (oh, such a better name). Moving features around (disk copy functionality moved into disk utility, disk copy lost). But where's the benefit? This time System preferences are apparently changing again (I remember now reading how its kind of hooking spotlight into it, losing groups or the toolbar or something). People are actually going to be typing panel names to find them? Hey then, here's an idea, why not lose the icons altogether and just type in all the names. In fact, you could do that with the Finder too! Hey, we could then lose the need for the mouse altogether (no more complaints about lacking two-buttons, Apple's getting rid of the mouse!). In fact, if they could throw out Quartz and Aqua (two things that really slow down your computer), you'd have one kick-ass computer!

Or here's an idea. How about, rather than spending manpower on updating, testing, etc, existing pieces of the OS that worked before, putting them towards fixing some of those reported bugs (hey, like that dude's SCSI issues!).

(Mod Note: Edited to remove personal bickering - JL)

Wow's it's starting to sounds like bridge night at the old women's home in here. gripe, gripe, gripe, gripe.

Of course 10.4.1 is in the works when 10.4 is frozen. I'd bet even money they have a pretty good idea which items will be pushed off to 10.4.2, no less. That's just how it goes in software engineering, when it is done right. The public production numbers are just artificial lines in the sand for the customers, the actual work never really stops.

Louzer, the prefs panel isn't icon-less, they just added a dynamic search panel ala iTunes that also hooks into the Help content, not just the panel names. You're jumping to conclusions that are pretty far out there. This will be a huge benefit to a lot of people. (And Process Viewer was renamed when they added the abilities to watch memory, disk, and network activity... obviously those aren't processes. The name change wasn't just cosmetic, but for a new tool.)

IF , this thread of speculation is true....then,

Ditto!

The sooner Tiger is released, the better.

The point of deminishing returns come in to play at some point, and Apple knows where that point is. When you have tested to the max, so be it. Release and bring on the .1 update. There will always be bugs and HUGE bugs will always slip through at some point during major changes in OS's timeline.

Let's get it over with, move on, and look foward to 10.4.5!


If that is the case, then we don't have to worry about this until 2007! So stop worrying...

I don't mean the security updates. Let them come whenever they have to. Just make sure that they don't cause trouble like the last two have.

No, they still haven't fixed it. I quess that the .9 update will be their last chance. But I don't think that they care.

Ir reminds me of MS. When they came out with Powerpoint 98 it broke printing to film recorders.

I spoke to several levels of MS techs. The answer was that it was the fault of ALL the film recorder manufacturers, and it was up to them to fix it.

Well, after a lot of screaming from the industry, they finally did fix it.

But I'm sure that they broke it on purpose. They were putting animation into the program at the time, and it could only be used with a computer. Film recorders didn't fit within their desired upgrade path.

My feeling is that we're seeing the same thing here with SCSI from Apple. They don't want to support it any longer. They want to move us to USB 2, Firewire, and S-ATA.

Ok, obviously I can only put forward my opinion, not facts, but here goes...


The loss of the 'Internet' Preference Pane I completely agree with. Never seen the rhyme or reason for that.

Process Viewer being renamed to Activity Monitor? Absolutely understandable. That particular app happens to monitor 'activity' of all types... not just view processes. Not sure what's so crazy about that.

'Disk Copy' was a horrendous hang-over from OS 9, and made no sense to anyone who'd not used OS 9. How exactly does it make sense to have "Disk Copy" open when you mount a disk image? From the user's POV, that should be the Finder's job, no? Copying disks, burning images, creating images, scanning fileystems, etc. are utilitarian functions... to do with disks. I don't see a problem with the Disk Utility monkier.

OS X has until 10.3 (IMHO) very much been a 'work in progress'. 10.3 is the first OS that gave me the feeling that Apple were happy with how the minutiae worked... and I've been using it since 10.0. I would have hated to see OS X stagnate at the level of 10.2.


Er. No. Have you ever seen someone new to OS X use System Prefs? Do you remember what it was like when you first used it? It's much less jumbled than Windows's Control Panel, but you have to do a lot of exploring to find out what each option does.

The Search text box allows full text-search based on the features provided. You don't have to type 'Accounts' to access accounts! Just click the damn icon like you always have done. But if you're interested in 'securing my account', it'd be interesting to have both Accounts highlighted (because of admin privs, auto-login options etc) and 'security' (for file vault, password requests, etc)

It's simply something to help people who don't want to spend their time plumbing the depths of a configuration screen learning what's possible, and an aide memoire for us old timers.


Ease off on the hyperbole.


See previous comment.


GUI coders and graphic designers don't write hardware drivers. Specialists in database design and development (think Spotlight) don't write drivers. Driver writers write drivers.

No, Apple doesn't seed the final release - they ship it to developers after it is available in stores.

No, it's an addition to Mobile Accounts where the home directories can be synchronised with a copy on the server.

Try and exaggerate just a little more, please



I don't think that most Mac users know what a process is, and as said earlier it shows you more than processes. Activity Monitor is actually a better name IMHO.



Consolidation.



Or something? How about trying it for yourself before bitching? Groups are not gone and very little has changed in SysPrefs.



Yes, Apple is going back to a text based interface. Again, how about trying it for yourself before bitching?

Spotlight is an ADDITION!!!!



Hey then, here we have a new search technology. How about not putting it in our apps - people don't like to search anyway.

That would be very strange for any company. They don't know that it's the final release until it gets back to them without changes.

For example if Adobe sends me a FRC #4, and we report the last bugs, and get sent #5, and report it satisfactory (it's not really like that, but close enough), then that one (#5) is said to be final release.

Adobe then checks it one last time, and it is declared GM.

They don't have to send the final release BACK to us, because we already have it.

I can't imagine that Apple is any different. All beta programs I've been involved with over the years work the same way.

This one doesn't.

The installers and such change from the dev to the final... dev builds *require* a full erase and reinstall, while the commercial product allows you to archive and install, install in place, etc. There are changes, just not to the actual code. You'll see differing version strings, sometimes icons get tweaked, etc, but the code is the same.

Apple != Adobe.

Also other updates besides the ones that are dubbed "security updates" affect security.
Of course sometimes it will worsen security, but mostly when things are done better and cleaned up in general, bugs are exterminated that no one intended to fix, or even bugs that no one spotted yet.

Yes, I understand that. It is an OS after all.

But as you say "the code is the same".

And that's what I'm talking about.

Yes, and from past experience, having a dev build machine means you don't use the same Software Update mechanism as the consumer products. The devs get different x.y.z updates to test, but they won't install on a dev unit.

If you stick with 8A425 (or whatever the GM will be), and don't go with the consumer final, Software Update won't work correctly, even for dev releases of updates.

Dev builds are to be tested on, worked with, and then blown away to be replaced with the consumer build at the first earliest convenience. That's just the way it is. Yeah, I know devs who don't bother, but there's generally some background trickery to be done to get it working smoothly past a couple of upgrades.

Devs get sent the full consumer release in their monthly mailings when it is available, regardless of whatever else they were sent.

That's just the way it is in Apple land.

That's not so different from the way Adobe and others operate. Consumer updating processes rarely work on any dev builds. The final build usually does contain a few lines of code to prevent this updating from occurring. The company doesn't want the build to be spread and have infinite life of its own.

But otherwise the program code is the same as the printed version. That's all I'm trying to say.

GM = consumer final.

If 8A428 is the GM release then Software Update will work correctly with it. This might be why 8A428 isn't easily available - even from ADC. Though in years past Apple has made the GM available to developers early (depending on the release this has been anywhere from 1 - 3 weeks prior to an officially set release date).

I've been an ADC (as well as an AppleSeed member) for a long time and I don't recall this ever being the case for Apple. Maybe so long I'm starting to forget.

I'm not talking about the GM. The code would be removed for that.

Adobe once forgot to remove the code from Photoshop, I don't now remember if it was for ver 6 or not, and the program expired a month after release. Adobe quickly came out with an update that removed the code.

Some companies don't use code, the consumer updates look for the ver number instead.

Bingo. And since the version numbers are one of the things I've seen modified from the build devs got that was later marked GM, to when it ended up in the retail box...

Granted, Apple may have changed this since last I was on the dev build treadmill, back with 10.2. From the Atlas/Hera days up until then though, the official recommended route was to install the retail package when it arrived in the dev mailing. Anything prior to that (including a build that you may have had that was later marked GM) wasn't guaranteed to work properly with the update system. *shrug*

Yes, you're right, that's the difference.

But now I'm intrigued. It seems as though I'll have to get into the dev program to check these things out for myself.

By the way, Apple's spell-check wants to spell your name as "Chickadee".

Kind of cute, eh?

*sniff sniff*
What is that? Smells a bit like 4k78.

I was under the impression that the GM was, bit-for-bit, identical to the retail version. Back in the days of pressing from masters made of gold, this had to be the case. Now it certainly isn't. Yet I was still thinking that the GM is what is sent out for duplication.

Okay, who's going to be the first to bust out checksums on the disk images?

$499/yr to play with dev seedings.
$99/yr if you're a student (but no seedings, although you do get the final version)
free for no mailings or seedings, just access to the website and latest tools.


Check out yours.

I don't mind, maybe I'll have the excuse to do some programming. I haven't done any in years.

Dang! It won't do it. I have it "learned" in spellcheck.

What is it?

Melrose

Whew!

I was worried for a while. Could have been a lot worse.

It is. 8A428 is 8A428, but 8A428 hasn't been seeded, and I haven't seen Apple seeding the final version of major updates to Mac OS X - ever! They ship it on CD/DVD.

Final builds of .1 updates are seeded though, but you don't know it's the final build until it's available in Software Update.

Back in the Mac OS 8/9 days seeds were labeled b1, b2, f1, f2, GM and so on.

What he said.

How about some cheese to go with all the fine whine here? I'm a Gloucester-Stilton combo fan myself.

How is it a bad thing if Apple patches Tiger a few weeks after it's release? Yeah they could wait a few more weeks and release Tiger with the patch, but then there would just be another patch in a few more weeks. The sooner it's out, the sooner developers take it seriously and begin to migrate apps to the new features.

It's important to consider that in the first couple weeks, only early adopters will buy Tiger, and these sorts look forward to patches and upgrades. Early adopters expect there to be issues with new software, or at least they should, and they don't use it on mission critical tasks, or at least they shouldn't.

If some of the rumors I hear about Tiger's core functionality are true, then it's better for Apple to release it sooner with a patch, rather than wait. Supposedly Doom runs better on Tiger, which will help Apple's image far more than a few minor bugs will tarnish it. Just a thought.

Hear, hear. (I'll bring the port and walnuts, you bring the Stilton.)

The only bugbear in that scenario (which I agree with) is that you have the rampaging masses of consumers who will go out and buy Tiger by the millions, only to have some bug bite them in the ass. And of course all consumers back up religiously, have a solid upgrade migration path, and keep a second machine ready for emergency use... \

Oh wait, that requires millions of copies sold.

Seriously though, it's the n00bs that will create the biggest furor if something nasty slips through.

Hi. I've been sick for a couple days, but I'm back.

That's one of the things I'm worried about. You don't want newcomers to have a bad experience.

What people forget is that when you are behind, you have to do much better in order for people to think that you are just doing AS well.

Business is on MS because they have always been there. Not because it's superior, but because it "good enough". They don't want to switch to the Mac because of cost. If the difference is significant, though, some might. But they don't like updates every two months. We're not talking about security updates here either.

Then they don't have to update.

I've never understood that argument... no one is placing a gun to anyone's head to make them update, it's voluntary 100%.

The gun in the head is a false analogy. There are more subtle ways of forcing people to upgrade. It can't be really called forcing, as no matter what, violence is not used, but a lot of new things that come from Apple need an upgraded version of the software.

I'm not talking here only about Core*, or other APIs that exist only in Tiger, but for things like iChat which was available to Panther users, but only as a $29.99 (correct me if I'm wrong) add-on for Jaguar users. It's like MS selling MSN Messenger to Win2000 users. Where iChat is provided for free is Panther, MSN Messenger is provided for WinXP, Win2000, WinME and even Win98. These are very small and unimportant things, but are some of the things that do happen, and happen for a reason.

I've no problem with the way Apple sells their software: they do, after all, provide at least security updates for their OS's for a certain period of time, but that period of time is not as long as others in the industry (as far as I know. Again, correct me if I'm wrong), and it is followed by huge public releases of new software + hardware that require a new version of a certain OS, while at the same time, that software is something as trivial as a chat app. You can find chat apps anywhere on the web and you don't need iChat, but iChat is what Apple has, and what Apple has, Apple uses to gain something else.

There is a gun to their heads. It's called "bugs".

As we've all agreed, all software (and hardware) has bugs. The fewer the bugs, or the less intrusive, the fewer the updates.

As every upgrade, and update, breaks something that has been relied upon, the hope is that the next update will fix it.

Apple has been no different than anyone else in that regard. The SCSI problem is one example, the Firewire problem is another.

do you know how many people and businesses rely on both?

Apple states that a problem is "addressed" (whatever that means), or fixed.

We update, and it might or might not be, but then something else doesn't work.

So we downgrade. How much does that cost to do?

You're right. for both your reasons and mine.

Apple does NOT support old systems as long as MS, IBM, SUN, etc.

If they did then they would still be supporting OS 9. They should be releasing security updates to 10.1 at this time. Five years should be a minimum support time for a discontinued software product.

The law requires a minimum of 7 years of support for a hardware product.

Whiiiiich is why you upgrade a test machine, see if it works as you expect, then roll it out company wide.

Whether the upgrades come once a year, or once a month, the methodology is the same:

1) Is this an upgrade we need? If no, ignore. If yes, go to 2.

2) Upgrade on a test machine. Does it work as expected? If yes, start deployment. If not, go to 3

3) Decide if the new problems are something you can live with, over and above the need determined back in 1. If yes, start deployment. If no, ignore.


It doesn't matter if it's a three person shop, or a 30,000 employee company, the above should determine upgrading anything. Heck, I follow the same approach for just my household.

I'm finishing up my dissertation this summer. I'd love to install 10.4, but you know what? I don't *need* anything in it right now, and the headache it would cause to ensure everything is smooth in the migration means I'm not touching it until I am done, done, done. I don't *need* it, so I ignore it right now. If something comes up that I *do* need it for some reason, then I'll reassess.

To do anything else, in my mind, is lunacy, and the company/IT director gets what they deserve by not being careful.


Again, if you're waiting for the perfect bug-free product, you're going to be waiting literally forever. They don't exist, never have, never will. You assess the bugs, you determine if they impact you negatively, and you weigh that against the benefits you expect to gain from upgrading. This seems so simple and obvious to me, that I can't believe that any professional would do differently. Obviously, that belief is wrong, but it still utterly baffles me.

Apple has a varied history of support for legacy products. They have dropped support for legacy technologies in the past, quickdraw GX, opendoc, newton

However, their OS support shouldn't be characterized as anything but exemplary. They tried multiple times to come out with a next-gen OS, knowing all along that legacy support was critical. Eventually they came up with classic, a virtual machine that should be considered a marvel of software engineering. Apple also managed to transition from 680x0 to PPC without breaking much software. If anything, Id characterize apples legacy support as good with room for improvement.

As for for not continuing to release security updates for 10.1 seriously? Apple is being criticized for how secure their OS is? Buaaa haaa haaa.

Im just not getting this too-many or too-few updates crisis-mentality.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

It seems our attention would be better focused on things apple actually neglects. Support of previous OS releases isnt one of them.

I understand what you are saying, and I wish it were true.

But if you read any computer industry publication, NOT MacWorld, PcWorld, etc., you would see that it isn't true.

Besides, in regard to Apple, it's the POLITICS that matters. Not the logic.

Sure, MS's business customers wait, and wait, and wait. But for the most part they ain't goin' nowhere. sooner or later they will have to no matter what. MS is starting the push to force them to now.

Apple doesn't have that luxury. If they want business customers (and they have finally shown that they know that they need them), then they have to be better. Much better.

You are talking about committed Mac users. I'm talking about non-Mac users who are looking to the platform to shield them from their woes, both bugs, and security. They look at all the updates and get nervous. I'm asked what the difference is if Apple has to fix bugs so often.

Business people also want new releases to come out every four years or so. According to surveys, most MS customers are in no rush for Longhorn to come out. They clearly state that they would rather wait than to have it come out with too many bugs that then have to be fixed right away. I concur.

This is why Apple has strung out the latest release, and why later ones might take longer.

Apple has gone in too many directions, and that is also a problem. It has cost them critical software support. Corel made OpenDoc a major focus of their company, and then had to drop the whole thing.

Hasen't anyone here heard of the 'Apple Tax"?

Classic works fairly well, but a fair number of pro apps that won't work with it, and never have. Apple promised to fix that, but never did. Not allowing us to continue to dual-boot was a mistake. That should have been allowed at least 10.3, when they finally got most OS 9 functions to work in 10. Of course, they then broke SCSI, which is still the preferred drive for video, etc.

As for security, I never said that 10's security was bad, only that they should continue to support older systems LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES!

You can't attract everyone. You can't educate everyone. Not everyone will agree with you even if you have rock solid proof. That is OK. Apple, nor you, nor anyone else can do anything about this.

People have to come to their own decision whether through study, trying it first hand or maybe a friend gets them interested.

Most people only use PC's and have only used PC's because this is all they have been exposed to at work. If their experience is bad, they can only imagine it would be worse at home without IT so they stick with the PC. If they have a good experience or even nominally good, why change?

Why does everyone worry about this so much?

I drive a Mini Cooper. I think it is a great car. Best I've ever had. Most fun ever. Should everyone get one? I hope not. I kind of like the minority to tell you the truth. Being different is a good thing in life if you can embrace it. If not, then buy the Accord, stick with the PC, eat vanilla ice cream. Why should I care? How does it affect my life?