According to this, 10.8 was responsible for about 0.2% of web traffic prior to launch, and 10.9 showed a similar (but uneven) pattern. I somehow doubt that Apple's internal testing makes up 0.2% of North American web usage, so what's going on there?
It's running just fine on my 2010 iMac here, upgraded direct from a positively ancient 10.6.8 install.
It's a big change to the workflow overall going from 10.6 to 10.9 (almost all good, I might add), but more importantly I've noticed a number of performance improvements right off the bat, in particular with CPU usage in Logic Pro...
As for why they'd do this for free, and for so far back, I think they're really pushing hard to consolidate the current OS's (both OSX and iOS) onto a greater share of the installed base. That benefits them and their developers (and the user base!) in countless ways.
The fact is, there is almost NO compelling reason not to upgrade. Most of my existing software just works, and I had only a few apps that needed updates (e.g. Ableton Live 8 needed a minor update to make ReWire compatible) but all were minor. So far, everything is functioning more smoothly, the new apps are great (although I don't have a 'new' device, I was given a free upgrade to iWork, presumably because I owned an older version already?). Overall there are tons of good reasons to upgrade, not the least of which is, it's free.
I can't help but wonder why they are offering a major upgrade for free and covering so many model's over so many model years.
Not making paranoid accusations, just seems a little odd.
Nothing odd about it. Apple loves to satisfy its customers. They dropped upgrades from $130 to $30 to $20 to free. Again hardware subsidizes the software.
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
I felt the same way when they put out iOS 7 working all the way back to iPhone 4, which I can attest is terrible.
Umm,, i have an iPhone 4 with iOS 7 and I wouldn't say it's terrible. I like some of the new features, so it's all subjective.
But, it's a wise move to get users to the latest version OS for a LOT of reasons. If the hardware can run it, then it makes a lot of sense since there are features with iOS and OS X that leverage one another, so it makes sense from that standpoint. The sooner they can get all of the users to the latest OS, the less support costs for Apple, which is a good thing. Plus their s/w developers can focus on what's current and what the next release will be rather than having people still writing code for an OS that's 3 or 4 revs ago. Development of OSs is speeding up and this is a perfect way to keep the majority of users current.
Microsoft wanted to can XP as soon as Windows 7 came out, but they couldn't. Too many users bitching and complaining about having to upgrade because of the expense of new computers/s/w. Making the OS free is great for everyone. IF Apple wanted to be greedy, they could have given it free for those with AppleCare support contracts, but they decided it should be free.
Apple has about a 3 year lifespan on smartphones and iPads, TYPICALLY, and they feel that a product should have 3 OS updates, which is TOTALLY reasonable, otherwise, everyone with an iPhone 4 would have to be forced to buy a new smartphone to get a later OS.
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
Better battery life for all laptop users? Why would they not want to push it out to all x86_64 Intel-based Macs? Your questions make no sense and smack of troll baiting.
I somehow doubt that Apple's internal testing makes up 0.2% of North American web usage, so what's going on there?
Developers running the DP versions would be my guess.... "launch" in this case is the public launch that we saw on Tuesday but the developer previews are generally available for a good few months before that and there are quite a few Mac developers around who would be running the DPs.
Apple has been doing free system upgrades for iOS for years so it seems perfectly reasonable that OS X upgrades would be as well. I think expectations have changed; there would be grumbling if it weren't free. Also, as someone else pointed out the free system upgrade is akin to a stock buyback in terms of returning value to stakeholders (in this case existing customers).
Are there any horror stories yet about upgrading to Mavericks? How risky is being an early adopter this time around?
I just got a warning email from my university IT that EndNote and Office 2011 don't like Mavericks. Though in typical IT fashion they blamed the OS and not the software manuf. that need to adapt to the new OS reality….
Better battery life for all laptop users? Why would they not want to push it out to all x86_64 Intel-based Macs? Your questions make no sense and smack of troll baiting.
I asked a simple question without taking a single swipe at Apple or anyone else, and I am troll baiting?
That is why I don't post on forums much, because of responses like yours.
There are to many self righteous condescending jack wads in here that that are so quick to accuse people of things that are just not true.
Are there any horror stories yet about upgrading to Mavericks? How risky is being an early adopter this time around?
Seems solid on my Mid 2011 mac mini so far after upgrading from Mountain Lion, although I've not really had a chance to push it that hard yet... can't wait to try it on my new 13" rMBP which is currently showing as "Preparing for Dispatch" with a delivery date of next Tuesday
Additionally, decline or not, Apple has dominated PC Consumer Satisfaction ratings for just about a decade now, often by a wide margin.
I am not attacking Mac. I love Mac. It's just the truth. Mac sales are sinking. Apple is pulling out all stops to spirt sales. (Lowering price on MacBook retina too) The free update will maybe get iPad people to use their Macs again. Hopefully, when they use it more, maybe they'll buy a new one.
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
My thought is the way Mavericks sandboxes apps limiting what apps can and can't do to other parts of the system once installed. This is one way to control malicious code in an app or a webpage. There are numerous other security improvements as well.
Another thought is iCloud and integration between desktop/laptop with your mobile devices. This ensures no one is left out.
Yeah, the MacBook was a little underpowered for what they are doing now. if they are going back to some of the higher end 2007 models, that's actually pretty good they can still do that. But for the low end MacBooks, I can understand why they can't. MacBooks were entry level laptops and to still have a 6 going on 7 year old entry level laptop is actually pretty long life.
Typically the lifespan of a computer for it's useful life is around 3 to 5 years anything longer than that you are living on the edge. :-)
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
I felt the same way when they put out iOS 7 working all the way back to iPhone 4, which I can attest is terrible.
Check out the thorough review of Mavericks on Ars Technica. Timer coalescing, App Nap, and RAM compression can help older Macs eke out a little more performance and battery life.
Apple has been doing free system upgrades for iOS for years so it seems perfectly reasonable that OS X upgrades would be as well. I think expectations have changed; there would be grumbling if it weren't free. Also, as someone else pointed out the free system upgrade is akin to a stock buyback in terms of returning value to stakeholders (in this case existing customers).
Are there any horror stories yet about upgrading to Mavericks? How risky is being an early adopter this time around?
No risk at all.
It's easy to backup your OS X boot volume (and the hidden recovery volume) to a USB drive using a utility like SuperDuper! before upgrading. If you decide later to go back, do a restore.
Comments
I can't help but wonder why they are offering a major upgrade for free and covering so many model's over so many model years.
Not making paranoid accusations, just seems a little odd.
Why would they not and what exactly is odd about it? Your post is more odd than anything.
According to this, 10.8 was responsible for about 0.2% of web traffic prior to launch, and 10.9 showed a similar (but uneven) pattern. I somehow doubt that Apple's internal testing makes up 0.2% of North American web usage, so what's going on there?
It's running just fine on my 2010 iMac here, upgraded direct from a positively ancient 10.6.8 install.
It's a big change to the workflow overall going from 10.6 to 10.9 (almost all good, I might add), but more importantly I've noticed a number of performance improvements right off the bat, in particular with CPU usage in Logic Pro...
As for why they'd do this for free, and for so far back, I think they're really pushing hard to consolidate the current OS's (both OSX and iOS) onto a greater share of the installed base. That benefits them and their developers (and the user base!) in countless ways.
The fact is, there is almost NO compelling reason not to upgrade. Most of my existing software just works, and I had only a few apps that needed updates (e.g. Ableton Live 8 needed a minor update to make ReWire compatible) but all were minor. So far, everything is functioning more smoothly, the new apps are great (although I don't have a 'new' device, I was given a free upgrade to iWork, presumably because I owned an older version already?). Overall there are tons of good reasons to upgrade, not the least of which is, it's free.
Nothing odd about it. Apple loves to satisfy its customers. They dropped upgrades from $130 to $30 to $20 to free. Again hardware subsidizes the software.
Who knew that "free" sells!
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
I felt the same way when they put out iOS 7 working all the way back to iPhone 4, which I can attest is terrible.
Umm,, i have an iPhone 4 with iOS 7 and I wouldn't say it's terrible. I like some of the new features, so it's all subjective.
But, it's a wise move to get users to the latest version OS for a LOT of reasons. If the hardware can run it, then it makes a lot of sense since there are features with iOS and OS X that leverage one another, so it makes sense from that standpoint. The sooner they can get all of the users to the latest OS, the less support costs for Apple, which is a good thing. Plus their s/w developers can focus on what's current and what the next release will be rather than having people still writing code for an OS that's 3 or 4 revs ago. Development of OSs is speeding up and this is a perfect way to keep the majority of users current.
Microsoft wanted to can XP as soon as Windows 7 came out, but they couldn't. Too many users bitching and complaining about having to upgrade because of the expense of new computers/s/w. Making the OS free is great for everyone. IF Apple wanted to be greedy, they could have given it free for those with AppleCare support contracts, but they decided it should be free.
Apple has about a 3 year lifespan on smartphones and iPads, TYPICALLY, and they feel that a product should have 3 OS updates, which is TOTALLY reasonable, otherwise, everyone with an iPhone 4 would have to be forced to buy a new smartphone to get a later OS.
I updated two macbook pro's and one mini....
So far, so good...
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
Better battery life for all laptop users? Why would they not want to push it out to all x86_64 Intel-based Macs? Your questions make no sense and smack of troll baiting.
Developers running the DP versions would be my guess.... "launch" in this case is the public launch that we saw on Tuesday but the developer previews are generally available for a good few months before that and there are quite a few Mac developers around who would be running the DPs.
Apple has been doing free system upgrades for iOS for years so it seems perfectly reasonable that OS X upgrades would be as well. I think expectations have changed; there would be grumbling if it weren't free. Also, as someone else pointed out the free system upgrade is akin to a stock buyback in terms of returning value to stakeholders (in this case existing customers).
Are there any horror stories yet about upgrading to Mavericks? How risky is being an early adopter this time around?
I just got a warning email from my university IT that EndNote and Office 2011 don't like Mavericks. Though in typical IT fashion they blamed the OS and not the software manuf. that need to adapt to the new OS reality….
It's in the works... Terminals that have no dedicated users that require iTunes accounts to update iLife and iWork.
Better battery life for all laptop users? Why would they not want to push it out to all x86_64 Intel-based Macs? Your questions make no sense and smack of troll baiting.
I asked a simple question without taking a single swipe at Apple or anyone else, and I am troll baiting?
That is why I don't post on forums much, because of responses like yours.
There are to many self righteous condescending jack wads in here that that are so quick to accuse people of things that are just not true.
Jeezzzzz…..
Seems solid on my Mid 2011 mac mini so far after upgrading from Mountain Lion, although I've not really had a chance to push it that hard yet... can't wait to try it on my new 13" rMBP which is currently showing as "Preparing for Dispatch" with a delivery date of next Tuesday
My thought is the way Mavericks sandboxes apps limiting what apps can and can't do to other parts of the system once installed. This is one way to control malicious code in an app or a webpage. There are numerous other security improvements as well.
Another thought is iCloud and integration between desktop/laptop with your mobile devices. This ensures no one is left out.
It doesn't run on my 2007? MacBook
.
It doesn't run on my 2007? MacBook
.
Yeah, the MacBook was a little underpowered for what they are doing now. if they are going back to some of the higher end 2007 models, that's actually pretty good they can still do that. But for the low end MacBooks, I can understand why they can't. MacBooks were entry level laptops and to still have a 6 going on 7 year old entry level laptop is actually pretty long life.
Typically the lifespan of a computer for it's useful life is around 3 to 5 years anything longer than that you are living on the edge. :-)
Can a developer point out any modifications in the underlying code that would make Apple want to push this on just about every Intel based Mac out there?
I felt the same way when they put out iOS 7 working all the way back to iPhone 4, which I can attest is terrible.
Check out the thorough review of Mavericks on Ars Technica. Timer coalescing, App Nap, and RAM compression can help older Macs eke out a little more performance and battery life.
1. It's the absolute finest iteration of OS X.
2. It's free (but, say, 29 bucks is barely the price of a meal for two, and you would have gotten an entire OS for it.)
3. It runs on hardware going back to 2007. For instance, it runs very well on my early 2008 Macbook Pro 2.4Ghz with 6GB RAM.
All in all, as close to perfect as an OS X release can get.
Anyone still running a 6+ year old Mac reminds me of Kramer running on E.
You had to get something right eventually ...
No risk at all.
It's easy to backup your OS X boot volume (and the hidden recovery volume) to a USB drive using a utility like SuperDuper! before upgrading. If you decide later to go back, do a restore.