Is there anyone out there who thinks that apple is making new operating systems too fast. If they keep this rate up people will get worn out from buying the new ones.
These aren't new as much as they are just building on the current OS. This is more of a normal OS and software development cycle: 12-18 month cycles. The fiasco that was Copeland (and Apple's executives) in the mid-90's just made it seem like operating system updates come out once in a blue moon.
This is just speculation, but to move WWDC, there has to be a radical new feature set, not just 64bit. Maybe a whole new file browsing approach? 3D finder? Interesting indeed.
i hope not...there is no market for it, there are people who have trouble understanding the depth of folders or levels let alone 3d!
MS is supposed to have it, and even though MS sucks as implementing such things i can't even imagine a good implementation of 3d UI
Meh. "3D" interfaces (read: perspective) are pretty pointless without a 3D dispay. Any so-called 3D with a display stuck on a surface isn't really 3D. A successful 3D design will depend a lot on how it handles occlusion of elements and multiple points of view. I'd be curious how Apple would handle the latter especially, with a one-button mouse, and with what means to ensure that you can keep oriented easily and manipulate things in volumes of "virtual" space (remember: no gravity). If you've ever learned a 3D app, you've had the experience early on where you have trouble placing things in space, especially in perspective, and where you get really disoriented trying to move around and can't find you're way back from "outer space."
Is there anyone out there who thinks that apple is making new operating systems too fast. If they keep this rate up people will get worn out from buying the new ones.
Apple has been making Operating Systems on a yearly basis for a long time now, even prior to Mac OS 10. I for one think the OS is a little cooler than the hardware because it introduces new ways to take advantage of it (hardware) so I say bring it on!
I guees u r right about the 90's thing but still microsoft dosn't make new ones every year
Hopefully 10.3 wil be faster. I don't know about u but it runs pretty slow with a 800mhz imac and 512mb of ram
Nano,
Welcome to the boards! I kind of like the Yearly upgrades from Apple. It beats waiting for Service Packs. The thing to remember is that in most cases Software that only works with the newest OS generally takes time to develop. So say 10.3 comes out in Sept. It'll probably be at least 2004 before you see Apps that are only 10.3 compatible. Each person should decide on when it's right to upgrade. As long as you avoid the urge to "keep up with the joneses" you'll be fine.
None in 2002 (because Windows.NET eventually got delayed and renamed to...)
Windows Server 2003: this spring
Well, sorry, but that looks a lot like "new ones every year" to me.
If u ever look at the system rquirements for windows programs even the new programs work with windows95 or 3.1 newer programs for mac don't even work with 10.1
If u ever look at the system rquirements for windows programs even the new programs work with windows95 or 3.1 newer programs for mac don't even work with 10.1
As others have said: No.
Furthermore, my employer's migration from NT to 2000 was extremely slow and painful, because we had a long chain of dependencies starting with an app that ran in NT but not in 2000. And the version that did run in 2000 required a database upgrade that required a VMS upgrade and off we went.
But the point is that the compatibility isn't quite as seamless as some people like to think. We've had apps broken by service packs in NT 4. Several were lost when I went from SP3 to SP4, and another went down when my machine was updated to SP6 (the chief IT guy did it personally, because SP6 had killed - and I mean killed - a number of our machines).
Furthermore, my employer's migration from NT to 2000 was extremely slow and painful, because we had a long chain of dependencies starting with an app that ran in NT but not in 2000. And the version that did run in 2000 required a database upgrade that required a VMS upgrade and off we went.
But the point is that the compatibility isn't quite as seamless as some people like to think. We've had apps broken by service packs in NT 4. Several were lost when I went from SP3 to SP4, and another went down when my machine was updated to SP6 (the chief IT guy did it personally, because SP6 had killed - and I mean killed - a number of our machines).
Heh, we started our NT migration to 2000 2 years ago and have about 75% of the people on 2000. The biggest challange was getting (of the version we had) Peoplesoft to install correctly on the 2000 machines. It was by far not an easy process.
Comments
Originally posted by Nano
Is there anyone out there who thinks that apple is making new operating systems too fast. If they keep this rate up people will get worn out from buying the new ones.
These aren't new as much as they are just building on the current OS. This is more of a normal OS and software development cycle: 12-18 month cycles. The fiasco that was Copeland (and Apple's executives) in the mid-90's just made it seem like operating system updates come out once in a blue moon.
Hopefully 10.3 wil be faster. I don't know about u but it runs pretty slow with a 800mhz imac and 512mb of ram
Originally posted by Nano
but still microsoft dosn't make new ones every year
and just what does that have to do with OS X development?
Originally posted by Outsider
This is just speculation, but to move WWDC, there has to be a radical new feature set, not just 64bit. Maybe a whole new file browsing approach? 3D finder? Interesting indeed.
i hope not...there is no market for it, there are people who have trouble understanding the depth of folders or levels let alone 3d!
MS is supposed to have it, and even though MS sucks as implementing such things i can't even imagine a good implementation of 3d UI
Originally posted by Nano
Is there anyone out there who thinks that apple is making new operating systems too fast. If they keep this rate up people will get worn out from buying the new ones.
Apple has been making Operating Systems on a yearly basis for a long time now, even prior to Mac OS 10. I for one think the OS is a little cooler than the hardware because it introduces new ways to take advantage of it (hardware) so I say bring it on!
Originally posted by Nano
I guees u r right about the 90's thing but still microsoft dosn't make new ones every year
Hopefully 10.3 wil be faster. I don't know about u but it runs pretty slow with a 800mhz imac and 512mb of ram
Nano,
Welcome to the boards! I kind of like the Yearly upgrades from Apple. It beats waiting for Service Packs. The thing to remember is that in most cases Software that only works with the newest OS generally takes time to develop. So say 10.3 comes out in Sept. It'll probably be at least 2004 before you see Apps that are only 10.3 compatible. Each person should decide on when it's right to upgrade. As long as you avoid the urge to "keep up with the joneses" you'll be fine.
Originally posted by Jared
Apple has been making Operating Systems on a yearly basis for a long time now, even prior to Mac OS 10.
They started in '96 with 7.5.3.
Barto
Originally posted by Nano
I guees u r right about the 90's thing but still microsoft dosn't make new ones every year
Windows 2000: February 17, 2000
Windows ME: September 14, 2000
Windows XP: October 25, 2001
None in 2002 (because Windows.NET eventually got delayed and renamed to...)
Windows Server 2003: this spring
Well, sorry, but that looks a lot like "new ones every year" to me.
Originally posted by Chucker
Windows 2000: February 17, 2000
Windows ME: September 14, 2000
Windows XP: October 25, 2001
None in 2002 (because Windows.NET eventually got delayed and renamed to...)
Windows Server 2003: this spring
Well, sorry, but that looks a lot like "new ones every year" to me.
If u ever look at the system rquirements for windows programs even the new programs work with windows95 or 3.1 newer programs for mac don't even work with 10.1
Originally posted by Nano
If u ever look at the system rquirements for windows programs even the new programs work with windows95 or 3.1
Um.
No, not quite.
Originally posted by Barto
They started in '96 with 7.5.3.
Barto
Exactly my point, seven years ago (long time ago to me
Originally posted by Nano
If u ever look at the system rquirements for windows programs even the new programs work with windows95 or 3.1 newer programs for mac don't even work with 10.1
As others have said: No.
Furthermore, my employer's migration from NT to 2000 was extremely slow and painful, because we had a long chain of dependencies starting with an app that ran in NT but not in 2000. And the version that did run in 2000 required a database upgrade that required a VMS upgrade and off we went.
But the point is that the compatibility isn't quite as seamless as some people like to think. We've had apps broken by service packs in NT 4. Several were lost when I went from SP3 to SP4, and another went down when my machine was updated to SP6 (the chief IT guy did it personally, because SP6 had killed - and I mean killed - a number of our machines).
Originally posted by Amorph
As others have said: No.
Furthermore, my employer's migration from NT to 2000 was extremely slow and painful, because we had a long chain of dependencies starting with an app that ran in NT but not in 2000. And the version that did run in 2000 required a database upgrade that required a VMS upgrade and off we went.
But the point is that the compatibility isn't quite as seamless as some people like to think. We've had apps broken by service packs in NT 4. Several were lost when I went from SP3 to SP4, and another went down when my machine was updated to SP6 (the chief IT guy did it personally, because SP6 had killed - and I mean killed - a number of our machines).
Heh, we started our NT migration to 2000 2 years ago and have about 75% of the people on 2000. The biggest challange was getting (of the version we had) Peoplesoft to install correctly on the 2000 machines. It was by far not an easy process.