"Releasing Panther officially in August would be on the early end but not unusual. They may hold off until November or December which would be right on track."
Rogue is correct about the numbering scheme. OS X will be able to last for 10 years by updating this way once each year or so. Personally, I like these 10.x.x updates. Keeps it exciting and Apple seems more responsive, in my mind, to bugs and or new tweaks/features.
I hear a lot of people getting upset about having to pay for Panther because they are just or will be updating to Jaguar. I guess the updates do seem quite close if you use the strategy of waiting half a year or longer to move forward.
Wake up! They changed their numbering scheme if you didn't notice.
Now 10.x updates are paid, and 10.x.x updates are the free ones. 10.1 was the exception because that one was the major bug-fixer and feature booster. 10.3 will be a paid upgrade.
Where does this "9.5 was 10.0" stuff come from? OS X could not have been called 9.5 by any stretch of the imagination because they aren't even remotely related.
The 9.5 was 10 stuff comes because Apple changed what they were doing midstream. For us Mac dinosaurs. there was a strategy before the return of Jobs and NeXTStep becoming Mac OS X. Mac OS 8 was going to be called Copland and Mac OS 9 was going to be called Gershwin. Gershwin was supposed to bring pre-emptive multitasking, a micro-kernal, protected memory, etc. 9.5 would have been a refinement of an operating system that contained PMT, Protected memory, etc. Thus we would have paid for Mac 9.5.
Apple changed strategies but they kept the numbering strategies and even implemented some of technology after the plan was aborted. Mac OS 8 got a new multithreaded Finder, 9 got a microkernal and things of that nature.
Inbetween there were bug fixes and updates, but the big major changes were .5 or .0.
Meanwhile Apple released 10.0 and charged for it. People readily bought it but most determined it was really beta quality software. It was sluggish and buggy but at least it was out the door. Apple amended for this with the release of 10.1 which it went so far as to print cd's sets and give them away to make up for 10.0.
10.2 is preparing to come up and adds, again things that mostly should have been in 10.0. Proper printer support, real SAMBA support, things of that nature. People were actually expecting it to be called 10.5 but there weren't really enough major improvements to call it that. People conclude that 10.2 as it is called should be a free update.
Apple announces 10.2 and announces that it will cost $129. People were pissed but Apple cited precident as a means of justifying the cost. The precident was what I was pointing out. Of course they changed the numbering system. However they didn't change the paying system. If they change it again, they are being hypocritical. 10.5 or 11 should be a paid upgrade because they denote major new features. Bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Then keep the Credit Card in your Wallet. I got no sympathy for someone who complains when the best thing they can do is refuse to pay. Programmers at Apple are paid ..they don't work for free. If someone doesn't want to pay for 10.3 then perhaps they should learn how to program and help out.
I just know we're going to have legions of people bitching about the price of Panther. I hope the mods clamp down on it...how other people spend their money is their own business.
Then keep the Credit Card in your Wallet. I got no sympathy for someone who complains when the best thing they can do is refuse to pay. Programmers at Apple are paid ..they don't work for free. If someone doesn't want to pay for 10.3 then perhaps they should learn how to program and help out.
I just know we're going to have legions of people bitching about the price of Panther. I hope the mods clamp down on it...how other people spend their money is their own business.
No one is saying programmers shouldn't get paid, but throw some more dust in the air. As I stated and as you quoted, bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Apple has plenty of room to improve OS X and expect money for it. They also use the OS as a means of selling their very overpriced hardware so that in part also pays for the development of it. Also Apple must try as hard as possible to keep the platform unified because its smaller marketshare needs as much pull as possible to developers. Asking a developer to write for 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 is just asking for more trouble. Microsoft might be able to get away with this mismash, but Apple can't.
If anything Apple should release OS updates for free (this did happen at various times in the past) because the continuity and progress the entire platform provides drive additional hardware sales that would more than make up for the software revenue gained. Organizations freed from maintenance of licensing issues and platform compatibility issues would be more inclined to purchase Macs and then continue purchasing them.
First of all the old numbering scheme is out of date! if it helps, just removed the 10 from the top, and you will be paying for a full upgrade if that makes feel better.
Second of all If you aren't going to pay, don't, buy you will not be able to change it!
Third of all, and last Apple is releasing bug fixes and intermediate updates! So, you are not paying for bug fixes, but more feature upgrades and other nifty things!
I don't see how anyone can backup their thoughts of not having to pay full price for 10.3 (except for edu. students)
You say you understand they have changed their numbering scheme but still don't think they should charge except for .5 and 0?
Yah, like Apple is going to develop 5 years worth of updates (about 25 in all) before they should charge anything. Maybe we all should work for our jobs for free until then as well.
I don't think Apple would be around long enough to wait for something like this. And while we are at it, let's all just keep the same computers during this time period and demand that Apple make the each new update scream.
Asking a developer to write for 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 is just asking for more trouble.
Steve Jobs, May last year: "Mac OS 9 isn't dead for our customers yet, but it's dead for developers". Doesn't really sound like a request to write more software for 9 to me...
Are there such fundamental differences between the various versions of X that apps have to be rewritten for each one? Yes, odd things break, but that's always been the case, and is usually down to a developer doing something "interesting" or just plain unsupported.
I fully agree with Nebagakid, Panther is Mac OS X v3, Jag was v2. And I know I've paid for every major OS version going back to System 7...
You say you understand they have changed their numbering scheme but still don't think they should charge except for .5 and 0?
Yah, like Apple is going to develop 5 years worth of updates (about 25 in all) before they should charge anything. Maybe we all should work for our jobs for free until then as well.
I don't think Apple would be around long enough to wait for something like this. And while we are at it, let's all just keep the same computers during this time period and demand that Apple make the each new update scream.
Woohoo! I want some of that action.
I didn't say they changed the numbering system. I said they changed from using the old Mac OS (what was going to be Copland and Gershwin) to using NeXTStep instead.
I didn't say they changed the numbering system, nor even really the payment system. The only thing that has really changed is the amount of work done in the time frame.
Apple stated that it had been two years since they had charged for an OS upgrade and thus even though 10.2 only had enough improvement and refinement to justify a .1 increase in number they were going to charge for it. It isn't that the numbering sysem changed. It is that in two years they could only get OS X to the point of a refined initial release.
That is the problem and not my attitude about paying. Apple in two years has only gotten OS X from it's initial unrefined buggy near beta state to an actual workable OS called 10.2. Even with 10.2 people complain about the most basic things. The finder is not multithreaded with networking functions so it hangs when using an iDisk or transfering from another Mac. (Again a feature we gained in Mac OS 8) The scrolling speed in any app is abysmal likely do to trying to scroll antialiased fonts within the pinstripped aqua theme.
In short 10.3 will hopefully address some of these issues and shouldn't be a paid upgrade when it is addressing problems within the OS. Again if they want to add entirely new features and charge accordingly that is fine. I have no doubt that if the OS had an entirely new finder for example with totally enhanced features they would announce it, charge for it and number it accordingly. If they want to pound away on it for two years, throw out what they got and charge for it. (Even if it is just a .1 increase) I can vote with my wallet as you mentioned. However if Apple is going to try to get people to just "subscribe" to yearly OS fees, we might as well go Microsoft. It might even be cheaper under their licensing v.6. When you also consider that Apple didn't offer any upgrade pricing while Microsoft does, this makes it even worse.
Jaguar hasn't even been out a year yet. 10.3 should represent a years worth of improvements and refinements that I should get for free. the x.x.5 type releases don't change anything. Most of the time they fix obvious and sometimes obnoxious bugs that Apple should have caught before the OS went out. Like how 10.2.4 is eating up everyone's battery life right now. Most of the time they also add support for things like printers, cd-r's and other devices.
In short if Apple can't get by without charging me $129 a YEAR, then they aren't going to have many customers much longer. Because again they would be lying about the justification for charging for 10.2 and secondly they would become prohibitively expensive compared to even Microsoft.
"I can vote with my wallet as you mentioned. However if Apple is going to try to get people to just "subscribe" to yearly OS fees, we might as well go Microsoft. It might even be cheaper under their licensing v.6. When you also consider that Apple didn't offer any upgrade pricing while Microsoft does, this makes it even worse."
Yes you can and should if this is really the way you feel. I don't see any subscription fees here however. Apple has added a lot of new features to each major (yearly to you) update. They are also fixing bugs with the 10.x.x versions and the major versions. I have never purchased M$ Windows but I don't think they have anything like the family pack. (5 legal versions for less than $200).
What is the upgrade cost to XP Pro from 2000? $129 for OS X major versions don't bother me. And I can choose whether or not to upgrade when it feels right for me and my budget.
quoted by trumptman
"In short 10.3 will hopefully address some of these issues and shouldn't be a paid upgrade when it is addressing problems within the OS. Again if they want to add entirely new features and charge accordingly that is fine."
Was OS 9 ever done? Did you ever pay for new upgrades or did Apple only put out only new features. I don't think Apple is just going to fix the finder and then put it online for you to buy or make "minor" major paid upgrades.
Vote with your wallet. I bet that 10.3 will come packed with new features that will tempt you to buy. If not so be it. But don't expect it to solve all of the issues with the OS. That ain't going to ever happen and we all know it.
They do seem to have established a development pattern here however. I think it makes sense for the long term viability of Apple.
"They do seem to have established a development pattern here however. I think it makes sense for the long term viability of Apple."
I concur...and at the same time, I think that many of trumptman's issues are entirely valid. I'm quite frankly hoping for more performance and bugstomping out of 10.3 than fresh features.
No one is saying programmers shouldn't get paid, but throw some more dust in the air. As I stated and as you quoted, bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Apple has plenty of room to improve OS X and expect money for it. They also use the OS as a means of selling their very overpriced hardware so that in part also pays for the development of it. Also Apple must try as hard as possible to keep the platform unified because its smaller marketshare needs as much pull as possible to developers. Asking a developer to write for 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 is just asking for more trouble. Microsoft might be able to get away with this mismash, but Apple can't.
If anything Apple should release OS updates for free (this did happen at various times in the past) because the continuity and progress the entire platform provides drive additional hardware sales that would more than make up for the software revenue gained. Organizations freed from maintenance of licensing issues and platform compatibility issues would be more inclined to purchase Macs and then continue purchasing them
If anyone is actually paying any attention to the numbering scheme, they would see that Apple is following the methods of the Open Source Programmers. Their versioning scheme is like this: Odd increment is a development or Major Bug Fix release, and Even is a Stable and/or Major Feature Addition.
Look at what 10.1 gave to us. Plenty of bug fixes, plus things that should have been part of the 10.0 release. 10.2, also bug fixes, but also major enhancements and additions (Rendezous, iChat, Inkwell, True Samba Support, etc etc...)
Am I saying that Apple will make us pay for 10.3? If they follow the Open Source method for versioning, no. More than likely they will, because they are going along the idea that 10.x is the Major Revision, and 10.x.y are bug fixes and patches.
Also, I think that it is OK that they make us pay for it. Look at the poor Windows users.... They pay $180+ for each major revision of the Windows operating system. We pay less, and get a whole hell of a lot more for our $130.
What about Mac OS 13.5? How much would you be willing to pay for that? How much should Apple charge for that set of features?
Well, depending on what kind of features it has, I would definatily be willing to pay the same $129 as it is now (+ inflation). Besides, what features do you think 13.5 would have??
Comments
Agreed...and it will be $129.
if it is less, I will be delighted and surprised.
I hear a lot of people getting upset about having to pay for Panther because they are just or will be updating to Jaguar. I guess the updates do seem quite close if you use the strategy of waiting half a year or longer to move forward.
Originally posted by Overhope
Looking at the latter days of OS 9 releases, I remember running:
9.0.4 (the version that came with my Cube)
9.1
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
And all the upgrades were free...
Yep, and as you can see, those are the five free updates to Mac OS 9.
On a similar note, there were 5 free updates to Mac OS 10.1.
The fifth free update to Mac OS 10.2 is currently being seeded to developers.
Originally posted by rogue27
Wake up! They changed their numbering scheme if you didn't notice.
Now 10.x updates are paid, and 10.x.x updates are the free ones. 10.1 was the exception because that one was the major bug-fixer and feature booster. 10.3 will be a paid upgrade.
Where does this "9.5 was 10.0" stuff come from? OS X could not have been called 9.5 by any stretch of the imagination because they aren't even remotely related.
The 9.5 was 10 stuff comes because Apple changed what they were doing midstream. For us Mac dinosaurs. there was a strategy before the return of Jobs and NeXTStep becoming Mac OS X. Mac OS 8 was going to be called Copland and Mac OS 9 was going to be called Gershwin. Gershwin was supposed to bring pre-emptive multitasking, a micro-kernal, protected memory, etc. 9.5 would have been a refinement of an operating system that contained PMT, Protected memory, etc. Thus we would have paid for Mac 9.5.
Apple changed strategies but they kept the numbering strategies and even implemented some of technology after the plan was aborted. Mac OS 8 got a new multithreaded Finder, 9 got a microkernal and things of that nature.
Inbetween there were bug fixes and updates, but the big major changes were .5 or .0.
Meanwhile Apple released 10.0 and charged for it. People readily bought it but most determined it was really beta quality software. It was sluggish and buggy but at least it was out the door. Apple amended for this with the release of 10.1 which it went so far as to print cd's sets and give them away to make up for 10.0.
10.2 is preparing to come up and adds, again things that mostly should have been in 10.0. Proper printer support, real SAMBA support, things of that nature. People were actually expecting it to be called 10.5 but there weren't really enough major improvements to call it that. People conclude that 10.2 as it is called should be a free update.
Apple announces 10.2 and announces that it will cost $129. People were pissed but Apple cited precident as a means of justifying the cost. The precident was what I was pointing out. Of course they changed the numbering system. However they didn't change the paying system. If they change it again, they are being hypocritical. 10.5 or 11 should be a paid upgrade because they denote major new features. Bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Nick
Bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Then keep the Credit Card in your Wallet. I got no sympathy for someone who complains when the best thing they can do is refuse to pay. Programmers at Apple are paid ..they don't work for free. If someone doesn't want to pay for 10.3 then perhaps they should learn how to program and help out.
I just know we're going to have legions of people bitching about the price of Panther. I hope the mods clamp down on it...how other people spend their money is their own business.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Then keep the Credit Card in your Wallet. I got no sympathy for someone who complains when the best thing they can do is refuse to pay. Programmers at Apple are paid ..they don't work for free. If someone doesn't want to pay for 10.3 then perhaps they should learn how to program and help out.
I just know we're going to have legions of people bitching about the price of Panther. I hope the mods clamp down on it...how other people spend their money is their own business.
No one is saying programmers shouldn't get paid, but throw some more dust in the air. As I stated and as you quoted, bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Apple has plenty of room to improve OS X and expect money for it. They also use the OS as a means of selling their very overpriced hardware so that in part also pays for the development of it. Also Apple must try as hard as possible to keep the platform unified because its smaller marketshare needs as much pull as possible to developers. Asking a developer to write for 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 is just asking for more trouble. Microsoft might be able to get away with this mismash, but Apple can't.
If anything Apple should release OS updates for free (this did happen at various times in the past) because the continuity and progress the entire platform provides drive additional hardware sales that would more than make up for the software revenue gained. Organizations freed from maintenance of licensing issues and platform compatibility issues would be more inclined to purchase Macs and then continue purchasing them.
Nick
Second of all If you aren't going to pay, don't, buy you will not be able to change it!
Third of all, and last Apple is releasing bug fixes and intermediate updates! So, you are not paying for bug fixes, but more feature upgrades and other nifty things!
I don't see how anyone can backup their thoughts of not having to pay full price for 10.3 (except for edu. students)
You say you understand they have changed their numbering scheme but still don't think they should charge except for .5 and 0?
Yah, like Apple is going to develop 5 years worth of updates (about 25 in all) before they should charge anything. Maybe we all should work for our jobs for free until then as well.
I don't think Apple would be around long enough to wait for something like this. And while we are at it, let's all just keep the same computers during this time period and demand that Apple make the each new update scream.
Woohoo! I want some of that action.
Originally posted by trumptman
Asking a developer to write for 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 is just asking for more trouble.
Steve Jobs, May last year: "Mac OS 9 isn't dead for our customers yet, but it's dead for developers". Doesn't really sound like a request to write more software for 9 to me...
Are there such fundamental differences between the various versions of X that apps have to be rewritten for each one? Yes, odd things break, but that's always been the case, and is usually down to a developer doing something "interesting" or just plain unsupported.
I fully agree with Nebagakid, Panther is Mac OS X v3, Jag was v2. And I know I've paid for every major OS version going back to System 7...
Originally posted by kcmac
So trumptman...
You say you understand they have changed their numbering scheme but still don't think they should charge except for .5 and 0?
Yah, like Apple is going to develop 5 years worth of updates (about 25 in all) before they should charge anything. Maybe we all should work for our jobs for free until then as well.
I don't think Apple would be around long enough to wait for something like this. And while we are at it, let's all just keep the same computers during this time period and demand that Apple make the each new update scream.
Woohoo! I want some of that action.
I didn't say they changed the numbering system. I said they changed from using the old Mac OS (what was going to be Copland and Gershwin) to using NeXTStep instead.
I didn't say they changed the numbering system, nor even really the payment system. The only thing that has really changed is the amount of work done in the time frame.
Apple stated that it had been two years since they had charged for an OS upgrade and thus even though 10.2 only had enough improvement and refinement to justify a .1 increase in number they were going to charge for it. It isn't that the numbering sysem changed. It is that in two years they could only get OS X to the point of a refined initial release.
That is the problem and not my attitude about paying. Apple in two years has only gotten OS X from it's initial unrefined buggy near beta state to an actual workable OS called 10.2. Even with 10.2 people complain about the most basic things. The finder is not multithreaded with networking functions so it hangs when using an iDisk or transfering from another Mac. (Again a feature we gained in Mac OS 8) The scrolling speed in any app is abysmal likely do to trying to scroll antialiased fonts within the pinstripped aqua theme.
In short 10.3 will hopefully address some of these issues and shouldn't be a paid upgrade when it is addressing problems within the OS. Again if they want to add entirely new features and charge accordingly that is fine. I have no doubt that if the OS had an entirely new finder for example with totally enhanced features they would announce it, charge for it and number it accordingly. If they want to pound away on it for two years, throw out what they got and charge for it. (Even if it is just a .1 increase) I can vote with my wallet as you mentioned. However if Apple is going to try to get people to just "subscribe" to yearly OS fees, we might as well go Microsoft. It might even be cheaper under their licensing v.6. When you also consider that Apple didn't offer any upgrade pricing while Microsoft does, this makes it even worse.
Jaguar hasn't even been out a year yet. 10.3 should represent a years worth of improvements and refinements that I should get for free. the x.x.5 type releases don't change anything. Most of the time they fix obvious and sometimes obnoxious bugs that Apple should have caught before the OS went out. Like how 10.2.4 is eating up everyone's battery life right now. Most of the time they also add support for things like printers, cd-r's and other devices.
In short if Apple can't get by without charging me $129 a YEAR, then they aren't going to have many customers much longer. Because again they would be lying about the justification for charging for 10.2 and secondly they would become prohibitively expensive compared to even Microsoft.
Nick
"I can vote with my wallet as you mentioned. However if Apple is going to try to get people to just "subscribe" to yearly OS fees, we might as well go Microsoft. It might even be cheaper under their licensing v.6. When you also consider that Apple didn't offer any upgrade pricing while Microsoft does, this makes it even worse."
Yes you can and should if this is really the way you feel. I don't see any subscription fees here however. Apple has added a lot of new features to each major (yearly to you) update. They are also fixing bugs with the 10.x.x versions and the major versions. I have never purchased M$ Windows but I don't think they have anything like the family pack. (5 legal versions for less than $200).
What is the upgrade cost to XP Pro from 2000? $129 for OS X major versions don't bother me. And I can choose whether or not to upgrade when it feels right for me and my budget.
quoted by trumptman
"In short 10.3 will hopefully address some of these issues and shouldn't be a paid upgrade when it is addressing problems within the OS. Again if they want to add entirely new features and charge accordingly that is fine."
Was OS 9 ever done? Did you ever pay for new upgrades or did Apple only put out only new features. I don't think Apple is just going to fix the finder and then put it online for you to buy or make "minor" major paid upgrades.
Vote with your wallet. I bet that 10.3 will come packed with new features that will tempt you to buy. If not so be it. But don't expect it to solve all of the issues with the OS. That ain't going to ever happen and we all know it.
They do seem to have established a development pattern here however. I think it makes sense for the long term viability of Apple.
I concur...and at the same time, I think that many of trumptman's issues are entirely valid. I'm quite frankly hoping for more performance and bugstomping out of 10.3 than fresh features.
get over it.
Originally posted by trumptman
No one is saying programmers shouldn't get paid, but throw some more dust in the air. As I stated and as you quoted, bug fixes, feature tweaks and putting things as they should be do not equal give money.
Apple has plenty of room to improve OS X and expect money for it. They also use the OS as a means of selling their very overpriced hardware so that in part also pays for the development of it. Also Apple must try as hard as possible to keep the platform unified because its smaller marketshare needs as much pull as possible to developers. Asking a developer to write for 9, 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 is just asking for more trouble. Microsoft might be able to get away with this mismash, but Apple can't.
If anything Apple should release OS updates for free (this did happen at various times in the past) because the continuity and progress the entire platform provides drive additional hardware sales that would more than make up for the software revenue gained. Organizations freed from maintenance of licensing issues and platform compatibility issues would be more inclined to purchase Macs and then continue purchasing them
If anyone is actually paying any attention to the numbering scheme, they would see that Apple is following the methods of the Open Source Programmers. Their versioning scheme is like this: Odd increment is a development or Major Bug Fix release, and Even is a Stable and/or Major Feature Addition.
Look at what 10.1 gave to us. Plenty of bug fixes, plus things that should have been part of the 10.0 release. 10.2, also bug fixes, but also major enhancements and additions (Rendezous, iChat, Inkwell, True Samba Support, etc etc...)
Am I saying that Apple will make us pay for 10.3? If they follow the Open Source method for versioning, no. More than likely they will, because they are going along the idea that 10.x is the Major Revision, and 10.x.y are bug fixes and patches.
Also, I think that it is OK that they make us pay for it. Look at the poor Windows users.... They pay $180+ for each major revision of the Windows operating system. We pay less, and get a whole hell of a lot more for our $130.
Just some words to think about.
Originally posted by tchwojko
What about Mac OS 13.5? How much would you be willing to pay for that? How much should Apple charge for that set of features?
Well, depending on what kind of features it has, I would definatily be willing to pay the same $129 as it is now (+ inflation). Besides, what features do you think 13.5 would have??
I have to say I agree with Dan Knight on this one.