Someone on another board mentioned a point well worth considering.
Apparently, in the *nix world, single point releases (i.e. 3.1 to 3.2) are considered major changes to the app. It sounds as if Apple is simply moving from the old style (8.1 to 8.5 as major upgrades) to something more in line with X's *nix underpinnnings.
So, I'd say by the time we see 10.3, we'll be getting more major changes... and have to pay full price again.
Just look at it like this. If 1 year or more passes and 10.3 is released, then we will pay full price. It's been over a year since I have had to pay for an OS update.
<strong>Someone on another board mentioned a point well worth considering.
Apparently, in the *nix world, single point releases (i.e. 3.1 to 3.2) are considered major changes to the app. It sounds as if Apple is simply moving from the old style (8.1 to 8.5 as major upgrades) to something more in line with X's *nix underpinnnings.
So, I'd say by the time we see 10.3, we'll be getting more major changes... and have to pay full price again. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty much.
Software Versioning for Dummies:
Forget everything you've seen from MS, first off. They've never had a clue about this.
Software versions are generally of the form x.y.z (with the occasional x.y.z.n).
x: Major release number
Indicates a *MAJOR* revamping of the source code, at a fundamental level. Includes changes such as language shifts, major design changes to the software architecture, or new hardware support (at the CPU level).
y: Minor release number.
Indicates new features added. 'Minor' is of course relative only to the major release number above... anything that doesn't change the fundamentals of the software system is fair game in a x.y release.
z: Bug fix number.
Perhaps some minor features added, but the main thrust of a x.y.z release is to fix bugs in an x.y release.
This is how the vast majority of the software development world works (MS not withstanding), and it makes nice logical sense.
Apple had it right years ago, then busted it all to heck and back with the x.5 releases. Blah. (More to the point, they blew it with x.1 releases that were mostly bug fixes, requiring the x.5 releases for 'new features'.)
Now they're back into a nice logical consistent numbering scheme: x.y releases *add features*, so they're paid. This makes sense - you don't get something for nothing. What you *do* get for nothing, and you should, are the bug fixes... and you'll notice that every x.y.z release has been free. (And some have even added features.)
10.1 added a lot of new features that were under the hood, and not aimed at consumers... but they were there. It qualified for an x.y release.
10.2 adds a lot *more*, at both the developer and consumer levels. It *more* than qualifies for an x.y release... if it weren't a throwback to a stupid marketing ploy, I'd almost say it's worthy of an x.5 number.
I don't expect we'll see 11.0 until another major revamp of the OS comes down the pipe, perhaps a move to AMD hardware, perhaps a new core that replaces BSD4.4, perhaps something slightly higher up that fundamentally change how the rest of the system is designed (like, oh, *rich* metadata in the file system...).
To give you an idea of where they screwed up in the past, and where I hope we never see a repeat...
6.x -> 7.0 OK
7.0 -> 7.1 OK
7.1 -> 7.5 Dumb
7.5 -> 8.0 Marginal
8.0 -> 8.1 OK
8.1 -> 8.5 Dumb
8.5 -> 8.6 OK
8.6 -> 9.0 Dumb
9.0 -> 9.1 OK
9.1 -> 9.2 OK
9.2 -> 10.0 OK
Strictly speaking, 9.2 should have been at most 8.6, if it had gone logically and sequentially.
Comments
Apparently, in the *nix world, single point releases (i.e. 3.1 to 3.2) are considered major changes to the app. It sounds as if Apple is simply moving from the old style (8.1 to 8.5 as major upgrades) to something more in line with X's *nix underpinnnings.
So, I'd say by the time we see 10.3, we'll be getting more major changes... and have to pay full price again.
<strong>Someone on another board mentioned a point well worth considering.
Apparently, in the *nix world, single point releases (i.e. 3.1 to 3.2) are considered major changes to the app. It sounds as if Apple is simply moving from the old style (8.1 to 8.5 as major upgrades) to something more in line with X's *nix underpinnnings.
So, I'd say by the time we see 10.3, we'll be getting more major changes... and have to pay full price again.
Pretty much.
Software Versioning for Dummies:
Forget everything you've seen from MS, first off. They've never had a clue about this.
Software versions are generally of the form x.y.z (with the occasional x.y.z.n).
x: Major release number
Indicates a *MAJOR* revamping of the source code, at a fundamental level. Includes changes such as language shifts, major design changes to the software architecture, or new hardware support (at the CPU level).
y: Minor release number.
Indicates new features added. 'Minor' is of course relative only to the major release number above... anything that doesn't change the fundamentals of the software system is fair game in a x.y release.
z: Bug fix number.
Perhaps some minor features added, but the main thrust of a x.y.z release is to fix bugs in an x.y release.
This is how the vast majority of the software development world works (MS not withstanding), and it makes nice logical sense.
Apple had it right years ago, then busted it all to heck and back with the x.5 releases. Blah. (More to the point, they blew it with x.1 releases that were mostly bug fixes, requiring the x.5 releases for 'new features'.)
Now they're back into a nice logical consistent numbering scheme: x.y releases *add features*, so they're paid. This makes sense - you don't get something for nothing. What you *do* get for nothing, and you should, are the bug fixes... and you'll notice that every x.y.z release has been free. (And some have even added features.)
10.1 added a lot of new features that were under the hood, and not aimed at consumers... but they were there. It qualified for an x.y release.
10.2 adds a lot *more*, at both the developer and consumer levels. It *more* than qualifies for an x.y release... if it weren't a throwback to a stupid marketing ploy, I'd almost say it's worthy of an x.5 number.
I don't expect we'll see 11.0 until another major revamp of the OS comes down the pipe, perhaps a move to AMD hardware, perhaps a new core that replaces BSD4.4, perhaps something slightly higher up that fundamentally change how the rest of the system is designed (like, oh, *rich* metadata in the file system...).
To give you an idea of where they screwed up in the past, and where I hope we never see a repeat...
6.x -> 7.0 OK
7.0 -> 7.1 OK
7.1 -> 7.5 Dumb
7.5 -> 8.0 Marginal
8.0 -> 8.1 OK
8.1 -> 8.5 Dumb
8.5 -> 8.6 OK
8.6 -> 9.0 Dumb
9.0 -> 9.1 OK
9.1 -> 9.2 OK
9.2 -> 10.0 OK
Strictly speaking, 9.2 should have been at most 8.6, if it had gone logically and sequentially.