Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
What bugs me the most is that every year and a half that Apple .1 updates OSX, the new OSX isn't compatable with a lot of existing software (see ProTools, etc), but new software frequently requires the new OS version...
I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...
Just a thought. Maybe the grass is always greener, and I do admit that Apple's model allows the company to generate extra hype on a more regular basis (although CocoaFinder and ImageBoot aren't really much to get excited about for the average user...)
I realize this mail exposes me to the potential to a ridiculous number of flames, which really aren't necessary, so please, put away your negative crayons.
The time between Tiger and Leopard was two and a half years, the time between Panther and Tiger was two years. Snow Leopard is going to be the exception to the rule Steve Jobs laid down when OS X first came out, 'As time goes on OS X upgrades will be less and less frequent'. Because Snow Leopard is a massive engine upgrade and catch-up-to-features-we-promised release.
And I'd rather pay 129 every couple of years than 4 or 500 every five or six years. Beside the fact that it would take three OS X upgrades to equal the price of a single Windows upgrade, no version of Microsoft Windows has ever actually been worth 300, 400, 500 dollars. Especially not Vista. In reverse, OS X is worth a lot more than 129, and that's the fully featured version. You have to pay a 'Microsoft tax' to get all the features from Windows now.
In short, it's a very fair price in my eyes for what you get and if Snow Leopard is 129 like every other version then I'd be more than willing to pay it. Not just because it's a fair price for what they're changing but because companies like Apple have long since earned my respect for the dedication they have towards their products.
Well, Mike Bombich does work at Apple now, so maybe this is an offshoot of NetRestore.
I thought the technology sounded familiar. I don't get how it's any different from booting from a cloned external drive? Maybe just that it applies to installation of the O/S?
Definitely interested to see more details on it anyways. I've been using SuperDuper forever now, and never had any issues. The only thing I wish was faster was the cloning to image process. Using CloneZilla on a Windows-based PC, I'm able to create a disk image in 10 minutes, vs. 45 minutes for an OS X image with SuperDuper. There definitely seems like there is room for some improvement there.
I've tried NetBoot in the past, but wasn't thrilled with the performance. The types of apps people use on a Mac just aren't meant to be used in a NetBoot or Citrix type environment.
The nice thing about going Cocoa right now is that the iPhone has brought at least a metric ton of developers to the platform via the iPhone. On top of this, Apple has invested heavily in optimizing Cocoa in ways that only coding for an underpowered tiny device can force one to do. This should translate directly into some pretty nice side effects in this new OS.
It seems like very good timing, and the brave decision to take that performance and foundational leap as soon as possible by limiting the focus on more easily marketable features speaks to a maturity in a tech company that is rare. Seeing it come from Apple which has had a history of dipping into the most childish of company cultures is encouraging.
Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
I don't believe Apple has announced the pricing for Snow Leopard yet.
Quote:
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
I don't know what you were running, but each release has increased the speed on my machines. Tiger in particular was a large bump in performance, especially the Finder. As far as internals go, there were major foundation changes beyond the addition of Time Machine and Expose, and I think Apple's done a good job adding value to each update so that people who aren't aware of the technical changes are still interested.
I think that was a typo. He probably meant deprecated.
Carbon should have been deprecated at about 10.3 or 10.4. Hopefully, Apple will not ship any Carbon apps with 10.6 and will pull all Carbon support from 10.7.
I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...
Well thats you, but for most of us, if an OS would be a price like that, there is no way we will be upgrading. Its just too much money to flush out at a time and if 6 years? Then the OS will be out dated too much and Apple will end up like MS mistake which is XP to Vista, too long and too late. Besides by 6 years is most likely you will buy a new notebook or PC....6 years is just too long, so far Im happy with Apple releasing minor updates and improving on stuffs rather then suddenly release a major one and ended up screwing up a lot of things....this again reminds me of V for Vista baby!
About the pricing, think about this, why do you think many teenagers can afford an iPhone? Its because its sold at $199, that's cheap, but when you sum up the monthly payment, then its actually not that cheap. But people don't feel it, how would you feel if an iPhone is sold at around $1k? Will you buy it? Will the consumers (especially to the teenagers) buy it? I doubt so.
Quote:
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
Yes cause you forget to realize something, for each revision of OS X the coding will be improved to make the OS faster, by how much? Well I also do not know.
Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
What bugs me the most is that every year and a half that Apple .1 updates OSX, the new OSX isn't compatable with a lot of existing software (see ProTools, etc), but new software frequently requires the new OS version...
I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...
Just a thought. Maybe the grass is always greener, and I do admit that Apple's model allows the company to generate extra hype on a more regular basis (although CocoaFinder and ImageBoot aren't really much to get excited about for the average user...)
I realize this mail exposes me to the potential to a ridiculous number of flames, which really aren't necessary, so please, put away your negative crayons.
but then it was stupid to make something called "mini DVI" and "mini DisplayPort" so I wouldn't put it past them, not all of Apple's recipes taste great though.
Yes, it was such a stupid idea to include a video interface port that lets you connect to anything from VGA on up to HDMI and DVI monitors with the addition of an inexpensive adapter.
Especially since some of the monitors' interface connectors wouldn't fit on a laptop as thin as the new MB/MBP set.
The way I remember it, didn't new releases of OS X pack enough punch to cause MicroSoft to completely go back to the drawing board and delay Vista for like..... years?
No. Vista was delayed because in 2004, its kernel was shifted from XP to Windows Server 2003.
Cocoa Finder- I'm beyond the era in which the mere evocation of "Cocoa" makes me think
something is automatically going to be better. We'll see when SL hits if Cocoa and standard evolution make for an improved finder.
I'd like to see more copies in the hands of developers.
I have no problem paying full pop for SL as long as I get.
1. A very stable and "lean n mean" OS. I hope the size reductions that I've seen are true and that Apple engineers are working hard at eliminating bugs and optimizing the hell out of what they have.
2. New tech like OpenCL and Grand Central are delivered without the 1.0 gotchas that you often see.
3. Quicktime truly has a vast improvement. I'm tired of reading about improvements only to find they are relatively miniscule.
I'll pass your compliments to the chef (Apple) as they're the ones who listed almost every Carbon framework in Leopard (if not all of them, don't remember) in their Xcode documentation.
Firewire is another story, it would be stupid to take it out of either the Macbook Pro and Mac Pro, but then it was stupid to make something called "mini DVI" and "mini DisplayPort" so I wouldn't put it past them, not all of Apple's recipes taste great though.
Sebastian
Apple's just doing what many other hardware companies are doing, and it's not new for them at all. Creating proprietary ports to lock consumers into your product line is good business, plus who can argue too much over smaller ports on a portable?
I think that was a typo. He probably meant deprecated.
Carbon should have been deprecated at about 10.3 or 10.4. Hopefully, Apple will not ship any Carbon apps with 10.6 and will pull all Carbon support from 10.7.
Depreciation and deprecation follow each other, and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know which occurred first.
Apple's just doing what many other hardware companies are doing, and it's not new for them at all. Creating proprietary ports to lock consumers into your product line is good business, plus who can argue too much over smaller ports on a portable?
Then again extra dongles suck.
I think it is never a good time to change until a few years down the road. Then you see it was a good thing. I hope that is the case here.
Comments
Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
What bugs me the most is that every year and a half that Apple .1 updates OSX, the new OSX isn't compatable with a lot of existing software (see ProTools, etc), but new software frequently requires the new OS version...
I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...
Just a thought. Maybe the grass is always greener, and I do admit that Apple's model allows the company to generate extra hype on a more regular basis (although CocoaFinder and ImageBoot aren't really much to get excited about for the average user...)
I realize this mail exposes me to the potential to a ridiculous number of flames, which really aren't necessary, so please, put away your negative crayons.
The time between Tiger and Leopard was two and a half years, the time between Panther and Tiger was two years. Snow Leopard is going to be the exception to the rule Steve Jobs laid down when OS X first came out, 'As time goes on OS X upgrades will be less and less frequent'. Because Snow Leopard is a massive engine upgrade and catch-up-to-features-we-promised release.
And I'd rather pay 129 every couple of years than 4 or 500 every five or six years. Beside the fact that it would take three OS X upgrades to equal the price of a single Windows upgrade, no version of Microsoft Windows has ever actually been worth 300, 400, 500 dollars. Especially not Vista. In reverse, OS X is worth a lot more than 129, and that's the fully featured version. You have to pay a 'Microsoft tax' to get all the features from Windows now.
In short, it's a very fair price in my eyes for what you get and if Snow Leopard is 129 like every other version then I'd be more than willing to pay it. Not just because it's a fair price for what they're changing but because companies like Apple have long since earned my respect for the dedication they have towards their products.
Depreciated but not gone yet, there's been no indication that Carbon would be eliminated in 10.6, probably in 10.7 or 10.8.
Sebastian
Well, it's just a really advanced warning if your statement proves true.
I like your choice of word: depreciated. I'll use that from now on describing FireWire. Thanks!
Well, Mike Bombich does work at Apple now, so maybe this is an offshoot of NetRestore.
I thought the technology sounded familiar. I don't get how it's any different from booting from a cloned external drive? Maybe just that it applies to installation of the O/S?
Definitely interested to see more details on it anyways. I've been using SuperDuper forever now, and never had any issues. The only thing I wish was faster was the cloning to image process. Using CloneZilla on a Windows-based PC, I'm able to create a disk image in 10 minutes, vs. 45 minutes for an OS X image with SuperDuper. There definitely seems like there is room for some improvement there.
I've tried NetBoot in the past, but wasn't thrilled with the performance. The types of apps people use on a Mac just aren't meant to be used in a NetBoot or Citrix type environment.
It seems like very good timing, and the brave decision to take that performance and foundational leap as soon as possible by limiting the focus on more easily marketable features speaks to a maturity in a tech company that is rare. Seeing it come from Apple which has had a history of dipping into the most childish of company cultures is encouraging.
Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
I don't believe Apple has announced the pricing for Snow Leopard yet.
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
I don't know what you were running, but each release has increased the speed on my machines. Tiger in particular was a large bump in performance, especially the Finder. As far as internals go, there were major foundation changes beyond the addition of Time Machine and Expose, and I think Apple's done a good job adding value to each update so that people who aren't aware of the technical changes are still interested.
I bet in typical Apple fashion its still single threaded so a sluggish connection to a file server makes the whole Finder look as if its hung
Isn't it multithreaded since Leopard? it seems so to me.
I like your choice of word: depreciated.
I think that was a typo. He probably meant deprecated.
Carbon should have been deprecated at about 10.3 or 10.4. Hopefully, Apple will not ship any Carbon apps with 10.6 and will pull all Carbon support from 10.7.
I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...
Well thats you, but for most of us, if an OS would be a price like that, there is no way we will be upgrading. Its just too much money to flush out at a time and if 6 years? Then the OS will be out dated too much and Apple will end up like MS mistake which is XP to Vista, too long and too late. Besides by 6 years is most likely you will buy a new notebook or PC....6 years is just too long, so far Im happy with Apple releasing minor updates and improving on stuffs rather then suddenly release a major one and ended up screwing up a lot of things....this again reminds me of V for Vista baby!
About the pricing, think about this, why do you think many teenagers can afford an iPhone? Its because its sold at $199, that's cheap, but when you sum up the monthly payment, then its actually not that cheap. But people don't feel it, how would you feel if an iPhone is sold at around $1k? Will you buy it? Will the consumers (especially to the teenagers) buy it? I doubt so.
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
Yes cause you forget to realize something, for each revision of OS X the coding will be improved to make the OS faster, by how much? Well I also do not know.
Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
No, which is good, because you haven't had to pay for . releases.
Apple chose to keep the "X" naming convention for marketing/branding reasons.
The changes between 10.4 and 10.5 are about the same scale as another company's NT 4.0 to NT 5.0.
That said, when did Apple ever hold a gun to your head while they rifled through your wallet?
Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?
It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?
What bugs me the most is that every year and a half that Apple .1 updates OSX, the new OSX isn't compatable with a lot of existing software (see ProTools, etc), but new software frequently requires the new OS version...
I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...
Just a thought. Maybe the grass is always greener, and I do admit that Apple's model allows the company to generate extra hype on a more regular basis (although CocoaFinder and ImageBoot aren't really much to get excited about for the average user...)
I realize this mail exposes me to the potential to a ridiculous number of flames, which really aren't necessary, so please, put away your negative crayons.
Go away Windoze troll!
but then it was stupid to make something called "mini DVI" and "mini DisplayPort" so I wouldn't put it past them, not all of Apple's recipes taste great though.
Yes, it was such a stupid idea to include a video interface port that lets you connect to anything from VGA on up to HDMI and DVI monitors with the addition of an inexpensive adapter.
Especially since some of the monitors' interface connectors wouldn't fit on a laptop as thin as the new MB/MBP set.
What could they possibly have been thinking?
I'm thinking of getting CS4, but am concerned that Mac OS X seems to be moving towards being Cocoa-only.
Got burnt when my PS stopped working on Leopard, and hope not to go through that again.
It seems quite unlikely that Apple will drop Carbon support altogether, but it's tweaked stuff here and there before
Any ideas on whether to wait or get CS4?
This was good for a laff and a haff.
The way I remember it, didn't new releases of OS X pack enough punch to cause MicroSoft to completely go back to the drawing board and delay Vista for like..... years?
No. Vista was delayed because in 2004, its kernel was shifted from XP to Windows Server 2003.
Cocoa Finder- I'm beyond the era in which the mere evocation of "Cocoa" makes me think
something is automatically going to be better. We'll see when SL hits if Cocoa and standard evolution make for an improved finder.
I'd like to see more copies in the hands of developers.
I have no problem paying full pop for SL as long as I get.
1. A very stable and "lean n mean" OS. I hope the size reductions that I've seen are true and that Apple engineers are working hard at eliminating bugs and optimizing the hell out of what they have.
2. New tech like OpenCL and Grand Central are delivered without the 1.0 gotchas that you often see.
3. Quicktime truly has a vast improvement. I'm tired of reading about improvements only to find they are relatively miniscule.
4. Some sort of surprise that no on saw coming.
I'll pass your compliments to the chef (Apple) as they're the ones who listed almost every Carbon framework in Leopard (if not all of them, don't remember) in their Xcode documentation.
Firewire is another story, it would be stupid to take it out of either the Macbook Pro and Mac Pro, but then it was stupid to make something called "mini DVI" and "mini DisplayPort" so I wouldn't put it past them, not all of Apple's recipes taste great though.
Sebastian
Apple's just doing what many other hardware companies are doing, and it's not new for them at all. Creating proprietary ports to lock consumers into your product line is good business, plus who can argue too much over smaller ports on a portable?
Then again extra dongles suck.
I think that was a typo. He probably meant deprecated.
Carbon should have been deprecated at about 10.3 or 10.4. Hopefully, Apple will not ship any Carbon apps with 10.6 and will pull all Carbon support from 10.7.
Depreciation and deprecation follow each other, and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know which occurred first.
Apple's just doing what many other hardware companies are doing, and it's not new for them at all. Creating proprietary ports to lock consumers into your product line is good business, plus who can argue too much over smaller ports on a portable?
Then again extra dongles suck.
I think it is never a good time to change until a few years down the road. Then you see it was a good thing. I hope that is the case here.