that horse... college thing! Lewis Black said that when he was on campus!
Oh, I'd say it's hard to quantify the value of something, but I think Jaguar is definitely worth having. I guess if I look at as costing about as much as 3 computer games, then I suppose it's worth it, because the improvments in Jaguar are constantly benefiting me because Jaguar is constantly running, while 3 computer games won't benefit me as much, yet I buy them anyway.
*shrug*
That probably made no sense to anybody.
The networking improvments are probably what I like best. I'm sure the best is yet to come.
For people who are using OS 9 and Windows, it's WELL worth the price if not more. But for those of us who have been using OS X since the public beta, I really felt full price was too much for this update.
Overall it's a nice update but I don't really feel the upgrade price was worth it for me. I can't use Quartz extreme on my Mac and I have no need for Rendevous yet, I mainly wanted it for the bug fixes and minor speed improvemens and also just to stay up to date.
I don't really care much about the new features or iApps. Sherlock is garbage, I never liked it but the version that ships with Jaguar is getting even worse, Watson is 1000x better.
My main complaint with the iApps in general is Apple's use of the brushed metal. It's good for apps like iTunes and iMovie, but what were they thinking making apps like iChat, iCal and the address book use it? It slows them down far too much and is not well suited for those types of apps, this should really be an option the user can set cuz I DON'T WANT IT!! I don't like the idea of needing a multiprocessor Mac just to view my daily calendar, next I'll need an Xserve just to view my email!
To Xaqtly: I agree that no one can expect to pay less because they personally aren't going to use some of the features included. That makes total sense.
But think about this - if you bought MS Office 2001, you spent a lot of money. Over $400. So when MS released Office v. X, you can buy an upgrade for much less than that. It's because since you bought the program already, you already own most of the functionality. What you pay for in the upgrade is the extra features (in this case, OS X compatibility).
If someone bought 10.1 and later 10.2, that means that they bought Aqua twice, Darwin twice, the UNIX base twice, the Genie effect twice, etc. If you already own the majority of OS X, why buy the entire thing all over again? It would be somewhat like a mechanic charging you the full price for a car if you wanted to do a tune-up.
I suppose in a sense that means that the old OS has been thoroughly "totaled" by Apple.
EDIT: heh, post #420... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Jaguar is a good deal if it comes installed free of charge on your machine, not if you have to pay for it. But most of the machines are only a good deal for Apple who still insists on selling trailing edge performance at bleeding edge prices. If everything you do in OS9 works well, stay there untill they offer faster machines. Just too many negatives right now. The whole platform is on the cusp of a major change. The OS is a part of it, but something on the hardware side needs to show up too. I think the picture may be very different in '03. Wait on it for both the hardware and the software.
Well, I don't want to degenerate this thread into an OS 9 vs. OS X slugging match, but I will say that I did struggle with the question of whether or not to upgrade the OS for a while. It made sense for me because I'm planning on keeping my current machine for a while (at least 2-3 more years), and will most likely upgrade the proc before purchasing a new computer. (I do NOT want to get into a debate on the economics or merits of upgrading vs. purchasing new. My decision has already been made, so .)
Again, it made sense for me because all of my major apps were OSX ready (except for Quark, but I'm thinking of switching to InDesign anyway), so the transition was not as drastic as it might be for someone else.
While I wouldn't say that Jaguar has changed my life (and anyone that does needs to go out and get one), I'd say that it was a definate improvement over working with OS9.
<strong>You're paying Apple for the work they put into Jaguar, which is a tremendous amount of work. Far more than they put into most upgrades. Whether you use all the features or not is 100% irrelevant.
And Belle, I think you're deluding yourself on the specific value of certain things in Jaguar such as Rendezvous. "Pre-existing technology with a new name", huh? Does that mean you are of the opinion that Apple did nothing to make it work on the Mac platform other than rename it? And furthermore, does the fact that it's based on Zeroconf mean that it has less worth to you than if it had been developed by Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was under the impression that this thread was asking for individual opinions as to whether Jaguar is worth $130.
My view is that for me, there's no way it warrants the $130 price tag.
As for Rendezvous, it's terrific that Apple put it all together for Macintosh, but right now, and for at least a few months, it's entirely useless until those companies who are adopting the technology release compatible hardware.
It's about value for money. I can't use Rendezvous right now (I'm not on a network to use iChat), but I could use a Finder that remembers my settings and doesn't shift icons around by itself.
[quote]<strong>Ridiculous. You seem to be of the overall opinion that Jaguar isn't worth the money simply because YOU aren't going to use all its features, or that YOU don't believe they're worth anything. Hate to break it to you, but YOU are not the only person that matters, and I think Apple knows that. If you want an operating system built to your specifications, build it yourself. But don't blame Apple for not living up to your lofty expectations, or for including features that other people might actually enjoy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, well I typically buy products based on their features and usability as regards MY use. I'm not buying Mac OS X for everyone, I'm buying it for ME.
I'm not suggesting that just because I want OS X to make toast for me each morning that Apple should concentrate on that feature and ignore base level audio and networking that are required by most users. I'm merely suggesting that there are some basic flaws in OS X that should have been addressed in this upgrade.
As far as I'm concerned, I feel that a vastly improved Finder should have been a much higher priority in this release, as it's the first part of the OS we all come across, and a part in which we all spend much of our computing time.
It's also the first thing those "switchers" will have to battle with when they unpack their shiny new Macs.
So if we're talking about paying $130 for the greater good, and not just for a product I am happy with, I still feel Apple got it wrong.
[quote] It's about value for money. I can't use Rendezvous right now (I'm not on a network to use iChat), but I could use a Finder that remembers my settings and doesn't shift icons around by itself. <hr></blockquote>
I think this highlights what I was getting at - You say value for the money. So does that mean you feel like you should be charged a different price than me? Because you see, I actually CAN use Rendezvous. Should I be charged more than you are? It's that fundamental flaw in your reasoning I mentioned before - you can't use any argument that brings up value for the money when pointing out specific features that you can't use. It doesn't work that way.
I agree that the Finder needs some work (but not all that much, it's actually pretty damn good as it is right now) and some other bug fixes. What I'm saying is that you can't put an independant value on things like Rendezvous based only on whether you can use them or not. It's all there in Jaguar, whether you use it or not is 100% irrelevant.
And so far, a lot of your reasons for thinking Jaguar isn't a good value are based on features that you aren't using, and a belief that Apple should have been working on other things instead. In reality, those are not valid reasons for Apple to reduce the price of Jaguar. It costs what it costs because of the work that was put into it. Wishing for more bug fixes or different features does not devalue Jaguar at all.
I'd just like to add that I'm not disagreeing with you about what Apple needs to do with OS X. Only about your take on Apple's pricing. Although I do think you're ragging on the Finder a bit much - it works just fine for me. No new user is going to have a problem with it. Just because you want it to do more doesn't mean that it's hopelessly unusable right now.
I've been on 10.2 since the week of the release, but I played around with a Mac today on 10.1, and really didn't have that immediate urge to upgrade it . Not like when I got on 10.1, and then played around with 10.0.
I'm in charge of a small computer lab, and I don't think I'll upgrade the lab computers to 10.2, even though the upgrades wouldn't cost me anything.
I love iCal and iChat and I'm looking forward to iSync. But I find it hard to believe that they really required 10.2. (And holy cow am i sick of the i names. It's as old now as Bondi Blue.)
Quartz Extreme means nothing to me. It might not even exist, as far as I can tell. Oh, the volume indicator is now transparent over DVDs. Hmmm...
The new Find functions are great - much much nicer than the old Sherlock. Sherlock itself is fine, but I just can't quite get over the fact that it is such a rip-off of the good guys at Karelia.
I have mixed feelings about the $130. It's been 18 months since there were any paid upgrades, and IIRC that's pretty typical for a paid Apple OS upgrade. On the other hand, the upgrade itself wasn't quite the leap that other paid upgrades have been in the past (I'm thinking of 7.5 and 8.5).
(This free association on Jagwire was brought to you by BRussell?.)
Comments
It really depends on the context in which you use OSX.
If you're a Musician of course it's worth the money
It you rely on Networking It may be worth the money
If you use your Mac like a glorified Internet box then you may have your doubts about Jaguars worthiness.
I think the problem with threads like this is that most people don't preface their comments with
1. What their desired result was/is.
2. Their Hardware/Software setup and how they installed Jaguar
I too often see people display their frustration with Jaguar and sometimes try to persuade other to align with their views.
There are plenty of things in life that aren't worth the $$$ but in the end many would rather pay to be with than not pay and be without.
other than that, it hasnt helped my poor old imac at all, so none of the cool shit does any good...
Oh, I'd say it's hard to quantify the value of something, but I think Jaguar is definitely worth having. I guess if I look at as costing about as much as 3 computer games, then I suppose it's worth it, because the improvments in Jaguar are constantly benefiting me because Jaguar is constantly running, while 3 computer games won't benefit me as much, yet I buy them anyway.
*shrug*
That probably made no sense to anybody.
The networking improvments are probably what I like best. I'm sure the best is yet to come.
Overall it's a nice update but I don't really feel the upgrade price was worth it for me. I can't use Quartz extreme on my Mac and I have no need for Rendevous yet, I mainly wanted it for the bug fixes and minor speed improvemens and also just to stay up to date.
I don't really care much about the new features or iApps. Sherlock is garbage, I never liked it but the version that ships with Jaguar is getting even worse, Watson is 1000x better.
My main complaint with the iApps in general is Apple's use of the brushed metal. It's good for apps like iTunes and iMovie, but what were they thinking making apps like iChat, iCal and the address book use it? It slows them down far too much and is not well suited for those types of apps, this should really be an option the user can set cuz I DON'T WANT IT!! I don't like the idea of needing a multiprocessor Mac just to view my daily calendar, next I'll need an Xserve just to view my email!
But think about this - if you bought MS Office 2001, you spent a lot of money. Over $400. So when MS released Office v. X, you can buy an upgrade for much less than that. It's because since you bought the program already, you already own most of the functionality. What you pay for in the upgrade is the extra features (in this case, OS X compatibility).
If someone bought 10.1 and later 10.2, that means that they bought Aqua twice, Darwin twice, the UNIX base twice, the Genie effect twice, etc. If you already own the majority of OS X, why buy the entire thing all over again? It would be somewhat like a mechanic charging you the full price for a car if you wanted to do a tune-up.
I suppose in a sense that means that the old OS has been thoroughly "totaled" by Apple.
EDIT: heh, post #420... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 09-13-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
Again, it made sense for me because all of my major apps were OSX ready (except for Quark, but I'm thinking of switching to InDesign anyway), so the transition was not as drastic as it might be for someone else.
While I wouldn't say that Jaguar has changed my life (and anyone that does needs to go out and get one), I'd say that it was a definate improvement over working with OS9.
<strong>You're paying Apple for the work they put into Jaguar, which is a tremendous amount of work. Far more than they put into most upgrades. Whether you use all the features or not is 100% irrelevant.
And Belle, I think you're deluding yourself on the specific value of certain things in Jaguar such as Rendezvous. "Pre-existing technology with a new name", huh? Does that mean you are of the opinion that Apple did nothing to make it work on the Mac platform other than rename it? And furthermore, does the fact that it's based on Zeroconf mean that it has less worth to you than if it had been developed by Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was under the impression that this thread was asking for individual opinions as to whether Jaguar is worth $130.
My view is that for me, there's no way it warrants the $130 price tag.
As for Rendezvous, it's terrific that Apple put it all together for Macintosh, but right now, and for at least a few months, it's entirely useless until those companies who are adopting the technology release compatible hardware.
It's about value for money. I can't use Rendezvous right now (I'm not on a network to use iChat), but I could use a Finder that remembers my settings and doesn't shift icons around by itself.
[quote]<strong>Ridiculous. You seem to be of the overall opinion that Jaguar isn't worth the money simply because YOU aren't going to use all its features, or that YOU don't believe they're worth anything. Hate to break it to you, but YOU are not the only person that matters, and I think Apple knows that. If you want an operating system built to your specifications, build it yourself. But don't blame Apple for not living up to your lofty expectations, or for including features that other people might actually enjoy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, well I typically buy products based on their features and usability as regards MY use. I'm not buying Mac OS X for everyone, I'm buying it for ME.
I'm not suggesting that just because I want OS X to make toast for me each morning that Apple should concentrate on that feature and ignore base level audio and networking that are required by most users. I'm merely suggesting that there are some basic flaws in OS X that should have been addressed in this upgrade.
As far as I'm concerned, I feel that a vastly improved Finder should have been a much higher priority in this release, as it's the first part of the OS we all come across, and a part in which we all spend much of our computing time.
It's also the first thing those "switchers" will have to battle with when they unpack their shiny new Macs.
So if we're talking about paying $130 for the greater good, and not just for a product I am happy with, I still feel Apple got it wrong.
I think this highlights what I was getting at - You say value for the money. So does that mean you feel like you should be charged a different price than me? Because you see, I actually CAN use Rendezvous. Should I be charged more than you are? It's that fundamental flaw in your reasoning I mentioned before - you can't use any argument that brings up value for the money when pointing out specific features that you can't use. It doesn't work that way.
I agree that the Finder needs some work (but not all that much, it's actually pretty damn good as it is right now) and some other bug fixes. What I'm saying is that you can't put an independant value on things like Rendezvous based only on whether you can use them or not. It's all there in Jaguar, whether you use it or not is 100% irrelevant.
And so far, a lot of your reasons for thinking Jaguar isn't a good value are based on features that you aren't using, and a belief that Apple should have been working on other things instead. In reality, those are not valid reasons for Apple to reduce the price of Jaguar. It costs what it costs because of the work that was put into it. Wishing for more bug fixes or different features does not devalue Jaguar at all.
I'd just like to add that I'm not disagreeing with you about what Apple needs to do with OS X. Only about your take on Apple's pricing. Although I do think you're ragging on the Finder a bit much - it works just fine for me. No new user is going to have a problem with it. Just because you want it to do more doesn't mean that it's hopelessly unusable right now.
I'm in charge of a small computer lab, and I don't think I'll upgrade the lab computers to 10.2, even though the upgrades wouldn't cost me anything.
I love iCal and iChat and I'm looking forward to iSync. But I find it hard to believe that they really required 10.2. (And holy cow am i sick of the i names. It's as old now as Bondi Blue.)
Quartz Extreme means nothing to me. It might not even exist, as far as I can tell. Oh, the volume indicator is now transparent over DVDs. Hmmm...
The new Find functions are great - much much nicer than the old Sherlock. Sherlock itself is fine, but I just can't quite get over the fact that it is such a rip-off of the good guys at Karelia.
I have mixed feelings about the $130. It's been 18 months since there were any paid upgrades, and IIRC that's pretty typical for a paid Apple OS upgrade. On the other hand, the upgrade itself wasn't quite the leap that other paid upgrades have been in the past (I'm thinking of 7.5 and 8.5).
(This free association on Jagwire was brought to you by BRussell?.)