When Mac OS X v10.3 comes out, I will......

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    ...be mad at Apple for not being innovative enough (me-ta-da-ta, rootless Virtual PC Windows XP emulation with complete Dock integration, complete Dock integration for X11 apps, ...)
  • Reply 22 of 31
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    ... wonder why people think the difference in decimal point affects how big or small an update it really is.
  • Reply 23 of 31
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    [quote]Originally posted by rogue27:

    <strong>... wonder why people think the difference in decimal point affects how big or small an update it really is.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Marketing. It's all marketing.



    Was the iMac named "PowerMac G3 All-In-One", much fewer people would have even considered it.



    Was Mac OS X 10.2 named "Mac OS 2003" (or something alike), much fewer people would have complained about it.
  • Reply 24 of 31
    mount_my_floppymount_my_floppy Posts: 913member
    I had my first kernel panic in 10.2 the other day. ( I have been running it sence it came out) The first one was from trying to turn file sharing off.. Although I had been running my processors at 100% for 2 days.. The second one happend to day while clicking a link in safari :/ I hope this isnt the start of a trend.



    PS: I had about 50 Kernel Panics in 10.1...



    PSS: Maybe I should just stop tinkering with stuff and let the OS run the way it came.
  • Reply 25 of 31
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>

    When 10.3 comes out you and I will all pay, not $69, not $20, but $129 and you all know it! I will of course throw caution to the wind and install in manic episode. </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Why would I pay $129 when I could only pay $69?
  • Reply 26 of 31
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chucker:

    <strong>Marketing. It's all marketing.



    Was the iMac named "PowerMac G3 All-In-One", much fewer people would have even considered it.



    Was Mac OS X 10.2 named "Mac OS 2003" (or something alike), much fewer people would have complained about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's why it was splashily named "Jaguar", with "10.2" in much smaller type.
  • Reply 27 of 31
    mac man 020581mac man 020581 Posts: 632member
    10.2 is a lot better than 10.1.5. I would defiantly upgrade to 10.3.
  • Reply 28 of 31
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mac Man 020581:

    <strong>10.2 is a lot better than 10.1.5. I would defiantly upgrade to 10.3.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Now are you going to listen to us when we give you advice?



  • Reply 29 of 31
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    [quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

    <strong>pirate it </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I heard it's going to require a dongle.
  • Reply 30 of 31
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    just kidding
  • Reply 31 of 31
    mac man 020581mac man 020581 Posts: 632member
    [quote]Originally posted by EmAn:

    <strong>

    Now are you going to listen to us when we give you advice?



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    [ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: Mac Man 020581 ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.