Why People Whine... OR $129 for an Upadate?!?!?!

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Ohkay, looke here.

Apple used to do things wrong in marketing so they would look spiffy. When you had to pay for an update, Apple just bumped up the version number to a whole number (like there was never an 8.6,8.7, ot 8.9)



Now, however, Apple is doing it right. You think you are getting screwed. Think of it this way, remove the 10 from before the version number and there you have it, your full whole number release upgrade that you have to pay for it.



Are the people complaining now people who complained about having to buy 0S 9 upgrade? If not, they are hypocrites because you are doing the same thing:



Paying for a major software upgrade. Those who whine and complain about it, are just plain silly!! You have to pay for an upgrade, and Apple only gave away Mac OS X v.10.1 free because they knew how much Mac OS X v.10.0 sucked!



Is there something I am missing here? <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Actually there was an 8.6. In fact, it's probably the highest regarded OS Apple has made outside of OS X, because it's so perfect.



    OS 8.6 to OS 9.0 was barely anything. Not worth the $100 it would cost to upgrade.



    But I agree. Windows 95 to Windows 98 wasn't much, and yet it probably cost something like $100-$200 just to upgrade. I think 10.1 to 10.2 was a bit bigger than 8.6 to 9.0, though probably not as big as, say, 7.6 to 8.0. It's worth spending money for.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

    <strong>But I agree. Windows 95 to Windows 98 wasn't much, and yet it probably cost something like $100-$200 just to upgrade. I think 10.1 to 10.2 was a bit bigger than 8.6 to 9.0, though probably not as big as, say, 7.6 to 8.0. It's worth spending money for.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Win95 -&gt; Win98 was also a .1 upgrade, and so is Win2000 -&gt; WinXP.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    I keep wondering what you'd classify 98 -&gt; ME. It definitely wasn't a step forward...
  • Reply 4 of 23
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    [quote]Originally posted by Telomar:

    <strong>I keep wondering what you'd classify 98 -&gt; ME. It definitely wasn't a step forward...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It surely was for me. 98 SE was more than instable on my machine, whereas ME ran fine, added newer drivers and some minor features. Also, it was a lot faster for me.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    jaredjared Posts: 639member
    I am perfectly okay with paying for a 10.x upgrade because I do see it like a .0 release. Why people are pissed just because they come out with a 10.x release once a year and have to pay for it is beyond me...only once a year people!



    If you look at Microsoft operating systems, they cost 200 dollars! And that is just for the "Home Edition."
  • Reply 6 of 23
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chucker:

    <strong>



    It surely was for me. 98 SE was more than instable on my machine, whereas ME ran fine, added newer drivers and some minor features. Also, it was a lot faster for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think you're probably the only one. I bet even Bill Gates would read your post and be perplexed.
  • Reply 7 of 23
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Either way, I think XP is a very important upgrade for Windows. My brother, who is a crazy Mac fanatic (much more than Mr. Almost 1000 Posts here...) just got XP to put on his old Pentium 2 and he says it's almost as good, if not as good, as OS 9.



    Both Win2k Pro and Win98 have given him horrible driver problems. In Win2k his sound card worked, but not his graphics card. In Win98 it was the other way around. But in XP everything has held together well.



    I will just stay with OS X, thank you! <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
  • Reply 8 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Many of us got burned with the complete POS that was 10.0. After that Apple lost a lot of good will. My "supported" hardware was not supported and never will be. IMO Apple owes me $69 for that. I mean, how do you say something is supported and then not support it? It's Microsoft logic.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chucker:

    <strong>



    It surely was for me. 98 SE was more than instable on my machine, whereas ME ran fine, added newer drivers and some minor features. Also, it was a lot faster for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Whoa. I have NEVER heard anyone say that. I took that piece of crap off my PC within a couple of days. Total dog.



    I'm not sure what else to say. Honestly, you are the first person I have EVER heard say that.



  • Reply 10 of 23
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by Chucker:

    <strong>



    It surely was for me. 98 SE was more than instable on my machine, whereas ME ran fine, added newer drivers and some minor features. Also, it was a lot faster for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Did scott pass you the pipe? You're the only person I've ever seen say that. The only one. Wow.
  • Reply 11 of 23
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Many of us got burned with the complete POS that was 10.0. After that Apple lost a lot of good will. My "supported" hardware was not supported and never will be. IMO Apple owes me $69 for that. I mean, how do you say something is supported and then not support it? It's Microsoft logic.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I have a feeling it was one of those times marketing or management got carried away without ever actually discussing it with the engineers and whether it could be done.



    My other guess is somewhere down the line they decided what they wanted the system to be and so had to adjust requirements to match.
  • Reply 12 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I don't think so. It was a tussle between ATI and Apple over support of older systems. In my case a Rev C iMac. Apple came out very very late and said that there would be no real driver for the rage pro (and other cards) that many of us owner. OS X was very freaking slow. Apple should have come out much sooner and much more clear about the lack of support.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    isn't this topic a little late? is there 10.3 rumors/price structure that i've missed or are some of us just a little behind?



    or maybe i zapped myself back to last august somehow?
  • Reply 14 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    When I get my new PowerBook I'll see if I can get 10.2 to install on the old iMac. Maybe it will run a lot better but I doubt it.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    [quote]Originally posted by progmac:

    <strong>isn't this topic a little late? is there 10.3 rumors/price structure that i've missed or are some of us just a little behind?



    or maybe i zapped myself back to last august somehow?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Well, people are speculating about the prices. Some people think free, others think full price, people are whining about it.... (some think it is gonna go for 70 bucks? although I have not heard that yet) <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
  • Reply 16 of 23
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    $69 is the educational price.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>When I get my new PowerBook I'll see if I can get 10.2 to install on the old iMac. Maybe it will run a lot better but I doubt it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    running 10.2.3 on a Rev A iMac with 6MB Rage IIc and 288 MB ram



    perfectly fine for web browsing and email.. even do some word on it too



    are you running with thousands of colors? makes a big difference...



    [ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: Paul ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by Paul:

    <strong>



    running 10.2.3 on a Rev A iMac with 6MB Rage IIc and 288 MB ram



    perfectly fine for web browsing and email.. even do some word on it too



    are you running with thousands of colors? makes a big difference...



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm not running any X now. After the POS that was 10.0 I'm not paying any more for an OS that doesn't support my hardware. I very much doubt 10.0 will ever run "well" on a Rev A-D iMac. I'm sure "crippled" would be close to the truth.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>



    I'm not running any X now. After the POS that was 10.0 I'm not paying any more for an OS that doesn't support my hardware. I very much doubt 10.0 will ever run "well" on a Rev A-D iMac. I'm sure "crippled" would be close to the truth.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Welll, it is not gonna be a Maya powerhouse... are you planning on using future releases, but not paying for theM? <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
  • Reply 20 of 23
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I have a 12" powerbook on order and I'll see if I can get X to install on the iMac. There's always a risk that you get a specail version just for new hardware but ... I have nothing to lose. Then the iMac can be litte more than the 40 gig external storage for the PowerBook. If it had airport it would make a nice base station.
Sign In or Register to comment.