I was under the impression that the GM was, bit-for-bit, identical to the retail version. Back in the days of pressing from masters made of gold, this had to be the case. Now it certainly isn't. Yet I was still thinking that the GM is what is sent out for duplication.
Okay, who's going to be the first to bust out checksums on the disk images?
I was under the impression that the GM was, bit-for-bit, identical to the retail version. Back in the days of pressing from masters made of gold, this had to be the case. Now it certainly isn't. Yet I was still thinking that the GM is what is sent out for duplication.
Okay, who's going to be the first to bust out checksums on the disk images?
It is. 8A428 is 8A428, but 8A428 hasn't been seeded, and I haven't seen Apple seeding the final version of major updates to Mac OS X - ever! They ship it on CD/DVD.
Final builds of .1 updates are seeded though, but you don't know it's the final build until it's available in Software Update.
Back in the Mac OS 8/9 days seeds were labeled b1, b2, f1, f2, GM and so on.
It is. 8A428 is 8A428, but 8A428 hasn't been seeded, and I haven't seen Apple seeding the final version of major updates to Mac OS X - ever! They ship it on CD/DVD.
Final builds of .1 updates are seeded though, but you don't know it's the final build until it's available in Software Update.
Back in the Mac OS 8/9 days seeds were labeled b1, b2, f1, f2, GM and so on.
How about some cheese to go with all the fine whine here? I'm a Gloucester-Stilton combo fan myself.
How is it a bad thing if Apple patches Tiger a few weeks after it's release? Yeah they could wait a few more weeks and release Tiger with the patch, but then there would just be another patch in a few more weeks. The sooner it's out, the sooner developers take it seriously and begin to migrate apps to the new features.
It's important to consider that in the first couple weeks, only early adopters will buy Tiger, and these sorts look forward to patches and upgrades. Early adopters expect there to be issues with new software, or at least they should, and they don't use it on mission critical tasks, or at least they shouldn't.
If some of the rumors I hear about Tiger's core functionality are true, then it's better for Apple to release it sooner with a patch, rather than wait. Supposedly Doom runs better on Tiger, which will help Apple's image far more than a few minor bugs will tarnish it. Just a thought.
Hear, hear. (I'll bring the port and walnuts, you bring the Stilton.)
The only bugbear in that scenario (which I agree with) is that you have the rampaging masses of consumers who will go out and buy Tiger by the millions, only to have some bug bite them in the ass. And of course all consumers back up religiously, have a solid upgrade migration path, and keep a second machine ready for emergency use... \
Oh wait, that requires millions of copies sold.
Seriously though, it's the n00bs that will create the biggest furor if something nasty slips through.
Hear, hear. (I'll bring the port and walnuts, you bring the Stilton.)
The only bugbear in that scenario (which I agree with) is that you have the rampaging masses of consumers who will go out and buy Tiger by the millions, only to have some bug bite them in the ass. And of course all consumers back up religiously, have a solid upgrade migration path, and keep a second machine ready for emergency use... \
Oh wait, that requires millions of copies sold.
Seriously though, it's the n00bs that will create the biggest furor if something nasty slips through.
Hi. I've been sick for a couple days, but I'm back.
That's one of the things I'm worried about. You don't want newcomers to have a bad experience.
What people forget is that when you are behind, you have to do much better in order for people to think that you are just doing AS well.
Business is on MS because they have always been there. Not because it's superior, but because it "good enough". They don't want to switch to the Mac because of cost. If the difference is significant, though, some might. But they don't like updates every two months. We're not talking about security updates here either.
The gun in the head is a false analogy. There are more subtle ways of forcing people to upgrade. It can't be really called forcing, as no matter what, violence is not used, but a lot of new things that come from Apple need an upgraded version of the software.
I'm not talking here only about Core*, or other APIs that exist only in Tiger, but for things like iChat which was available to Panther users, but only as a $29.99 (correct me if I'm wrong) add-on for Jaguar users. It's like MS selling MSN Messenger to Win2000 users. Where iChat is provided for free is Panther, MSN Messenger is provided for WinXP, Win2000, WinME and even Win98. These are very small and unimportant things, but are some of the things that do happen, and happen for a reason.
I've no problem with the way Apple sells their software: they do, after all, provide at least security updates for their OS's for a certain period of time, but that period of time is not as long as others in the industry (as far as I know. Again, correct me if I'm wrong), and it is followed by huge public releases of new software + hardware that require a new version of a certain OS, while at the same time, that software is something as trivial as a chat app. You can find chat apps anywhere on the web and you don't need iChat, but iChat is what Apple has, and what Apple has, Apple uses to gain something else.
The gun in the head is a false analogy. There are more subtle ways of forcing people to upgrade. It can't be really called forcing, as no matter what, violence is not used, but a lot of new things that come from Apple need an upgraded version of the software.
I'm not talking here only about Core*, or other APIs that exist only in Tiger, but for things like iChat which was available to Panther users, but only as a $29.99 (correct me if I'm wrong) add-on. It's like MS selling MSN Messenger to Win2000 users. Where iChat is provided for free is Panther, MSN Messenger is provided for WinXP, Win2000, WinME and even Win98. These are very small and unimportant things, but are some of the things that do happen, and happen for a reason.
I've no problem with the way Apple sells their software: they do, after all, provide at least security updates for their OS's for a certain period of time, but that period of time is not as long as others in the industry (as far as I know. Again, correct me if I'm wrong), and it is followed by huge public releases of new software + hardware that require a new version of a certain OS, while at the same time, that software is something as trivial as a chat app. You can find chat apps anywhere on the web and you don't need iChat, but iChat is what Apple has, and what Apple has, Apple uses to gain something else.
You're right. for both your reasons and mine.
Apple does NOT support old systems as long as MS, IBM, SUN, etc.
If they did then they would still be supporting OS 9. They should be releasing security updates to 10.1 at this time. Five years should be a minimum support time for a discontinued software product.
The law requires a minimum of 7 years of support for a hardware product.
Whiiiiich is why you upgrade a test machine, see if it works as you expect, then roll it out company wide.
Whether the upgrades come once a year, or once a month, the methodology is the same:
1) Is this an upgrade we need? If no, ignore. If yes, go to 2.
2) Upgrade on a test machine. Does it work as expected? If yes, start deployment. If not, go to 3
3) Decide if the new problems are something you can live with, over and above the need determined back in 1. If yes, start deployment. If no, ignore.
It doesn't matter if it's a three person shop, or a 30,000 employee company, the above should determine upgrading anything. Heck, I follow the same approach for just my household.
I'm finishing up my dissertation this summer. I'd love to install 10.4, but you know what? I don't *need* anything in it right now, and the headache it would cause to ensure everything is smooth in the migration means I'm not touching it until I am done, done, done. I don't *need* it, so I ignore it right now. If something comes up that I *do* need it for some reason, then I'll reassess.
To do anything else, in my mind, is lunacy, and the company/IT director gets what they deserve by not being careful.
Again, if you're waiting for the perfect bug-free product, you're going to be waiting literally forever. They don't exist, never have, never will. You assess the bugs, you determine if they impact you negatively, and you weigh that against the benefits you expect to gain from upgrading. This seems so simple and obvious to me, that I can't believe that any professional would do differently. Obviously, that belief is wrong, but it still utterly baffles me.
Apple has a varied history of support for legacy products. They have dropped support for legacy technologies in the past, quickdraw GX, opendoc, newton?
However, their OS support shouldn't be characterized as anything but exemplary. They tried multiple times to come out with a next-gen OS, knowing all along that legacy support was critical. Eventually they came up with classic, a virtual machine that should be considered a marvel of software engineering. Apple also managed to transition from 680x0 to PPC without breaking much software. If anything, I?d characterize apple?s legacy support as ?good with room for improvement?.
As for for not continuing to release security updates for 10.1? seriously? Apple is being criticized for how secure their OS is? Buaaa haaa haaa.
I?m just not getting this too-many or too-few updates crisis-mentality.
Damned if you do, damned if you don?t.
It seems our attention would be better focused on things apple actually neglects. Support of previous OS releases isn?t one of them.
Whiiiiich is why you upgrade a test machine, see if it works as you expect, then roll it out company wide.
Whether the upgrades come once a year, or once a month, the methodology is the same:
1) Is this an upgrade we need? If no, ignore. If yes, go to 2.
2) Upgrade on a test machine. Does it work as expected? If yes, start deployment. If not, go to 3
3) Decide if the new problems are something you can live with, over and above the need determined back in 1. If yes, start deployment. If no, ignore.
It doesn't matter if it's a three person shop, or a 30,000 employee company, the above should determine upgrading anything. Heck, I follow the same approach for just my household.
I'm finishing up my dissertation this summer. I'd love to install 10.4, but you know what? I don't *need* anything in it right now, and the headache it would cause to ensure everything is smooth in the migration means I'm not touching it until I am done, done, done. I don't *need* it, so I ignore it right now. If something comes up that I *do* need it for some reason, then I'll reassess.
To do anything else, in my mind, is lunacy, and the company/IT director gets what they deserve by not being careful.
Again, if you're waiting for the perfect bug-free product, you're going to be waiting literally forever. They don't exist, never have, never will. You assess the bugs, you determine if they impact you negatively, and you weigh that against the benefits you expect to gain from upgrading. This seems so simple and obvious to me, that I can't believe that any professional would do differently. Obviously, that belief is wrong, but it still utterly baffles me.
I understand what you are saying, and I wish it were true.
But if you read any computer industry publication, NOT MacWorld, PcWorld, etc., you would see that it isn't true.
Besides, in regard to Apple, it's the POLITICS that matters. Not the logic.
Sure, MS's business customers wait, and wait, and wait. But for the most part they ain't goin' nowhere. sooner or later they will have to no matter what. MS is starting the push to force them to now.
Apple doesn't have that luxury. If they want business customers (and they have finally shown that they know that they need them), then they have to be better. Much better.
You are talking about committed Mac users. I'm talking about non-Mac users who are looking to the platform to shield them from their woes, both bugs, and security. They look at all the updates and get nervous. I'm asked what the difference is if Apple has to fix bugs so often.
Business people also want new releases to come out every four years or so. According to surveys, most MS customers are in no rush for Longhorn to come out. They clearly state that they would rather wait than to have it come out with too many bugs that then have to be fixed right away. I concur.
This is why Apple has strung out the latest release, and why later ones might take longer.
Apple has a varied history of support for legacy products. They have dropped support for legacy technologies in the past, quickdraw GX, opendoc, newton?
However, their OS support shouldn't be characterized as anything but exemplary. They tried multiple times to come out with a next-gen OS, knowing all along that legacy support was critical. Eventually they came up with classic, a virtual machine that should be considered a marvel of software engineering. Apple also managed to transition from 680x0 to PPC without breaking much software. If anything, I?d characterize apple?s legacy support as ?good with room for improvement?.
As for for not continuing to release security updates for 10.1? seriously? Apple is being criticized for how secure their OS is? Buaaa haaa haaa.
I?m just not getting this too-many or too-few updates crisis-mentality.
Damned if you do, damned if you don?t.
It seems our attention would be better focused on things apple actually neglects. Support of previous OS releases isn?t one of them.
Apple has gone in too many directions, and that is also a problem. It has cost them critical software support. Corel made OpenDoc a major focus of their company, and then had to drop the whole thing.
Hasen't anyone here heard of the 'Apple Tax"?
Classic works fairly well, but a fair number of pro apps that won't work with it, and never have. Apple promised to fix that, but never did. Not allowing us to continue to dual-boot was a mistake. That should have been allowed at least 10.3, when they finally got most OS 9 functions to work in 10. Of course, they then broke SCSI, which is still the preferred drive for video, etc.
As for security, I never said that 10's security was bad, only that they should continue to support older systems LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES!
I'm talking about non-Mac users who are looking to the platform to shield them from their woes, both bugs, and security. They look at all the updates and get nervous. I'm asked what the difference is if Apple has to fix bugs so often.
You can't attract everyone. You can't educate everyone. Not everyone will agree with you even if you have rock solid proof. That is OK. Apple, nor you, nor anyone else can do anything about this.
People have to come to their own decision whether through study, trying it first hand or maybe a friend gets them interested.
Most people only use PC's and have only used PC's because this is all they have been exposed to at work. If their experience is bad, they can only imagine it would be worse at home without IT so they stick with the PC. If they have a good experience or even nominally good, why change?
Why does everyone worry about this so much?
I drive a Mini Cooper. I think it is a great car. Best I've ever had. Most fun ever. Should everyone get one? I hope not. I kind of like the minority to tell you the truth. Being different is a good thing in life if you can embrace it. If not, then buy the Accord, stick with the PC, eat vanilla ice cream. Why should I care? How does it affect my life?
You can't attract everyone. You can't educate everyone. Not everyone will agree with you even if you have rock solid proof. That is OK. Apple, nor you, nor anyone else can do anything about this.
People have to come to their own decision whether through study, trying it first hand or maybe a friend gets them interested.
Most people only use PC's and have only used PC's because this is all they have been exposed to at work. If their experience is bad, they can only imagine it would be worse at home without IT so they stick with the PC. If they have a good experience or even nominally good, why change?
Why does everyone worry about this so much?
I drive a Mini Cooper. I think it is a great car. Best I've ever had. Most fun ever. Should everyone get one? I hope not. I kind of like the minority to tell you the truth. Being different is a good thing in life if you can embrace it. If not, then buy the Accord, stick with the PC, eat vanilla ice cream. Why should I care? How does it affect my life?
You mean that Neither Apple etc.?
I can basically agree with you.
There is a difference between a computer platform and an auto, though. It's why I wince at the "BMW = Apple" analogy.
As long as you can get parts for your Cooper, you're all right. The gas and oil won't be a problem either. If your tyres (since it's British, I felt it would be happier with that spelling), are of a standard size, then you're set there as well. Water, if it's water cooled, is pretty much the same wherever you go as well.
But computers are different. If there isn't a large enough market share, then there is erosion of hardware, and software. We see this every day. Companies dropping support for the Mac is more common than I'm happy with. Even if I don't use those programs or hardware.
Two good examples are pro level video cards, and games.
A long time ago and far away, Macs had the only pro video cards out of the workstation market. The PC had none. Now the PC has plenty, and the MAC has none.
Care to guess why?
The Mac has never been much for games, and I understand why. In the old days ('80's, early '90"s), the Mac was called a toy so often that Apple didn't want to encourage that image by actively seeking out games for the platform. Indeed, they discouraged them!
After the fiasco of Christmas '95, when Apple's market share started dropping from 12%, Apple started to look to games to bring sales back to the platform because the home market which had just exceeded the business market for yearly computer sales, was being driven by the new graphic games. They wrote software to enable game writing for the Mac. But with sales falling, they never succeeded in convincing developers that equal ports were worthwhile. We still see this problem today.
Unless Apple can get their market share back up, we will continue to have problems.
There may be hope on the pro video board issue, but games are going to be a problem. And as that is what attracts many younger people to a platform, it's going to be an issue for Apple.
The chicken and the egg.
I just feel that Apple shouldn't release until they are satisfied, and don't look at an arbitrary date that means nothing anyway.
I stated that I didn't think that Apple would announce on the 1st, and that I didn't believe that they would ship for the 15th. I still believe that.
I still don't think that we'll see it before the end of the month.
The deadline is June 30th. I think i'll be here for the conference. We'll see.
Comments
What is that? Smells a bit like 4k78.
I was under the impression that the GM was, bit-for-bit, identical to the retail version. Back in the days of pressing from masters made of gold, this had to be the case. Now it certainly isn't. Yet I was still thinking that the GM is what is sent out for duplication.
Okay, who's going to be the first to bust out checksums on the disk images?
Originally posted by Melrose
Yes, you're right, that's the difference.
But now I'm intrigued. It seems as though I'll have to get into the dev program to check these things out for myself.
$499/yr to play with dev seedings.
$99/yr if you're a student (but no seedings, although you do get the final version)
free for no mailings or seedings, just access to the website and latest tools.
Quote:
By the way, Apple's spell-check wants to spell your name as "Chickadee".
Kind of cute, eh?
Check out yours.
Originally posted by Kickaha
$499/yr to play with dev seedings.
$99/yr if you're a student (but no seedings, although you do get the final version)
free for no mailings or seedings, just access to the website and latest tools.
Check out yours.
I don't mind, maybe I'll have the excuse to do some programming. I haven't done any in years.
Dang! It won't do it. I have it "learned" in spellcheck.
What is it?
Originally posted by melgross
What is it?
Melrose
Originally posted by Matrix9180
Melrose
Whew!
I was worried for a while. Could have been a lot worse.
Originally posted by dfiler
*sniff sniff*
What is that? Smells a bit like 4k78.
I was under the impression that the GM was, bit-for-bit, identical to the retail version. Back in the days of pressing from masters made of gold, this had to be the case. Now it certainly isn't. Yet I was still thinking that the GM is what is sent out for duplication.
Okay, who's going to be the first to bust out checksums on the disk images?
It is. 8A428 is 8A428, but 8A428 hasn't been seeded, and I haven't seen Apple seeding the final version of major updates to Mac OS X - ever! They ship it on CD/DVD.
Final builds of .1 updates are seeded though, but you don't know it's the final build until it's available in Software Update.
Back in the Mac OS 8/9 days seeds were labeled b1, b2, f1, f2, GM and so on.
Originally posted by JLL
It is. 8A428 is 8A428, but 8A428 hasn't been seeded, and I haven't seen Apple seeding the final version of major updates to Mac OS X - ever! They ship it on CD/DVD.
Final builds of .1 updates are seeded though, but you don't know it's the final build until it's available in Software Update.
Back in the Mac OS 8/9 days seeds were labeled b1, b2, f1, f2, GM and so on.
What he said.
How is it a bad thing if Apple patches Tiger a few weeks after it's release? Yeah they could wait a few more weeks and release Tiger with the patch, but then there would just be another patch in a few more weeks. The sooner it's out, the sooner developers take it seriously and begin to migrate apps to the new features.
It's important to consider that in the first couple weeks, only early adopters will buy Tiger, and these sorts look forward to patches and upgrades. Early adopters expect there to be issues with new software, or at least they should, and they don't use it on mission critical tasks, or at least they shouldn't.
If some of the rumors I hear about Tiger's core functionality are true, then it's better for Apple to release it sooner with a patch, rather than wait. Supposedly Doom runs better on Tiger, which will help Apple's image far more than a few minor bugs will tarnish it. Just a thought.
The only bugbear in that scenario (which I agree with) is that you have the rampaging masses of consumers who will go out and buy Tiger by the millions, only to have some bug bite them in the ass. And of course all consumers back up religiously, have a solid upgrade migration path, and keep a second machine ready for emergency use...
Oh wait, that requires millions of copies sold.
Seriously though, it's the n00bs that will create the biggest furor if something nasty slips through.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Hear, hear. (I'll bring the port and walnuts, you bring the Stilton.)
The only bugbear in that scenario (which I agree with) is that you have the rampaging masses of consumers who will go out and buy Tiger by the millions, only to have some bug bite them in the ass. And of course all consumers back up religiously, have a solid upgrade migration path, and keep a second machine ready for emergency use...
Oh wait, that requires millions of copies sold.
Seriously though, it's the n00bs that will create the biggest furor if something nasty slips through.
Hi. I've been sick for a couple days, but I'm back.
That's one of the things I'm worried about. You don't want newcomers to have a bad experience.
What people forget is that when you are behind, you have to do much better in order for people to think that you are just doing AS well.
Business is on MS because they have always been there. Not because it's superior, but because it "good enough". They don't want to switch to the Mac because of cost. If the difference is significant, though, some might. But they don't like updates every two months. We're not talking about security updates here either.
I've never understood that argument... no one is placing a gun to anyone's head to make them update, it's voluntary 100%.
I'm not talking here only about Core*, or other APIs that exist only in Tiger, but for things like iChat which was available to Panther users, but only as a $29.99 (correct me if I'm wrong) add-on for Jaguar users. It's like MS selling MSN Messenger to Win2000 users. Where iChat is provided for free is Panther, MSN Messenger is provided for WinXP, Win2000, WinME and even Win98. These are very small and unimportant things, but are some of the things that do happen, and happen for a reason.
I've no problem with the way Apple sells their software: they do, after all, provide at least security updates for their OS's for a certain period of time, but that period of time is not as long as others in the industry (as far as I know. Again, correct me if I'm wrong), and it is followed by huge public releases of new software + hardware that require a new version of a certain OS, while at the same time, that software is something as trivial as a chat app. You can find chat apps anywhere on the web and you don't need iChat, but iChat is what Apple has, and what Apple has, Apple uses to gain something else.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Then they don't have to update.
I've never understood that argument... no one is placing a gun to anyone's head to make them update, it's voluntary 100%.
There is a gun to their heads. It's called "bugs".
As we've all agreed, all software (and hardware) has bugs. The fewer the bugs, or the less intrusive, the fewer the updates.
As every upgrade, and update, breaks something that has been relied upon, the hope is that the next update will fix it.
Apple has been no different than anyone else in that regard. The SCSI problem is one example, the Firewire problem is another.
do you know how many people and businesses rely on both?
Apple states that a problem is "addressed" (whatever that means), or fixed.
We update, and it might or might not be, but then something else doesn't work.
So we downgrade. How much does that cost to do?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
The gun in the head is a false analogy. There are more subtle ways of forcing people to upgrade. It can't be really called forcing, as no matter what, violence is not used, but a lot of new things that come from Apple need an upgraded version of the software.
I'm not talking here only about Core*, or other APIs that exist only in Tiger, but for things like iChat which was available to Panther users, but only as a $29.99 (correct me if I'm wrong) add-on. It's like MS selling MSN Messenger to Win2000 users. Where iChat is provided for free is Panther, MSN Messenger is provided for WinXP, Win2000, WinME and even Win98. These are very small and unimportant things, but are some of the things that do happen, and happen for a reason.
I've no problem with the way Apple sells their software: they do, after all, provide at least security updates for their OS's for a certain period of time, but that period of time is not as long as others in the industry (as far as I know. Again, correct me if I'm wrong), and it is followed by huge public releases of new software + hardware that require a new version of a certain OS, while at the same time, that software is something as trivial as a chat app. You can find chat apps anywhere on the web and you don't need iChat, but iChat is what Apple has, and what Apple has, Apple uses to gain something else.
You're right. for both your reasons and mine.
Apple does NOT support old systems as long as MS, IBM, SUN, etc.
If they did then they would still be supporting OS 9. They should be releasing security updates to 10.1 at this time. Five years should be a minimum support time for a discontinued software product.
The law requires a minimum of 7 years of support for a hardware product.
Whether the upgrades come once a year, or once a month, the methodology is the same:
1) Is this an upgrade we need? If no, ignore. If yes, go to 2.
2) Upgrade on a test machine. Does it work as expected? If yes, start deployment. If not, go to 3
3) Decide if the new problems are something you can live with, over and above the need determined back in 1. If yes, start deployment. If no, ignore.
It doesn't matter if it's a three person shop, or a 30,000 employee company, the above should determine upgrading anything. Heck, I follow the same approach for just my household.
I'm finishing up my dissertation this summer. I'd love to install 10.4, but you know what? I don't *need* anything in it right now, and the headache it would cause to ensure everything is smooth in the migration means I'm not touching it until I am done, done, done. I don't *need* it, so I ignore it right now. If something comes up that I *do* need it for some reason, then I'll reassess.
To do anything else, in my mind, is lunacy, and the company/IT director gets what they deserve by not being careful.
Again, if you're waiting for the perfect bug-free product, you're going to be waiting literally forever. They don't exist, never have, never will. You assess the bugs, you determine if they impact you negatively, and you weigh that against the benefits you expect to gain from upgrading. This seems so simple and obvious to me, that I can't believe that any professional would do differently. Obviously, that belief is wrong, but it still utterly baffles me.
However, their OS support shouldn't be characterized as anything but exemplary. They tried multiple times to come out with a next-gen OS, knowing all along that legacy support was critical. Eventually they came up with classic, a virtual machine that should be considered a marvel of software engineering. Apple also managed to transition from 680x0 to PPC without breaking much software. If anything, I?d characterize apple?s legacy support as ?good with room for improvement?.
As for for not continuing to release security updates for 10.1? seriously? Apple is being criticized for how secure their OS is? Buaaa haaa haaa.
I?m just not getting this too-many or too-few updates crisis-mentality.
Damned if you do, damned if you don?t.
It seems our attention would be better focused on things apple actually neglects. Support of previous OS releases isn?t one of them.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Whiiiiich is why you upgrade a test machine, see if it works as you expect, then roll it out company wide.
Whether the upgrades come once a year, or once a month, the methodology is the same:
1) Is this an upgrade we need? If no, ignore. If yes, go to 2.
2) Upgrade on a test machine. Does it work as expected? If yes, start deployment. If not, go to 3
3) Decide if the new problems are something you can live with, over and above the need determined back in 1. If yes, start deployment. If no, ignore.
It doesn't matter if it's a three person shop, or a 30,000 employee company, the above should determine upgrading anything. Heck, I follow the same approach for just my household.
I'm finishing up my dissertation this summer. I'd love to install 10.4, but you know what? I don't *need* anything in it right now, and the headache it would cause to ensure everything is smooth in the migration means I'm not touching it until I am done, done, done. I don't *need* it, so I ignore it right now. If something comes up that I *do* need it for some reason, then I'll reassess.
To do anything else, in my mind, is lunacy, and the company/IT director gets what they deserve by not being careful.
Again, if you're waiting for the perfect bug-free product, you're going to be waiting literally forever. They don't exist, never have, never will. You assess the bugs, you determine if they impact you negatively, and you weigh that against the benefits you expect to gain from upgrading. This seems so simple and obvious to me, that I can't believe that any professional would do differently. Obviously, that belief is wrong, but it still utterly baffles me.
I understand what you are saying, and I wish it were true.
But if you read any computer industry publication, NOT MacWorld, PcWorld, etc., you would see that it isn't true.
Besides, in regard to Apple, it's the POLITICS that matters. Not the logic.
Sure, MS's business customers wait, and wait, and wait. But for the most part they ain't goin' nowhere. sooner or later they will have to no matter what. MS is starting the push to force them to now.
Apple doesn't have that luxury. If they want business customers (and they have finally shown that they know that they need them), then they have to be better. Much better.
You are talking about committed Mac users. I'm talking about non-Mac users who are looking to the platform to shield them from their woes, both bugs, and security. They look at all the updates and get nervous. I'm asked what the difference is if Apple has to fix bugs so often.
Business people also want new releases to come out every four years or so. According to surveys, most MS customers are in no rush for Longhorn to come out. They clearly state that they would rather wait than to have it come out with too many bugs that then have to be fixed right away. I concur.
This is why Apple has strung out the latest release, and why later ones might take longer.
Originally posted by dfiler
Apple has a varied history of support for legacy products. They have dropped support for legacy technologies in the past, quickdraw GX, opendoc, newton?
However, their OS support shouldn't be characterized as anything but exemplary. They tried multiple times to come out with a next-gen OS, knowing all along that legacy support was critical. Eventually they came up with classic, a virtual machine that should be considered a marvel of software engineering. Apple also managed to transition from 680x0 to PPC without breaking much software. If anything, I?d characterize apple?s legacy support as ?good with room for improvement?.
As for for not continuing to release security updates for 10.1? seriously? Apple is being criticized for how secure their OS is? Buaaa haaa haaa.
I?m just not getting this too-many or too-few updates crisis-mentality.
Damned if you do, damned if you don?t.
It seems our attention would be better focused on things apple actually neglects. Support of previous OS releases isn?t one of them.
Apple has gone in too many directions, and that is also a problem. It has cost them critical software support. Corel made OpenDoc a major focus of their company, and then had to drop the whole thing.
Hasen't anyone here heard of the 'Apple Tax"?
Classic works fairly well, but a fair number of pro apps that won't work with it, and never have. Apple promised to fix that, but never did. Not allowing us to continue to dual-boot was a mistake. That should have been allowed at least 10.3, when they finally got most OS 9 functions to work in 10. Of course, they then broke SCSI, which is still the preferred drive for video, etc.
As for security, I never said that 10's security was bad, only that they should continue to support older systems LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES!
Originally posted by melgross
I'm talking about non-Mac users who are looking to the platform to shield them from their woes, both bugs, and security. They look at all the updates and get nervous. I'm asked what the difference is if Apple has to fix bugs so often.
You can't attract everyone. You can't educate everyone. Not everyone will agree with you even if you have rock solid proof. That is OK. Apple, nor you, nor anyone else can do anything about this.
People have to come to their own decision whether through study, trying it first hand or maybe a friend gets them interested.
Most people only use PC's and have only used PC's because this is all they have been exposed to at work. If their experience is bad, they can only imagine it would be worse at home without IT so they stick with the PC. If they have a good experience or even nominally good, why change?
Why does everyone worry about this so much?
I drive a Mini Cooper. I think it is a great car. Best I've ever had. Most fun ever. Should everyone get one? I hope not. I kind of like the minority to tell you the truth. Being different is a good thing in life if you can embrace it. If not, then buy the Accord, stick with the PC, eat vanilla ice cream. Why should I care? How does it affect my life?
Originally posted by kcmac
You can't attract everyone. You can't educate everyone. Not everyone will agree with you even if you have rock solid proof. That is OK. Apple, nor you, nor anyone else can do anything about this.
People have to come to their own decision whether through study, trying it first hand or maybe a friend gets them interested.
Most people only use PC's and have only used PC's because this is all they have been exposed to at work. If their experience is bad, they can only imagine it would be worse at home without IT so they stick with the PC. If they have a good experience or even nominally good, why change?
Why does everyone worry about this so much?
I drive a Mini Cooper. I think it is a great car. Best I've ever had. Most fun ever. Should everyone get one? I hope not. I kind of like the minority to tell you the truth. Being different is a good thing in life if you can embrace it. If not, then buy the Accord, stick with the PC, eat vanilla ice cream. Why should I care? How does it affect my life?
You mean that Neither Apple etc.?
I can basically agree with you.
There is a difference between a computer platform and an auto, though. It's why I wince at the "BMW = Apple" analogy.
As long as you can get parts for your Cooper, you're all right. The gas and oil won't be a problem either. If your tyres (since it's British, I felt it would be happier with that spelling
But computers are different. If there isn't a large enough market share, then there is erosion of hardware, and software. We see this every day. Companies dropping support for the Mac is more common than I'm happy with. Even if I don't use those programs or hardware.
Two good examples are pro level video cards, and games.
A long time ago and far away, Macs had the only pro video cards out of the workstation market. The PC had none. Now the PC has plenty, and the MAC has none.
Care to guess why?
The Mac has never been much for games, and I understand why. In the old days ('80's, early '90"s), the Mac was called a toy so often that Apple didn't want to encourage that image by actively seeking out games for the platform. Indeed, they discouraged them!
After the fiasco of Christmas '95, when Apple's market share started dropping from 12%, Apple started to look to games to bring sales back to the platform because the home market which had just exceeded the business market for yearly computer sales, was being driven by the new graphic games. They wrote software to enable game writing for the Mac. But with sales falling, they never succeeded in convincing developers that equal ports were worthwhile. We still see this problem today.
Unless Apple can get their market share back up, we will continue to have problems.
There may be hope on the pro video board issue, but games are going to be a problem. And as that is what attracts many younger people to a platform, it's going to be an issue for Apple.
The chicken and the egg.
I just feel that Apple shouldn't release until they are satisfied, and don't look at an arbitrary date that means nothing anyway.
I stated that I didn't think that Apple would announce on the 1st, and that I didn't believe that they would ship for the 15th. I still believe that.
I still don't think that we'll see it before the end of the month.
The deadline is June 30th. I think i'll be here for the conference. We'll see.