digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Are four Mac OS launches in 5 years really a good thing?

blogs.zdnet.com — "...it turns out that Apple is actually touting their fourth OS launch in the span of 5 years while Microsoft hasn't released any new operating system in the same period of time. Now is this really a good thing?"

show profanity settings
expand all
  • imikedaman, on 10/12/2007, -19/+59Of course it's a good thing. The only difference between one massive update and four incremental updates is that Mac users have the freedom to upgrade to any of the versions in between, or just wait it out and buy one large upgrade. Plus if you wait for one large update (like going from 10.2 to 10.4), you technically save money from not paying $130 each time.
    • Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -22/+45I understand your point that one could easily just skip a few upgrades and get the same effect as waiting five years for a Windows upgrade, but there's one problem: Apple screws up backwards compatibility each time they upgrade. They force developers to recompile for each new version or else face possible bugginess. How much Mac software says "10.3 or higher"? Or worse, "10.4 or higher"?

      If only Apple would be as fanatical as Microsoft about backwards compatibility, your point would be well-taken.
    • stou, on 10/12/2007, -19/+34Yes but one of the best things about Apple is that they are not really afraid to toss backwards compatability out the window for better technology.... look at the x86 architecture and what backward compatability has done to it.
    • prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -33/+11"Plus if you wait for one large update (like going from 10.2 to 10.4), you technically save money from not paying $130 each time."

      The Tiger upgrade requires 10.3. You can't go from 10.2 to 10.4 with the Tiger upgrade.
    • rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -38/+6$130 is a ridiculous cost for software. I don't care if thats what everyone else charges, we're all being swindled which is why I use Open Source. Why do you think these software companies have so much money? Because they hire cheap programmers in India to write code, and then it costs next to nothing to reproduce.
    • spengy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22@stou

      "look at the x86 architecture and what backward compatability has done to it."

      Made it the architecture that nearly everyone uses, including Apple?
    • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12>If only Apple would be as fanatical as Microsoft about backwards compatibility, your point would be well-taken.

      fanatacism has never been a good thing, ever. although i agree.
    • Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9" look at the x86 architecture and what backward compatability has done to it."

      Yet Apple happily releases PCs based on the Intel Core Duo (not x64 for sure).

      The best backwards compatability is achieved through emulation -- as in Classic in OS X. If Windows Vista completely scrapped the Windows Kernel and made a new and more reliable Kernel but ran old XP- programs in an emulation environment that worked /well/, I think it'd have 10000% more instant buyers.
    • chewbrt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31"The Tiger upgrade requires 10.3. You can't go from 10.2 to 10.4 with the Tiger upgrade."
      That's not true. What makes you think that? http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/
    • chickenlegs, on 10/12/2007, -30/+0> while Microsoft hasn't released any new operating system in the same period of time
      What about windows media center?
      What about the add-ons that Microsoft provides like IE7?
      What about Windows Instant Messenger
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7***** you can't upgrade from 10.2 to 10.4.
      you may have to clean install, but that's what you should be doing anyway.

      to the above: I find 130 to be pretty reasonable when you compare it to other OS's that aren't free.
    • astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26> The Tiger upgrade requires 10.3. You can't go from 10.2 to 10.4 with the Tiger upgrade.

      There's no such thing as "Tiger upgrade." Apple only sells full versions of their operating systems, and the most reliable upgrade method, "Archive and install", will install over any prior version of OS X.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Apple does not always mandate backwards compatibiltiy, for instance if you had 10.2 skipping 10.3 would have been pretty easy.

      10.4 made so many things change because they finalized a lot of API's (like the kernel API) exactly so things would be more backwards compatible in the future. They also intrudcued new API's such as for Spotlight and Core Data and Core Image that are compelling enough that develoipers decided the gain of using them was worth the need for users to have a newer OS.

      10.5 should be cool but there will be less of a need to move to it than with 10.4.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Oakes makes a good point. Recently we upgraded one of our older Macs to 10.3 for software compatibility reasons only to have to upgrade to 10.4 a few months later for the same reason. There's something to be said for platform stability.

      When I first started at my current job our Windows boxes were spread across 4 different operating systems (3.1, 95, NT3, NT4). For the past two years or so all our boxes have been on XP, which is a nice change. While we'll likely soon begin the migration to Vista the process will be made less painful due to backwards compatibility--both the pride and curse of Windows.
    • kodek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"Yes but one of the best things about Apple is that they are not really afraid to toss backwards compatability out the window for better technology.... look at the x86 architecture and what backward compatability has done to it."

      Yes, but by Apple being the minority, they can play around with things like backwards-compatibility without losing market share. Imagine if Microsoft said XP programs will not run on Vista. Many businesses who paid huge amounts of money for their systems will not upgrade, and in the end, Microsoft will be at a loss.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8ethergnat-
      the only way you'd have to upgrade your OS twice for 'software compatibility' reasons is if you've upgraded the software needing compatibility. Next time your IT guys should try not upgrading it unless the OS is supported. You can't blame Apple for that.. that's your company's fault.
    • andrelix, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12"If Windows Vista completely scrapped the Windows Kernel and made a new and more reliable Kernel but ran old XP- programs in an emulation environment that worked /well/, I think it'd have 10000% more instant buyers."

      Huhhh? My XP machine is just as, if not more reliable than my 2 macs. Both OS's are very mature and do very well, unless you are a zealot and don't care about facts. The reality in mind is MS did not need to upgrade because XP is a great OS. I am not saying it can't be improved upon, as is the case for OSX 10.4, but they are both doing a fine job. Can't agree with coments like this...
    • crapple, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9backwards compatability ends up with a bloated OS and loads of security flaws. I like my OS to be sleek and smooth without crashing.
    • elroy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Oakes:

      um... breaking backwards compatability means older stuff can't run on newer systems, not the other way around. when apple adds new functionality and developers take advantage of it, of course it will only run on the newer system. when your 10.1 application wont run on 10.4, that's lack of backwards compatability.
    • prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"There's no such thing as "Tiger upgrade." Apple only sells full versions of their operating systems"

      Yes there is. All the Apple resalers offer a cheaper upgrade version of Tiger.

      http://www.megamacs.com/v1/index.php?action=view&pid=3138148
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@Oakes

      Noooooooo! I like Apple because they aren't constantly building in backwards compatibility. I think this is one of the reasons Windows has as many problems as it does.

      Sometimes it is best to just move on to something better and forget the past.
    • astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7> Oakes makes a good point. Recently we upgraded one of our older
      > Macs to 10.3 for software compatibility reasons only to have to
      > upgrade to 10.4 a few months later for the same reason. There's
      > something to be said for platform stability.

      Actually, Oakes is wrong. Apple doesn't force anyone to recompile. 10.4 has no problem running software compiled for 10.1, just like Windows XP has no problem running software compiled for NT 4.0. With each new OS update, Apple (and Microsoft) release new technology that may be utilized by developers, but in doing so, limits the software to the newer version of the OS. In other words, Apple doesn't throw backward compatibility away, however the developers of the software you're using often do and there's nothing Apple can do about that.

      It easy to write software runs only on WinXP but not Win2000 and prior, or runs on Win2000 and XP but not NT 4.0. Heck, it's easy to write software that requires XP SP2. It's up to the developer to decide whether they want to take advantage of new OS features at the expense of supporting older operating revisions.

      The situation is a lot worse for Windows developers due to the sheer numbers of older OS versions still in use; most developers still choose to support older OS revisions (Win2000, Win9x) even though it's huge pain in the ass. (Although, developer support for older Windows versions is dropping fast)
    • Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Herolint, I'm not suggesting they go to Microsoft's extremes (compatibility back to DOS). They can break backwards compatibility at a reasonable time, but there's got to be a middle ground between Microsoft's hugging of legacy technology and Apple's eschewing of last year's technology.

      astrosmash, I don't mean that they've eliminated backwards compatibility completely, but it could be better.
    • Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Huhhh? My XP machine is just as, if not more reliable than my 2 macs. Both OS's are very mature and do very well, unless you are a zealot and don't care about facts. The reality in mind is MS did not need to upgrade because XP is a great OS. I am not saying it can't be improved upon, as is the case for OSX 10.4, but they are both doing a fine job. Can't agree with coments like this..."

      Yes, XP is a huge huge step forward, and I agree that XP is quite mature (although I can't understand why it took Microsoft or Apple 15 years to develop simple memory protection). However, the kernel is way overbloated with Legacy code.
    • inane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hey chickenlegs, Instant Messenger is not an OS, it is an application as is IE. And to rushfan, that's great if you use open source and it works for you, but Apple and MS are businesses and a business only survives as long as it makes money. Those who don't like paying for Mac or Windows are free to use whatever open source OS they like, that's the beauty of freedom.
    • itguru81, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3One thing I hate about Mac users is the claim that features in Vista are "copied" from Mac. Because of the long long release schedule features invented 6-7 years ago don't come out till now... that doesnt' mean they were stolen from Apple, it means Microsoft waits a long time to release them. Both XP and OS X came out at a similar time, and alot of the features touted as "included in OS X" were NOT in the original release... just as they aren't in XP. The difference being that OS "X" is resold every year with these new features. I'm quite sure that Apple can steal features from microsoft developers as well, and releases them BEFORE microsoft can because of the long release schedule of microsoft. That doesn't suddenly make apple the innovator, just the one rushing to market. I give them credit for releasing these features quickly(7 years is way too long), but the 1 per year at $130 is ridiculous as well.
    • skidooer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"Apple only sells full versions of their operating systems"

      Technically the boxed copy is an upgrade. There's no need to sell a "full version" because it comes pre-installed when you buy your Mac. Your Apple hardware is the proof that you've already purchased the full version.
    • GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Apple consumers tend not to be as concerned with the price of upgrades, as they're well-healed. There's that slight about Macs being for gays. Well, which group of consumers has the most disposable income? Gays, as they don't generally have children. That's a market that it wouldn't hurt Microsoft to target.
    • Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@GuineaPig:
      >>Well, which group of consumers has the most disposable income? Gays, as they don't generally have children. That's a market that it wouldn't hurt Microsoft to target.

      And, just how would one go about "targetting" that market?
    • Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Queer eye for the PC guy?
    • starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>If only Apple would be as fanatical as Microsoft about backwards
      >compatibility, your point would be well-taken.

      i really am not sure i would agree that apple isn't fanatical about backwards compatibility like microsoft. there are a lot right now but there's a lot of things to do bringing up a new architecture. you don't have to pay for every incremental upgrade. i think its more a problem for software people. but pretty much every piece of software runs an upgrade check. and even when its a necessity for the software company to upgrade a program its not a huge deal for them. i just haven't been burdened at all by this.

      and i'd also say that by in large you can still run software that was made in the 80's under classic. i've never understood the backwards compatibility complaint or the comparison to microsoft as a company that does it right. most of the backwards compatibility is with intel. i use windows every day and the different versions are very different. and there are usually hundreds of updates. i've had real problems when trying to install software on a windows machine... because it took some different rev. i'm not willing to call ***** on the upgrade thing right now. but saying microsoft has better backward compatibility does seem a little like *****.
    • stripes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Oakes:

      You say Apple forces devs to recompile for the new version. They don't. They even go to pretty fair lengths to provide SDK's to target older releases, and to a lesser extent to allow a single version of a devs program to optionally use some of the newer OS features and still run on older OSes (so long as they avoid calling thos features if they are on the older OS).

      I think that last little bit is "the rub", if a dev wants to use Core Data they need Tiger. If they want to code their application to use Core Data if it is present, and just code it "the hard way" if there is no Core Data they can. However there is a huge problem with that. Mostly what Care Data gives a developer is the ability to write a lot less code. So if I use Core Data I can do the same work with (say) 20% less code. Mostly that means my coding time is shortened, and my debugging time is shortened. I can either ship my program that much sooner, or add some extra features I would otherwise have to bump... ...unless I want to run on a pre-Tiger system. If I want that I have to write that extra 20% of the code. As long as I do that I may as well not use Core Data.

      For a lot of devs writing new code Core Data's lure is enough to say "come to Tiger!".

      Tiger also has lots of search APIs, but if you are willing to code your app not to have a search box on a pre-Tiger system, then you don't really have to get your users to switch to Tiger.

      Likewise Panther had Cocoa Bindings, and they saved a ton of work.

      Prior to Panther, I don't really know since I havn't been making stuff for OSX for all that long (outside of stuff that could run on "any old Unix")

      So damn Apple for providing developers with frameworks that make their life easier!
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"look at the x86 architecture and what backward compatability has done to it."

      You mean stuff like entrench it as the absolute majority computing platform world wide? Nah, that don't mean nothin' does it!?
      My dual core athlon will still run things from almost 20 years ago (not that I'd want to) without any emulation, what mac can do that??
    • The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How much Mac software says "10.3 or higher"? Or worse, "10.4 or higher"?"

      Most of the time that's because they use new API's or such (e.g. Spotlight or Core Data in 10.4), that are not available in older versions. (e.g. a app using a XP API won't run under 98)

      A few days ago i downloaded a program, that from the screen-shots on the site, looked like it hadn't been updated since the time OS X PB was out, and it ran flawlessly under Tiger.
  • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -30/+24Four? How about one with 4 point upgrades. MS on the other hand, had two point upgrades with a ton of little updates in the middle

    And the MS point upgrades were free (vs. $130), as are all updates from MS.
    • netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -17/+26Yeah, and didn't it seem like everyone one of those 'free updates' either broke something else, or cause a huge security hole?

      Microsoft patches do not really count as updates.
    • imikedaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27It's just a numbering system, and nothing else. Apple could have made it Mac OS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and the upcoming Mac OS 15, but does that change the functionality and feature set at all?
    • Laurent, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12These cannot really be considered as point upgrades like Microsoft uses. Apple chose to keep the same number to show that these operating are part of the same generation. You can bet that once Mac OS X 10.9 will be released, we're going to see another remolded OS written from scratched...
    • Motobike_man, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8no, they could go to OS 10.10 then to 10.11
    • HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Most of the past Microsoft OS's have been point upgrades:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10I'm going to point out, before the Mac Fanboys, because the Mac Fanboys will, that the kernel version on Windows with the update from 2000 to XP is only a "point" update. Now that this has been said to all the mac fanboys out there itching to say this, its only a KERNEL update. Yes its still runing on the NT kernel. Yes it really hasn't changed much besides making things more secure and making programs more reliant on Windows API's to handle things.

      Figured I'd just debunk the kernel point updates before they happen. There's a lot more to windows updates than a point update (Windows 2000 and XP are vastly different even though Kernel versions are 5.0 and 5.1 respectively)
    • jasmus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13I guess this is a minor point, but when you pay for a new version of OS X, you don't just get the updates, you get the whole operating system. 10.5 will only be available as a complete, functioning operating system, not a download or patch onto the existing 10.4. So when you pay your $130 (American? $199 Australian) you are buying a complete OS, not a patch CD.
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7@jasmus

      Your point would be a good one if apple allowed you to download the update for free.

      I can buy a Windows XP SP2 installation CD, or I can buy an SP1 or an SP0 and upgrade for free to SP2 if I choose. If Apple gave the option to buy 10.5 or upgrade for free from 10.4 to 10.5 that would validate your point much more.
    • jasmus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@vandread: Ok, very good point. My only counter is that upon purchasing 10.5, I will have another license. If I were to download SP2 for Windows XP, I still only have my one license. That could be the difference here, with OS X you're buying another license. Not a big deal for most people with only one PC, granted, but This allows me to legally install my old 10.4 onto another machine if I wish.

      Ok, not a strong counter, but that's all I got :)
    • drumnbass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@ Tensenki - you don't HAVE to buy the OS upgrade; nobody is forcing you. If Tiger or Panther or whatever you're running do the job you want, then why not just stick with it? Many users do... (hell - I know people still running 10.1!)
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11With each of Apple's "point upgrades" you got features that are only going to be included in Vista. Not to mention as others have noted you could skip some releases in the middle (10.4 was the most worthwhile jump).

      So right now OS X users essentially have Vista, and with 10.5 are getting something... more. Don't you think it would be worth it to some people to run a virus free Vista years earlier?
    • terranaut, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Why was motorbike man dugg down?

      He is correct, Apple uses the Unix build numbering system whch uses a period as a separator, not a decimal point, so Apple can use 2 digit numbering after OSX 10.9.
    • drakino, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@vandread "There's a lot more to windows updates than a point update (Windows 2000 and XP are vastly different even though Kernel versions are 5.0 and 5.1 respectively)"

      And there are a lot more to Mac updates then a point release. 10.3 to 10.4 have many things different in all areas of the OS, and the same goes for 10.0->10.2 and 10.2->10.3. The really only minor one that would compare to say XP SP2 was 10.1, and that was a free upgrade as well.

      Mac OS X "service packs" are 10.4.6->10.4.7. Apple releases these on a much more frequent basis, but as much smaller patches compared to MS service packs these days. Think of the Apple 10.4.x upgrades as a big collection of the patches Microsoft releases on a frequent basis.
    • MeauxToo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let's see, Windows XP SP1 and, particularly, SP2 were releases to fix the monumental security flaws in the operating system that made it irresponsible to deploy. Furthermore, neither included any significant new functionality other than fixing existing security holes. Contrasted to Max OS X 10.4 which introduced new features such as Core Data, Core Image, Spotlight, and roughly 130 other enhancements.

      Furthermore, I don't see where Apple is out of line to charge for their point releases, but we would consumer lawsuits if Microsoft tried to charge for their service packs to fix their defective products. Microsoft charging for a service pack would be the equivalent to a car company charging to fix recall defect.

      In short, I see these comparisons as specious and erroneous. The scope of a point release of Mac OS X can not, in any rational way, be compared to a Windows service pack. Apple releases minor revisions (e.g. 10.4.7) which are equivalent. These minor releases occur more often than Windows service packs, do not require an invasive tool that invades its users privacy, and are free for all.
    • inane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is quite the argument over nothing but semantics. Apple uses the point to indicate a major upgrade while MS names them (e.g. 2000, XP, Vista). Apple releases free updates too (I'm running 10.4.7) but you have to pay when they do a major one, just like MS does. Service Packs are not comparable to Tiger, Leopard, etc. since they rarely add any noticeable functionality, just stability and security patches. I agree that the most worthwhile OSX upgrade has been 10.4 with the addition of Dashboard and Smart Folders. I'm anxious to see what MS has in store with Vista and if they can ever lure me back after I jumped ship 4 years ago.
    • sudonim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you guys honestly think Apple will release that many more versions of OSX. I would have thought they would already be well on there way to a totally new OS. I'd say you will get maybe 10.5 then 10.6 before a whole new OS XI is released.

      Someone is bound to say whats the difference, these are all upgrades. Well I would say the new OS will be more akin to the change from OS 9 to OS X (which i guess is obvious in the whole version number change). But more technically I would think they would start another kernel building in future technologies at a much lower level though I have no idea if they will go and fork the BSD kernel or just fork Darwin and rip stuff apart.
  • NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -16/+46What an idiot. What does he want Apple do to? A six-year train wreck like Longhorn?

    -jcr
    • mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Maybe MS should be a little more aggressive with the luddites and cut off legacy support once and for all. If businesses don't know how to depreciate computers on the IRS' five year schedule, that isn't MS' problem.
    • Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Lots of those "luddites" have support contracts with Microsoft. Cut off legacy support, and a) Microsoft would lose money and b) Microsoft would get sued for breach of contract.

      PS: Sticking with an established setup instead of upgrading for the sake of it is an entirely sensible thing to do. The average home user geek might think it's great to always have the latest and greatest, but when you've got thousands of machines to support running all kinds of different software, upgrading can cause more trouble than it's worth.
    • EGOvoruhk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3NSResponde: I think he wants them not to charge
    • bobbyi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Maybe he wants them to give away their service packs for free like msft rather than saying that they are doing you a favor by charging $100 for them every year?
    • dotwhynot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9>What does he want Apple do to? A six-year train wreck like Longhorn?

      Apple already tried that, it was called Copland. Not 6 years, it never finished, despite a ton of resources and promises, and then they bought Next instead. So Microsoft is copying Apple on this as well :)
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10guys, OS X upgrades are far more than service packs. Your system wll still run safe and stable whether you upgrade or not-- all secuirty upgrades are providied for each version. Compare to XP, if you don't get those service packs you're running mulitple, signifcant security risks-- goddam RIGHT they should be free.
    • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Microsoft is a financial giant. So, maybe they can afford to take a page from the Steve Jobs playbook and totally reinvent their OS from scratch.

      There's a billion PCs in the world, running the Almighty Crappy XP and the Win OSes of Yore. Fine. Let them keep those, with their backwards compatibility and their viruses.

      Microsoft should design a brand new hardware & OS solution from the ground up. The hardware could have the XBOX 360 design aesthetic and the new OS could be Linux based and ready to destroy any "big cat".

      Corporations could boldly adopt MS's new-era tech solution or sheepishly stick with their Dells and VAIOs and Gateways or whatever.

      In short, Microsoft should use this opportunity to just invent new things. Keep supporting the old but, boldly inventing new things.

      If Apple can create the iPod, Microsoft can revolutionize the PC mold in one swoop. Other than that, we just have a slightly prettier version of the same crappy OS they unleashed on us years ago.

      Just a suggestion. Probably won't happen.

      And yes.....I'm a proud Mac user of 21 years and counting.
  • FrostyFire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Oh no, not new technology!!!
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Maybe they could skip charging you $129 for some of these upgrades.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4you don't need to upgrade if you don't want to, that';s why the charge. new features, new things to do on your comp- same as when vista comes out. .. um, and how much was that gonna cost?
  • SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3Yes its a good thing Billy. Why don't you go off and work on your foundation with Warren's money
    • aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Are you seriously giving someone crap for doing charitable work?
    • andrelix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13shame on you for mocking Bill, he will go down in history not for Microsoft, but for the Gates foundation, and thank goodness to everyone for that!
  • tbye, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15As a developer... for both platforms...

    Atleast Apple attempts to document the incompatibilities and in most cases provides a migration path.

    Microsoft? You're just screwd.
  • largobargo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3***** ya!
  • pantuky, on 10/12/2007, -26/+6Why is Apple newsworthy? Why do people blog about this firm? With a meagar 1.8% of the global installed base of computers, why is Apple a subject of discusion? Is Amiga or Atari ST still a topic of discusion also?
    • Quix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Um, maybe because talking about Dells would bore everyone to tears?

      There are far more Chevys in the world than Ferraris, but I'd much rather talk about Ferraris...
    • pinnette, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1To be fair, I don't think Amiga or Atari are fair comparisons. This appears to be all thats left of new Amiga hardware:

      http://www.eyetech.co.uk/search.php?SearchStr=&SearchCat=ADTW

      New Atari hardware hasn't been produced since the early '90s.

      At the same time, Chevy to Dell and Apple to Ferrari isn't a good comparison either imo.
    • HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Perhaps because Apple drives a lot of innovation in the computer world.
    • Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Did you just pull that number out of your ass?
    • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I dunno but how about you uncheck "Apple" from the stories Digg shows you?
  • naterd00d, on 10/12/2007, -28/+4apple sucks
  • LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Personally, I don't mind a new OS every year. It makes me feel like they are working on something new. Honestly, I'd rather spend $100 bucks once a year, or every couple then spend a HUGE amount of money on a new (which will still be behind OS X) OS every 5.
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5If by huge you mean 100 dollars for an upgrade disk (which can be installed as a full version on an empty system so long as the installer can verify you own a previous version of windows) then yeah Its crazy to spend a huge amount of money every 5 years for an update when you can spend a huge amount of money every year for an update.
    • JeffreyAtW, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3What "HUGE" amount of money would that be?

      Don't give me the $450 figure, that's false.
  • DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Don't the Apple OSX updates usually add actually desirable features?
    • KillerX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Yes
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yup, and Apple users will back me up here: every release runs faster than the previous one on the same hardware.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3on my old box they do indeed speed things up... that is except for QT7 grrrrr
  • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -19/+8Another reason to use Linux, free upgrades 4 life.
    • rgov, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Yes, and maybe in 10 years you'll get USB support that doesn't kernel panic! Woo!
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5@rgov

      I don't know what your talking about rgov, kernel 2.4+ has great USB support and 2.6.9+ has pretty damn good bluetooth support too. With the exception of 2.6.11, bluetooth was funky on that, but all other kernel versions round it I haven't had any problems with bluetooth on. And linux is constantly being updated, especially with Novell moving to the OpenSuSE platform and Redhat creating the Fedora 6 month release plan, Linux is growing drastically and making huge strides now very rapidly.
    • TheFraser, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1And the point goes to Linux
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I think it's great. People who want to pay have access to new features, people who don't want to pay can just wait until they buy a new machine to get the updates instead. I doubt many people actually buy every point release.

    Incidentally, I talk to more
    • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5^^ Incidentally I talk to more pre-103 users than 10.4 users at my job. You can tell because Mail's preferences were different in versions prior to 10.4

  • 3dge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's good for Apple because they make money on upgrades. It's good for users because they get not only bug fixes, which is all that MS gives you between releases (with the occasional exception), but speed improvements and new features which let you get more out of your computer.

    Also, if Apple didn't up the ante Microsoft would put even less features into their 5-year upgrades, slowing progress even more. Imagine if all you got between XP and Vista was Expose for example.
    • vandread, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I'd like to point out SP2, since you obviously haven't experienced the difference between XP1 and XP2, with XP2 they did a lot more than just bugfixes and implimented a built in firewall that actually doesn't suck 100%, along with giving framework to integrate Anti-Virus data into the windows system and a framework that Microsoft's Anti-Spyware application runs on.

      SP2 was as much an update for windowsXP that any point update for OSX is.
    • HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3vandread:

      No, SP2 wasn't close to a point upgrade for OSX. Please, allow me to educate you:


      10.4 added Core Data (a powerful framework for storing data), Core Image (leverages the GPU to do image effects, makes it completely platform independent), Quartz 2D Extreme (moves a great deal of the rendering to the GPU, and increases the throughput by huge amounts. it is not enabled by default but it paves the way for future uses).

      Full list:

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/newfeatures/over200.html

      Similar improvements were added with the previous ones also. Like Expose (a life changer! i'm a recent switcher, and Expose is incredibly useful) with Panther.
    • simX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@vandread: Hahahahahaha, did you just say that SP2 for XP was much more of a point update than any point release for OS X? Did you just REALLY say that?

      SP2 was strictly a SECURITY release, and the only "new" features that were introduced into Windows XP were SECURITY features. A firewall -- psh, Apple had it in OS X since version 10.2, which was released a full two years before XP SP2. And then they built anti-spyware and anti-virus frameworks, which basically allow Microsoft to bravely give away Microsoft AntiSpyware/Defender to fix problems in Windows that shouldn't exist in the first place.

      In contrast, Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, for example, introduced REAL new features, like Quartz Extreme (graphics card-accelerated user interface), spam filtering in the free Mail client, a system-wide Address Book framework that into which third-party applications can hook, Rendezvous zero-configuration IP networking, iChat, increased speed, etc., etc. The case is similar for any point upgrade of Mac OS X -- actual FEATURES were included, not things that just tightened security that should have existed in the operating system in the first place.

      So... you're telling me that a strict SECURITY release is more of a point upgrade than gaining actual features and speed? Give me a break, it's obvious that YOU haven't used Mac OS X since version 10.1.
  • rgov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think a little while ago someone at Apple agreed that they were releasing upgrades too frequently and that they were worried about "burning out" their innovation, so they were planning on slowing down OS upgrades. I'm sure they've got 80% of Mac OS X's roadmap planned out though, and just need to time it so that the software matches up with hardware improvements.
  • golgo13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5He has a point... sort of. I guess it depends on how you look at things. I don't view Microsoft's service packs as evolutionary upgrades, I just see them as exactly what they themselves call them; service packs. Apple packages, (note I didn't say created), things like spotlight, the dashboard, and automator. Oh wait, isn't Microsoft charging for equivelant things in Vista? Now I wouldn't call him a hack, he raises a point, it's just not valid.

    I noticed he includes a link to another one of his articles about cutting edge wireless technology included in Microsoft's SP2. I found this little nugget of a quote; "Even today, no other platform such as Linux or Mac OS has any native ability to globally manage wireless clients[...]" Uh, as far as I know Linux doesn't have the native ability to do much. The power in Linux of course is that natively it has the power to do anything you want, you only have to travel one step from where you are to where you want to go and it's always a free step.
    • yasth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ummm, yeah, as a corporate user new features are not a good thing. Or at least not 4 new feature packs in 5 years, that is 4 times everyone has to get training. Microsoft does release new features for the OS, they just don't bundle them into service packs they are separate downloads. That is the way IT managers have yelled at MS to make sure they do.

      With Macs you are looking at a re image every 1.25 years (mass upgrading Apples way is just too terrifying of a thought), corporate users like that A) the upgrade is free and B) it can be delivered in the normal nightly update in an extensively tested process.

      I have to admit that for home users it kind of sucks. But Honestly, if you are looking for something keeping Apple out of the enterprise well 4 for purchase upgrades in 5 years is a big one. (And honestly, trying to run previous versions of OS X is quickly an exercise in frustration).
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1home users and corporate IT people can upgrade OS X or not, makes no difference to security.
      If the features are worth the money you cough it up, if not, you just go about your business..
    • golgo13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yasth, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you really saying that because there's a new OS you *must* move to it and since Microsoft hasn't produced a new OS in 5 years they are actually the better manufacturer? I hear BeOS hasn't produced an OS in a while, perhaps you're corporation should consider moving to a new OS for the last time.
    • yasth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are problems when one doesn't get on the bandwagon. For one thing Apple will fix things in the OS upgrades, which means the hacky little utility that you bought to enable what you needed no longer gets upgraded and your corp is out $100 a seat if it wants to move to something more stable. Happens (cough LDAP auth and OS X 10.1-10.2) and it sucks. Microsoft it gets released in a service pack, and you can just migrate. Also users expect level fields as far as software goes. i.e. if you are phasing in deployment over three years (i.e. upgrading in parts to lessen one time budget outlays), all of a sudden you have three different OSs to support, and management options have changed between them and ugh it is a nightmare. Oh and Safari requires 10.3 so if you want to make that your platform welcome to upgradevile.

      Microsoft gets corporate deployment cycles, minimal added functionality, all updates free, and backported, and supported for 10 years for business OSes. Add in that updates are easily managed and controlled, and you have a good system. Apple just doesn't really even try to compete in the managed desktop sense. Honestly the OS is not really that important, and upgrades to it, are not really all that big a deal, I shift to Linux, Windows, and OS X and the world seems just about the same, you launch a program you use it. Doesn't really matter after that point. Managing files is different on all of them, but eh, not that different.
  • ShyGuy91284, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Featurewise: yes. Pricewise: No. Overall: No. Yes, it can be costly if you want to be on the cutting edge, getting a new OS every year so, but who's forcing you? Many would agree it should be a free upgrade every year (I think maybe $50 for the uprgrade realistically). But if you look at the overall picture, it provides the same effect as an OS launch every 5 years but with the option to be on the stable cutting edge if you want, and more importantly, allows patches to be done at a more rapid rate so the product released in 5 years will be less buggy. If they jumped from the original OS X to Leopard, there would be many bugs that would take a while to get all fixed most likely.
  • lennon2600, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6My answer: absolutely. You don't get sick of it, it evolves, it changes. Windows is a behemoth, it has to work with everything, but a very small percentage of users of Microsoft operating systems get a near flawless system. It's mostly always OK. Could be a lot better, but if you spend 400-600 on a windows box, you take the mediocrity in stride. On a different note, put that damn market share argument to bed already. I don't care whether microsoft has 90% or apple has 3 or 5 or 1 or whatever it is. It's a great system, the software library is large enough for most people (including me), and on and on. I advocate the use of Linux too. That is one great, dedicated community.
    • n3rrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1When it comes down to it, the community is only useful when people need help. The majority of users are just going to get their little bit of advice and then they ***** off for good.

      Personally, I've wanted to move to Linux for a while. I'm tired of bloated GUIs and would like something minimal and that can be controlled primarly with a keyboard. There are issues holding me back, though. Things like IM Video chat support, hardware support (it's improving, i know), and the feel of alot of program GUIs.

      I don't want anything particularly fancy, but things have to be coherent and usable. GIMP would be an outstanding piece of free software if it wasn't for it's layout being a complete mess with windows all over the place.

      I'm not sure which method I prefer more... the Microsoft method, or the Apple method. Regardless, it's irrelevant for most of the population of computer users. Apple holds very little marketshare, thus their method only affects a selet few. Until OS X is sold for regular PCs to offer some competition, I'm not overly interested.
  • dpcamp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5whatever I think both OS' suck. I use paper and pencil.
    • Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Hmm...Digg supports mail-in comments?
  • metalgear1391, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0they want to be like AOL and kill them selves
  • Crypty, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Difference being that with apple you get some stupid little do-dad for managing your family photos or an egg timer widget. Now that may be what simpleminded apple users call "desirable," but it's not to me.
    With MS updates you get improved security and fixes that evolve with the computing world.
    All of you talking about holes, viruses and broken patches are *****. 99% of the "holes" are actually just idiots who download porn.exe and run it. Or the guys who search limewire for a software crack, get some mystery exe and have at it. A little common sense goes a long way. I don't run a firewall, I don't run a virus scanner, (not even the MS ones) and I have never gotten a virus in my several years of running XP pro. I have my free Service pack 2 and that's all, none of the more frequent mini-updates needed, however it is nice to know that they are available if I should ever want them.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Serious flaws. It's VIsta that has the egg-timer widget (widgets are one of the major new features in fact, we Tiger or Google Desktop users are used to them already and don't make a big fuss over widgets). And Apple that already has the imrpoved security. No viruses, remember?

      I hope that wasn't a really expensive shoe you are drooling all over now.
    • drakino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Do you have a router? Then you are running a type of firewall. Come back here when you have connected a freshly loaded Windows XP box to the internet. Then you might get an idea of exactly how brotal those "1%" of the holes actually are. And if you think this doesn't happen on a frequent basis, there are a ton of consumers out there who own a single PC and do not have a router as protection. If their system is two years old, they won't even have a slipstreamed SP2 disc, and if something causes them to reload, they are hosed.
    • MichelangeloPM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Most people don't even look at what's on the screen. Besides, Windows still allows you to screw up. I gave my girlfriend a Mac and I'm glad I did, it was worth every dollar. I'm 100% sure that if I had given her a PC with Windows I would have to keep reinstalling XP every weekend, and keep explaining her everytime why Smiley Central and MyWebSearch are not good, and why opening attachments is bad, among others.

      My mother sucks at computers too, she's always complaining about why her computer (Windows) is so slow just a few days after I've reinstalled Windows.

      And since I'm the Tech-Support guy in my family, my experiences have been a lot better with the Mac. Enough said.

      I don't use a firewall/antivirus either, but then... I've been using computers since I was 8 years old, and I've been programming for around 15 years. There's no comparison with "normal" people who just want to use their computers and trust them.
    • n3rrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3superkendall, don't be an idiot. "No viruses" isn't because of fantastic security measures, but a lack of interest.
  • Microdot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 which not only fixed security bugs but also added new features such as leading edge Wireless LAN management technology."

    BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - he said "leading edge" HAHAHA

    damn right its a good thing. i like to spur advancement... push technology forward. not sit on my ass waiting for the next release in hopes that they will fix 90% of the issues still sitting in the operating system 5 years after its release.

    experience vista today..... but a mac.
  • fungible, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Windows XP boots in 30 seconds? I usually can turn on my work system, run to the can, get a cup of coffee, and by the time I get back it's still not done. Maybe I'm on a bad computer.

    All I know is, I'm happy to get home to my mac, so I can feel like I'm on a system designed in this century, at least.
    • metalgear1391, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1dude theres nothing on the mac useing memory thats y it seems fast
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nothing on the mac using memory? So running everything from swa directly on the HD is faster?

      A little confused by what you meant to say there.
    • metalgear1391, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0well to me when i use a mac theres less on it then a computer at the library so ya it seems like every thing is running off the HD
    • HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2metalgear:

      Oh yes, thats such a scientific finding of yours. Of course it loads things into memory! Otherwise it would be dreadfully slow.

      Even if it was the case, and it did prove advantageous, why would that be a bad thing? Wouldn't that mean it was superior to Windows? Please, take your Mac bashing elsewhere, it's so 90's.
    • boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Plus, the MacBook I saw at Fry's boots in 18 seconds.

      When I got to it, it was not turned on; I turned it on, then talked to the person I was with for a short time, then looked back at the screen and saw that it was already done booting. I restarted it and timed it - 18 seconds. My reaction: "Whoa!"

      I think that compares pretty favorably with the author's 30 seconds in XP.
  • Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3As someone who hasn't owned an Apple since I had my IIGS in grammar school (sorry I'm a gamer at heart *still* in my advancing age) - I'm not familiar with what is actually in the OS releases to justify $130 just about every year. If there are genuinely knock your socks off type features added / upgraded then it seems like a good deal. If not, it just seems like Apple is taking advantage of it's loyal customer base. And if Apple ever wanted to get a clue and grab more market space - they need GAMES!!!. That is the only reason why we ever switched back in the day - none other.
    • timmarhy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1there is about the same advancements as you'd see in an MS service pack - that is to say ***** all
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4um, you get a lot of new interesting features that apparently sell millions of copies. Anyone who doesn't care, doesn't get it, while their computer still receives FREE security updates.
      Best of both worlds, me, I usually get every other release.
    • Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@shmatt

      Just because something sells millions of copies doesn't mean it's great. Pet Rocks sold by the millions too and so do rap albums - 'nuff said.

      Rampant consumerism FTW!
    • chadseld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The updates have always included many new and exciting features in addition to large API improvements and speed improvements. They have always been worth the $130.

      The thing is, OS X was an infant at 10.0. The changes have been coming fast for two reasons:
      1. There was a lot of low-hanging fruit. So much of the OS was new, large areas were easy targets for improvement.
      2. The clean OS architecture and good dev tools have made improvements easier to develop.

      With time we will see OS X releases less often. Apple has already announced a reduction in release frequency with 10.5.
  • Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6You can't compare major Mac OS X point releases to Microsoft Service Packs. No Digg. The guy obviously has never used a Mac.
  • timmarhy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6face it fanboys, the mac's OS release policy's STINK

    no backwards compatablity, it's just a pain in the arse. and i remmeber it wasn't very long ago you people were bagging MS for multiple OS releases, but now that apple is milking your money you love? hell even linux has better backwards compatability and supports it's old releases for longer and no one's paying for it.

    • Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Uh, considering you can still run Mac apps written in 1985 on current hardware, I have no clue what kind of backward compatibility you're expecting.
    • shmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3see, the thing is, nobody cares. everyone's happy.
      if you can't develop at the pace they put out releases, go develop for another platform.
    • drakino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Uh, considering you can still run Mac apps written in 1985 on current hardware, I have no clue what kind of backward compatibility you're expecting."

      Unless you buy a G5 off Apple.com today, you are limited to running apps written in 2000 or beyond. No Intel Mac runs Mac OS 9 in classic mode. And soon when the PowerMacs are replaced with Intel systems, that statement will apply to the entire shipping line.
    • Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Unless you buy a G5 off Apple.com today, you are limited to running apps written in 2000 or beyond. No Intel Mac runs Mac OS 9 in classic mode. And soon when the PowerMacs are replaced with Intel systems, that statement will apply to the entire shipping line."

      I know this. There's no apps worth running that haven't already made their way over to OS X though. Also, if you want to run classic apps for some crazy reason still, there's open source emulators for Intel hardware to do this. Backward compatibility has hurt Windows far more than it's helped. I've never cared much for it, especially in a world of emulators.
  • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Good old MS and geniune Advantage, do you have the "geniune advantage"? hahaha
    • metalgear1391, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0yes lol
    • Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Cracked within 24 hours! http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/28/microsoft_genuine_ad.html
    • Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Let's see...I don't say anything bad about Apple and get modded down for *admitting* I'm an XP user. Someone makes a comment ripping into Windows and they get modded up. Boy, you guys would club a baby seal if it was unfortuante enough to be born with a birthmark of MS in it's fur!
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dayyve - get used to it, its Apple Humpers (tm) like Kazrog who ***** it up for the real Apple users. What a prick.
  • ginty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I like how people make it sound like that because apple has updated the software they MUST buy it.

    I know people still using OS9 everyday. Just because there is an upgrade, doesn't mean you have to get it. 10.2.8 would still serve you fine right now. It doesn't have all the doodads, it just means you have to learn how to say no.
    • prockcore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"10.2.8 would still serve you fine right now."

      Except you wouldn't be able to run:
      Final Cut Pro,
      Motion,
      Soundtrack,
      DVD Studio Pro,
      Compressor,
      Shake,
      iWork,
      Aperture,
      Logic Pro
      to name a few.

      In fact, all of those except iWork require 10.4... so even Panther users will need to upgrade.
    • bgmccollum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@prockcore

      Because they take advantage of APIs introduced in 10.4.
    • ginty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ prockcore

      Did you ever use 10.2.8? I ran many of those programs on a 10.2.8 machine. Now if you want to say you can't run the latest version, that may be true, but that creates the same argument again. There isn't much I need to do in final cut that I couldn't do in version 3.

      Needed upgrades are for pro's. Casual home users don't need to upgrade that much to be functional. If a program comes out that requires a new computer, new OS whatever, you have to decide if you need THAT program or if you are better off staying with something else.

      People shouldn't blame companies because they can't control their spending urges.
  • metalgear1391, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0ohhh i think every one has used a mac at least once maybe not os 10 but still has used a mac
    • HackWithRamzi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Anyone basing their views of the Macintosh platform off of the classic Macs needs to try a newer one. They rock.
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You can say the same to the Mac Zealots who haven't used Windows since Windows 95, bashing stuff 10 years old that really isn't around that much anymore. - but you'd be wasting your breath, becuase they'll just mod you down because they don't agree with you- typical "Apple Humper (tm)".
    • DeezKnots, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"You can say the same to the Mac Zealots who haven't used Windows since Windows 95, bashing stuff 10 years old that really isn't around that much anymore. - but you'd be wasting your breath, becuase they'll just mod you down because they don't agree with you- typical "Apple Humper (tm)"..."

      - Actually, Windows hasn't changed much sence Win95. Unless you count pinball.
      Funny how people that bash Mac get modded down when only "5%" of computer users are Mac Zealots like myself. I'm fixing a WinXP system right now because a lady I work with needs to get her Music off her Windows-Herpies Virus Box. XP is old news and every single Windows OS should have just been another service pack to Windows 95. I swear if you Wintindo users didn't have your start button you'd get confused.
  • JK1150, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I say no. Working in IT, having to buy site licenses everytime a new OS comes out costs money. Deploying, and making sure everything works, costs time. I think Vista is too long a time in coming, but Apple is way too fast. I'd prefer service pack like updates.
    • Sairgem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So why exactly would you buy every new version?
    • iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1So why exactly would you buy every new version?

      Isn't that the question here? I mean, do I pay $130 for Spotlight, then pay another 130 next year for what? What other features do I get nickle and dimed on. Apparantly, people who like to pay extra for hardware, don't mind paying extra for each and every feature that comes out every 6 months or so.
  • krisper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Most of the people I know who complain the loudest about XP are cheap losers who think they're "sticking it to Bill Gate$$" by not owning a liscenced version, and who therefore can't get updates and patches from Microsoft - so of course they're constantly at risk from security holes. Chumps. Personally, I've never had issues with XP. That said, if all Vista is going to be is XP service pack 3, then I'll probably consider switching back to Mac at some point in the near future.
    • golgo13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As far as I know Microsoft still releases security updates to people who own pirated copies of XP. This of course leads me to believe that you don't know anyone. More than likely the people who, "complain the loudest about XP," are the ones who paid for a legitimate copy but are mistakenly shut out by Genuine Advantage.
  • skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> Now is this really a good thing?

    Absolutely!
  • jetsetter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having read that article, I get the feeling that really nothing of interest was said at all.
    • jasmus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, I would say these comments are much more interesting and informative.
  • OrangeTide, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It's a good think for Apple. They get to charge everyone for what amounts to Service Packs.

    granted the speed improvements in 10.3 and 10.4 are nice. and the searching in 10.4 is really handy. And dashboard widgets in 10.4 has launch an entire shareware widgets industry.

    but really most of us run apps on our computer and try not to think too much about the OS. (which is usually $99 to $199 depending on what OS you buy, only a tiny fraction of the cost for an office suite)
  • Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1>>to the above: I find 130 to be pretty reasonable when you compare it to other OS's that aren't free.

    It's not reasonable when going from 10.n to 10.n+1. The incremental upgrades just aren't $130 better than their predecessors. 10.4 brought you Spotlight and Gadgets. Windows has at least three desktop search apps for free, and has gadget functionality for anywhere from free to $20. Yet OSX 10.4 cost $130. Now, if you were upgrading from 10.2 to 10.4 (if that's even possible; I'm not sure, given the above posts), it might be worth it, but not if you're upgrading from 10.3. 10.4 is simply not $130 better than 10.3.

    10.2 wasn't $130 better than 10.1. (10.3 *might* have been $130 better than 10.2, however.)
    • sneakerelph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6would you feel better if they called it OS 11 or OS 12 so you don't feel like you're only getting a .1 increase?
    • racerosx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Mac Users don't pay for bug fixes, they are downloaded automatically 2-3 days after they are discovered (not a month like MS.)

      Cutting Edge Wireless LAN Management?
      P-lease. It took four tech gurus an hour to connect a XPsp2 Dell to a wireless network at my office. My Mac PowerBook ASKED me if I'd like to join the network, then did. One click, period.

      "...I have to wonder how delighted Microsoft users would be if Microsoft had done the same thing and charged for Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 which not only fixed security bugs but also added new features such as leading edge Wireless LAN management technology...."

      I am happily chugging along with Mac OSX 10.3.5 OS. Nobody MADE me buy 10.4, I chose not to, & I'm not missing out on any functionality (just a few bells & whistles.)

      Apple makes new OS's ~ every 18 months. You can buy it, or not, but you have the option of viewing tomorrow's technology today. Vista will be yesterday's technology tomorrow. So who do you think feels better about their OS?
    • DeezKnots, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Look Esca-meal, OS X Costs $130 and XP Pro Costs $200. OS X is much better XP Pro and Vista as Well. My OS Came with my Mac, and I bought Tiger as soon as it came out because I use my Mac Professionaly for a living / Web Developer (PHP/PERL/JAVA etc. etc. etc.). If you buy OS X.4, and your mac can run it, it doesn't make a flying ***** what Mac OS you have on your system. OS X will allow you to import all of your ***** to the new install if you choose to. I have a windows XP box right here because a lady I work with cannot get her files of her Virus-Having Wintindo. I fix more damn XP Machines than I'd ever like to remember. You really do not know your head from your ass when it Comes to Macintosh. You shouldn't post in Mac Threads because you only make yourself and other wintindo users look foolish.
    • DeezKnots, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Escomeal, they are called Widgets not Gadgets. Moron.
  • astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Let the free market reign. The fact that Tiger was the biggest selling piece of software in Apple's history proves that this article is not based in any sort of reality (those were all upgrades, by the way).

    No one is forced to upgrade their machines, and there are still plenty of people running 10.3 and (gasp) 10.2, but the fact is Tiger was a very compelling upgrade for both users and developers. There are also plenty of people who skipped 10.3 and went from 10.2 to 10.4, even though 10.3 was a dramatic improvement, performance-wise, over 10.2.

    If Apple tried to package a service pack as a major OS revision no one would buy it, and more importantly, no one would develop for it. The reason that a lot of the new 3rd party software requireds 10.3 and 10.4 is because those versions have very compelling features for developers, and most developers don't take breaking backward compatibility lightly.

    ✔
    • Escamillo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Apple fanboys would pony up $400 for a box of fecal matter if it had the Apple logo. Hell, most of them spontaneously ejaculated when Jobs announced the $99 iPod leather case. Tiger's sales mean nothing other than a sycophantic fanbase.
  • theprez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2 which not only fixed security bugs but also added new features such as leading edge Wireless LAN management technology."

    This guy has never used Tiger has he? Fixed security bugs? leading edge wireless lan management technology? How about Expose, the Dashboard, Automator, Spotlight, the new os x (iLife) apps, new finder features like smart folders, etc. The security fixes are included in the updates you download about every 2 or 3 months. They aren't considered new OS versions as the Windows SPs are.
    Anybody just talking out of their ass should simply just try Tiger for a couple of weeks. Windows isn't bad either, it's just that it feels too old. That why everyone's so anxious about Vista.
  • artman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good response astrosmash.

    I find it ironic that from a place where people call a news article or posted topic "old news" and want everything shiny and new find Apple's technology ramp "too fast". You have to be in technology. I'm happy to see OS 9 buried. I'm happy that Apple has gone forward with Intel and all that.

    While Windows users wait for whatever comes from Redmond, Mac users can see over the horizon a whole new set of tools and programs to stay ahead of the rest. And with every update and upgrade it gets leaner and faster. You can't beat that. Even for $130.00.
  • 343max, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Leading Edge WLAN management technology? In only five years?
    *****.
    It's time for Apple to innovate.
    What will MS do next? Even better looking hard drive icons?
  • davidbk1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A lot of people are complaining, saying it's a bad thing because of site upgrades and shelling out $130. You don't HAVE to upgrade. How often do you upgrade your windows software? Do you need every one of those upgrades? If what you installed a year ago is just fine for you, don't whine about needing to upgrade- skip it. Personally, I think it's good. I don't see how offering more flexibility could be bad. I think they charge a little much, but then again, the innovation seems to be a step ahead of MS as well.
  • pzarker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This man is so biased its funny. He claims that windows boots in under 30 seconds? maybe on an amd system with a nice fresh install, and I would seriously enjoy watching someone use windows xp with just 128 of ram. Leading edge WLAN management technology? The airport system blows windows wireless management out of the water. I love the comment someone made about the numbering system of Apple's releases. If it were OS 11 OS 12 etc... this wouldn't even have been brought up. Anyway, as a mac user, i can't wait to pick up the newest O/S. Every new release has fun and useful new features built in, hardly a service pack. I think having a new release every year is a bragging point, not something that should be scrutinized. Anyway, if you have enough money to buy a mac in the first place, you should be able to afford a new O/S every year;)
  • bgmccollum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Jesus Christ! It's sad that most Windows users just don't get it...

    Mac OS X point releases aren't "Maintenance" releases. Think of them as complete new versions. See that "X" in Mac OS X? That's roman numeral 10, and represent a dramatic change for the Mac OS landscape. Now, if you remove the 10 from 10.x.y (10.4.7), it MIGHT start to make sense.

    The second digit (x) denotes a "Feature" release, so 10.4 is the fourth "Feature" release (10.0 to 10.1 doesn't count much because it was a free update, since there were so many issues to iron out in 10.0. I like to think of 10.0 as a public beta). "Feature" releases ADD features, and are not just bug fixes. And if you want to use the new features, you pony up the cash. Simple. Apple also introduces new APIs into the system for developers to take advantage of. Some of these APIs include Spotlight, Core Data, Core Image, Core Audio, The Dashboard (more of a framework), etc...

    The third digit (y) denotes bug fixes, so 10.4.7 is bug fix seven for the fourth "Feature" release of Mac OS X (10). These updates are free. Apple also releases security updates, but these do not necessarily alter the "y" digit of the OS version.

    You are never forced to upgrade to any version if you are happy with the current feature set, and the software you currently use. However, many developers take advantage of APIs in the newest "Feature" release (x) of Mac OS X. If you wish to use any software requiring these APIs, you must be running a the version (or greater) in which those APIs were released. For instance, if you want to use a piece of software that takes advantage of the Spotlight API, you must be running 10.4.y. If you want to install a particular widget, you must be running 10.4.y. No one is ever forcing you to upgrade your software, and no one is ever forcing you to upgrade your OS. It is your own desire to run the latest software that might require a newer OS that would force you to upgrade.

    So, to sum it up for the dense...

    Feature Upgrade:
    2000 -> XP == 10.3 -> 10.4

    Bug Fix & Security Updates*:
    XP -> XP SP1 -> XP SP2 == 10.4.0 -> 10.4.1 -> 10.4.2-> etc...

    *Note: In Mac OS X, security updates are generally independent of bug fixes, and do not necessarily increase the version number.
  • DeezKnots, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yes. XP Pro costs way too much and the pro version of the Mac OS is only $130. Mac OS doesn't require a password. Paying for Mac OS X or Winblows is silly unless you have no other way to get it. I've purchased Tiger for $130 because it's beyond XP Pro @ $200 for Unixy web dev PHP/PERL XAMPP Dev Platform. Also for learning JAVA. Everything is native for PHP/PERL/JAVA so why screw with a Wintindo?... that is if you are a developer of those Languages... oh.. or if you happen to use your computer for anything other than games. Unix on a Mac is damn nice. MS DOS is such 2nd hand shat compared to the unix command line. I do have an XP Laptop that I use an old version of Cakewalk 8 Pro on. I have to admit that is damn nice to run software from 1997 today and it works. But really, Garageband is so much easier to use, I don't hastle with Cakewalk Anymore (I only used Cakewalk because it was Cheap).
  • crackintosh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Before reading the story: YES!
    After reading the story: YES!
  • crackintosh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Before reading the story: YES!
    After reading the story: YES!
  • Vogateer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I recognize that name, George Ou comes off as a Microsoft apologist, and has written consistently against anything that isn't Windows, with unfair comparisons in his Linux comparisons against XP and now he tries to make some sort of silly comparison between the OS X upgrades and Microsoft's service packs.

    George Ou = worthless info

    Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
  • DavidLightman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The Tiger upgrade requires 10.3. You can't go from 10.2 to 10.4 with the Tiger upgrade."

    Of course you can go from 10.2 to 10.4, when you buy the OS you get the whole OS not just an upgrader. Do some reasearch.
  • golddigga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1whats wrong with it, whats wrong is that microsoft isn't launching more systems. it's just that apple's always innovative and actually have new features to put into the new version as Microsoft is uninnovative and when they do do their uninnovative system releases they are copied from other systems like mac os
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.