Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Sarc · Apr 17, 2003, 06:13 PM

Today I was working on my mom's iBook ... wich I do full maintenance.
Anyway, I needed the latest Safari (had Beta 1), so I launch software update, and it asks me if I want to update iCal !!
Now, this computer doesn't have iCal installed ... and I'm completely sure it never did ...

Hence, IMHO Software Update sould NOT be Software Downloader ...

has this happened to anyone else ?

Developer · Apr 17, 2003, 06:15 PM

Just deactivate the iCal update.

OpenStep · Apr 17, 2003, 06:18 PM

It's normal, makes it easy if reformatting and installing 10.2.0 and need to easily update/install everything and get up to date without hunting for software updates.

biscool · Apr 17, 2003, 06:36 PM

Has what happened? Software update work? iCal is part of the OS. You're ibook didnt have it. It wanted to update it...

bradoesch · Apr 17, 2003, 06:39 PM

I think it's a way to introduce programs to some users as well.

CharlesS · Apr 17, 2003, 06:51 PM

It makes it a lot easier to set a machine up from scratch, especially over the phone. "Run Software Update" is a lot easier than "Start up IE, and type H-T-T-P-Colon-Slash-Slash-W-W-W-period-W-H-A-T-E-V-E-R-period-C-O-M-Slash-S-O-M-E-T-H-I-N-G-Slash-F-I-L-E-period-D-M-G - what? It didn't work? No, you have to use the slash on the key that looks like a question mark, not the one above the Return key. No, you have to hit the period key, not spell out the word 'period.' It still doesn't work? Okay, read what you typed. No, the T in Something is a T, not a P, and it's D-M-G, not D-N-G. Okay, now do you see a file that showed up on the desktop? Keep looking, it should be called File.dmg. Double-click that, then run the installer." a thousand times just to get the preinstalled software reasonably up to date.

Jasoco · Apr 17, 2003, 06:51 PM

It is how it should be. I like it this way. Even though I don't use iCal or iPhoto, I do like to have the most recent on here.

Sarc · Apr 17, 2003, 10:59 PM

my whole point is if I don't have it, means it doesn't need to be updated ... then it suggests that i download it for the first time ... thing it shouldn't do because it's there to update software ...

now, we agree that once the software is there, is really confortable ...

OptimusG4 · Apr 17, 2003, 11:07 PM

Eh, its kinda like the Airport or iPod updates if you have neither.

Sarc · Apr 17, 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Eh, its kinda like the Airport or iPod updates if you have neither.

except that airport is a part of the OS ... as if the FireWire support was improved ... same stuff ...

OptimusG4 · Apr 18, 2003, 12:14 AM

Its good to have non-installed software show up. Think of Safari. If it wasn't there, 90% of the switchers probably would still use IE.

JLL · Apr 18, 2003, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by Sarc:
my whole point is if I don't have it, means it doesn't need to be updated ... then it suggests that i download it for the first time ... thing it shouldn't do because it's there to update software ...

But it's actually updating Mac OS X since iCal is now included with Mac OS X.

fireside · Apr 18, 2003, 04:02 AM

i have the latest version of safari and it showed the update for safari v73. stuff like that shouldnt happen.

Mohammed Al-Sabah · Apr 18, 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Its good to have non-installed software show up. Think of Safari. If it wasn't there, 90% of the switchers probably would still use IE.

Good point

dfiler · Apr 18, 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Sarc:
my whole point is if I don't have it, means it doesn't need to be updated ... then it suggests that i download it for the first time ... thing it shouldn't do because it's there to update software ...

Are you serious? This is a completely ridiculous gripe!

First of all, the name is consistent. Nor does it confuse anyone. OS X's software update notifies you when there is updated OS X software available.

If you don't want to be reminded about updates, just set SU not to automatically check for updates. Then, when you manually check for updates, it takes no more time to not-download the things that you don't want.

I know, that 16-pixel-high update title must be horrendously burdensome. (once every three months)

If you get bored later today� you can post about how hard drives don't actually 'drive'.

malemutekid · Apr 18, 2003, 08:00 AM

I agree, this is not anything to get upset about. I like having the updates. And if you do not want them, just do not download them.

Jasoco · Apr 18, 2003, 12:13 PM

Apple likes to think of everything as a whole. And the software like iCal, Safari, iTunes are all part of that whole.

If they want to introduce people to new Apple apps, I say LET THEM! Bring it on! If I don't want it, I don't use it.

Arkham_c · Apr 18, 2003, 12:37 PM

This sounds a bit troll-ish to me. Who cares what they call it?

Microsoft calls theirs "Windows Update", and it does the same thing.

Linux calls theirs "Package Management" or "Red Carpet" depending on the vendor. The name is inconsequential.

Sarc · 12:52 PM

i'm talking behaviour ppl ...
if I don't have iMovie in one of my computers ... it shouldn't be there to update , just MHO ...
plus apple should lear to "update" some programs ... the fact that you have to dowload iMovie complete for every x.x.1 update is unaceptable ...

btw. I posted this as a serious concern ... however it seems that like trolls, there are people who just do the exact opossite, and start bashing out anything they don't agree with ...

dfiler · Apr 18, 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Sarc:
if I don't have iMovie in one of my computers ... it shouldn't be there to update

So, how is your hard-drive 'driving'?

Oh wait... you mean there's no fire in my 'fire'wire?

You mean this Macintosh isn't a fruit? I want my money back.

Sarc · 01:07 PM

Originally posted by dfiler:
So, how is your hard-drive 'driving'?

Oh wait... you mean there's no fire in my 'fire'wire?
You mean this Macintosh isn't a fruit? I want my money back.

remarkably childish ... I said it before but I'm going to repeat it just for you.
I'm talking about the functionalioty of the software, not it's name ... OK ?

being that said, please eat your comments if they don't help ... thx

wataru · Apr 18, 2003, 01:36 PM

Sorry, Sarc, I think you're clearly in the minority here. Send feedback to Apple if you care so much, but there's not much point in continuing to hash it out here.

aaanorton · Apr 18, 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Sarc:
i'm talking behaviour ppl ...
if I don't have iMovie in one of my computers ... it shouldn't be there to update , just MHO ...
plus apple should lear to "update" some programs ... the fact that you have to dowload iMovie complete for every x.x.1 update is unaceptable ...

btw. I posted this as a serious concern ... however it seems that like trolls, there are people who just do the exact opossite, and start bashing out anything they don't agree with ...

If you choose to not instal iCal or iMovie, then you have a CUSTOM INSTAL of the OS, as far as Apple is concerned. This makes perfect sense on many levels.
This is a silly thread...

Goldie · Apr 18, 2003, 03:03 PM

I don't get it. So you want Apple to be unique to only you. There are millions of different configs, if you don't need it don't dl it.

...very silly.

Sarc · Apr 18, 2003, 05:11 PM

well .. obviously there are millions of configs ... and that's the whole point ... for instance when I bought Jag iCal didn't even exist ... it came out, and I didn't get it, hence it shouldn't be on SU ...

perhaps SU should have 3 tabs ... Updates-New Software-Installed updates ... that way ppl. won't get software they don't necesarilly need as a mandatory "OS Update" yet they would have the posibility ...

just to make it easier for people that don't have time to go through the updates or who don't understand very well what they are

CharlesS · Apr 18, 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Sarc:
well .. obviously there are millions of configs ... and that's the whole point ... for instance when I bought Jag iCal didn't even exist ... it came out, and I didn't get it, hence it shouldn't be on SU ...

So new users who bought a Mac with Jaguar on it that don't follow MacNN and thus didn't know about iCal should be left out?

perhaps SU should have 3 tabs ... Updates-New Software-Installed updates ... that way ppl. won't get software they don't necesarilly need as a mandatory "OS Update" yet they would have the posibility ...

Unnecessary complexity. It would again obscure the new iApps for novice users, because they may not necessarily think to click on the "New Software" tab.

And anyway, it's not mandatory to download the updates now - just make them inactive.

just to make it easier for people that don't have time to go through the updates or who don't understand very well what they are

That is exactly the reason for the current behavior.

Agent69 · Apr 18, 2003, 07:42 PM

I agree with Sarc on this one: Software Update should be either be looking to update software already installed or it needs to be renamed to better describe what it does. Custom install or not, Software Update ought to be smart enough to know what I have installed and only offer me updates for those items. That what B.O.M.s are for.

If I wanted to know about software that I don't have installed, I could always use the "Get Mac OS X Software" selection in the Apple menu or subscribe to Version Tracker.

All this being said, this "problem" is easy enough to ignore, since Apple gives you the option of deactivating the offending item.

billybob · Apr 18, 2003, 08:20 PM

Will you all shut up. This is the most moronic thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

Sarc - get over it. I see your point but christ is it that much effort to disable the update. You should consider dying. Also proof reading so I don't have to decipher your horribly formed sentences.

aaanorton · Apr 18, 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Sarc:
well .. obviously there are millions of configs ... and that's the whole point ... for instance when I bought Jag iCal didn't even exist ... it came out, and I didn't get it, hence it shouldn't be on SU ...

Obviously you've never experienced the joy that is reformatting your boot drive. Until you do, stop making waves over a feature that other people understand, enjoy and rely on. Apple has the right, resposibility and incentive to make users aware of it's software download options. It should be aplauded that they do it in such a subtle way, without forcing it in your face all the time. As been mentioned numerously here, Apple has also made it very easy to deactivate undesired downloads. Why not just take advantage of that feature instead of whining about Apple making their OS too configurable?

OptimusG4 · Apr 18, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by billybob:

Sarc - get over it. I see your point but christ is it that much effort to disable the update.

Sarc · Apr 18, 2003, 11:13 PM

for the sake of the community ... any mods. plz lock this thread ...

PD. aaanorton ... STFU will ya ?

aaanorton · Apr 19, 2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Sarc:
PD. aaanorton ... STFU will ya ?

Good rebuttal. I can't argue with that logic. It's good to see that once again the internet has provided a forum where a healthy disagreement can be sorted out and settled between two adults.

Just curious... Does it suck being such a knob?

Sarc · Apr 19, 2003, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by aaanorton:

Just curious... Does it suck being such a knob?

no problem in discussing ... in fact it's what i've done the whole thread, but there are ways to put things ...

please see above quote ...

mmj_ngen · Apr 19, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
So new users who bought a Mac with Jaguar on it that don't follow MacNN and thus didn't know about iCal should be left out?

Yes they should. Apple should pimp their accessory wares just like everyone else has to. Software update isn't the place. They can send an email and advertise if they want.

Originally posted by CharlesS:
And anyway, it's not mandatory to download the updates now - just make them inactive.

Agreed, but at least Microsoft states an obvious difference between critical updates and non-critical updates.

Apple shouldn't push it's half assed apps on people. Let them know it's available, but not via the Software Update. If they do install non "system" Apple applications though software update then they should at least allow 3rd party apps to be updated through the same venue and specify these "Apple updates" as accessories and new installs and not insinuate "system updates". iCal isn't important to any functionality of the OS. Hell, some would question it's importance at all.

I'm suprised Sarc is being disagreed with so harshly.

CharlesS · Apr 19, 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by mmj_ngen:
Yes they should. Apple should pimp their accessory wares just like everyone else has to. Software update isn't the place. They can send an email and advertise if they want.

Except that if I bought Jaguar today, it would come with iCal. That makes it a part of the system. The purpose of the software update mechanism is to get my system to the same level of functionality as I would have if I purchased the same system right now. If I have to reformat my hard drive and reinstall Jaguar, I can bring it to a modern installation of Jaguar without having to jump through a lot of hoops. Once we have a point update that requires me to pay something extra to get the new functionality, of course, this changes. But for as long a period of time as I still own a license to the latest available, I am able to very quickly and easily get the full functionality of what I paid for. I find it really handy and convenient, myself. I really can't see your problem.

Apple advertises "Look, with Mac OS X Jaguar you can do all these things!" but users may respond, "Hey, I have Mac OS X Jaguar, and I can't do that." But with Software Update, they can, without having to follow the tech news and download everything manually, which is beyond the reach of many novice users.

Agreed, but at least Microsoft states an obvious difference between critical updates and non-critical updates.

I can agree with this. Saying in the description that this either is or is not a critical update doesn't hurt anything, and leaves the convenient mechanism in place.

Apple shouldn't push it's half assed apps on people. Let them know it's available, but not via the Software Update. If they do install non "system" Apple applications though software update then they should at least allow 3rd party apps to be updated through the same venue and specify these "Apple updates" as accessories and new installs and not insinuate "system updates". iCal isn't important to any functionality of the OS. Hell, some would question it's importance at all.

Here you show your true colors. "It's (sic) half assed (sic again) apps" shows that you have some personal dislike for the iApps which possibly causes you to feel some bitterness that they get installed by Software Update. However, iChat, iCal, and iSync are advertised as being features of OS X Jaguar, and thus Apple must provide them to users who bought OS X Jaguar. Obviously, you must realize the silliness of having Software Update download every third party app available on the Web.

As for the iApps being accessories and not parts of the OS - how exactly do you define a part of the OS? Because Apple advertises them as features on their web page for Mac OS X, and they would come preinstalled with a copy of Mac OS X. You can argue that they are stand-alone applications, but so is the Finder. Should the Finder be classified as an accessory? Also, an app like Key Caps is not important to any functionality of the OS - should this also be classified as an optional accessory that the user should have to go through extra effort to install? What about the various command-line tools that come with the OS? You can disable them with a custom install, but is that enough? What about other things such as the Clock menu extra? Is that not a part of the OS?

Myself, I define a part of the OS as something that gets installed by the OS installer. Thus, the iApps are part of the OS, and thus should get updated by Software Update.

Jasoco · Apr 19, 2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by mmj_ngen:
Agreed, but at least Microsoft states an obvious difference between critical updates and non-critical updates.

WTF are you talking about? Apple does too. They ALWAYS say when something is required. Read the description.

Ghoser777 · Apr 19, 2003, 02:52 AM

I'm having a similar problem with my students. I keep telling them, "Put this number in the box for division, and put this number outside of the box", but they get all caught up on the fact that in division we only make half a box. Is trivial to strong a word?

Anyway, according to Dictionary.com:

update

n : news that updates your information v 1: modernize or bring up to date; "We updated the kitchen in the old house" 2: bring up to date; supply with recent information 3: bring to the latest state of technology; in computer technology

I think it's at least arguable that this definition would allow for new things in an update. Could I not update my house by adding a jaccuzi? It wasn't there before, but because it's part of a larger thing, like iCal is a part of OS X, we can say we're updating with something new. Update doesn't mean exclusively improving something that already existed, not at all. In fact, it almost seems like your interpretation would limit updates to bug fixes. In fact, wouldn't new features that didn't exist before be outside of the realm of an update? The new features didn't exist before!

Another way to look at it: your system already has version iCal version 0.0 on it, and now Software Update wants to bring you up to speed.

Regardless, the issue is minor, and a lot of people are starting to flip out over nothing. Here's the best way to deal with this issue:

1) Stop posting here. Move on, People have strong beliefs over petty things; just deal with it.

2) Send an email to Apple. I doubt they'll take your complaint seriously, but they might create a second application called "Exclusively New Software" or something.

3) Send an email to MacUpdate and demand that they stop posting new software, as new software isn't an update.

Matt Fahrenbacher

mmj_ngen · Apr 19, 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Except that if I bought Jaguar today, it would come with iCal. That makes it a part of the system. ...

Here you show your true colors. "It's (sic) half assed (sic again) apps" shows that you have some personal dislike for the iApps which possibly causes you to feel some bitterness that they get installed by Software Update. However, iChat, iCal, and iSync are advertised as being features of OS X Jaguar, and thus Apple must provide them to users who bought OS X Jaguar.

Well, I got home about 2 a.m. last night and was surfing the net out of drunken boredom. Hence, my previous post. I guess friends should not let friends post drunk

. Anyway, I'm not bitter against iApps. I like them. That was the Bass Ale talking. But, the intent of the post stands. No matter how someone spins it, these extras aren't part of the OS. I also had OmniGraffle pre-installed just like iCal. I missed that one in the Software Update. They are extras regardless of how Apple marketing spins it and Apple can use Software Update as a competitive advantage. As a shareware maker, I thought you would appreciate the discrepancy.

As for the comment from someone else about the critical ones being stated as such in the description, I think Microsoft is much more straight forward about it, that's all.

I apologize for any angst that may be the result of my previous drunken ramblings. The post wasn't meant as hostile.

iRebound · Apr 19, 2003, 08:30 AM

one think i don't like about the software updates is that if you uncheck something you don't want updated, the next time software update runs again, the same update that you unchecked always come up

Ghoser777 · Apr 19, 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by iRebound:
one think i don't like about the software updates is that if you uncheck something you don't want updated, the next time software update runs again, the same update that you unchecked always come up

You need to make them inactive too. Just go into the File menu (I think).

Matt Fahrenbacher

Sarc · Apr 19, 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by CharlesS:
As for the iApps being accessories and not parts of the OS - how exactly do you define a part of the OS? Because Apple advertises them as features on their web page for Mac OS X, and they would come preinstalled with a copy of Mac OS X. You can argue that they are stand-alone applications, but so is the Finder. Should the Finder be classified as an accessory? Also, an app like Key Caps is not important to any functionality of the OS - should this also be classified as an optional accessory that the user should have to go through extra effort to install? What about the various command-line tools that come with the OS? You can disable them with a custom install, but is that enough? What about other things such as the Clock menu extra? Is that not a part of the OS?

this is an intresting question. by the same standard you post above ... iMovie ... idon't own a DV camera or anything like it and don't want one either. Then iMovie is an extra.
I do however have interest in digital photography, hence I do want iPhoto in my Mac ...
both are totally accessory to the OS, the lack of any of them will not cripple Mac OS X itself.
then should both be offered as system updates ?

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Myself, I define a part of the OS as something that gets installed by the OS installer. Thus, the iApps are part of the OS, and thus should get updated by Software Update.

That's why Mac OS X 10.2 comes in two CD's ... CD 1 Operating System ... CD 2 Extra Applications (i.e. iApps.)

Ghoser777 · Apr 19, 2003, 02:11 PM

I've never used the international preference pane. Therefore, because I don't use, and because it won't weaken the usability of OS X for me, therefore it should ne be forced upon me.

iApps are just interfaces to system routines. They organize data in a certain way. They aren't essential. But a lot of the updates add little programs and such that you may never use, but could be used by the system when needed (aka BlueTooth). If you don't need the update (as your indicating with iMovie), then don't update! The same applies for any regular point update of the system software. The update probably isn't necessary, but would add new features and crush some bugs. Providing iMovie through Software Update provides you with a new feature of the operating system: the ability to easily create and edit movies.

But perhaps I'm simply doing this:

Matt Fahrenbacher

aaanorton · 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Sarc:
this is an intresting question. by the same standard you post above ... iMovie ... idon't own a DV camera or anything like it and don't want one either. Then iMovie is an extra.
I do however have interest in digital photography, hence I do want iPhoto in my Mac ...

This post exemplifies the jist of your complaint. The problem is that you just don't get it. You'd prefer Apple to inconvenience everyone else a lot (web search and d/l) instead of you a little (deactivating a d/l), because that's the way you want it.

both are totally accessory to the OS, the lack of any of them will not cripple Mac OS X itself.
then should both be offered as system updates ?

It certainly is crippled, as far as Apple is concerned. I guess it'd be better for you if Apple developed an individual feature set for each of it's users. iCal is a feature. iPhoto a feature. Just like Airport and iPod software. Why is it this way? Because Apple says so and it's their software, so what they say goes.
I really find it hard to believe that you're making such a big stink over having to simply deactivate an unwanted update. Apple is giving users the choice. This is a good thing.

I look forward to another of your well reasoned replies.

Originally posted by mmj_ngen:
Yes they should. Apple should pimp their accessory wares just like everyone else has to. Software update isn't the place. They can send an email and advertise if they want.

Perhaps this was another Bass-related oversight, but just for the record... It is not OK for Apple, or anyone for that matter, to send emails (SPAM) to everyone advertising their products. This is a bad, bad thing. Thankfully, though, Apple again provides users the choice of receiving these emails or not.
To sum up:
choice = good
spam = bad

mmj_ngen · Apr 19, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by aaanorton:
Perhaps this was another Bass-related oversight, but just for the record... It is not OK for Apple, or anyone for that matter, to send emails (SPAM) to everyone advertising their products. This is a bad, bad thing. Thankfully, though, Apple again provides users the choice of receiving these emails or not.
To sum up:
choice = good
spam = bad

Ouch. Actually it wasn't a mistake. I get emails from Apple as I think a lot of folks do. It was just an example of another way to do it anyway. You're nitpicking.

The whole converstation is getting weird. People are taking it too seriously. I came across the wrong way in my first post which was poorly written. It happens. I admitted it. Every conversation doesn't have to turn into a soap opera.

I don't think anyone wants less functionality. I like getting updates through Software Update. I like the iApps for the most part. I don't like the idea that people are introduced to a new application through certain special proprietary means. It's unfair advantage for Apple, particularly with some of the rational stated. Apple has enough advantage with their brand. iApps are an extension of the OS? that's ridiculous, but it is a common mentality. Microsoft tried to sell this type of perspective during the whole anti-trust debacle. But it was bad when they did it, right? I don't want software update to be crippled.

I would like a System Update, and an Application Update that can be utilized by third parties. They can be the same tool, I don't care. It would be nice, really nice. Not only would you be updated, but it was coming through a relatively trusted avenue.

aaanorton · Apr 19, 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by mmj_ngen:
Ouch. Actually it wasn't a mistake. I get emails from Apple as I think a lot of folks do. It was just an example of another way to do it anyway. You're nitpicking.

I was actually trying to come across casually in my reply to you. I guess I should have separated it into a whole new post. Subtlety is difficult for me on the web at times. I'm not taking issue with anything you've said, other than that I don't want any spam from Apple or anybody else. I appreciate that others see this differently and am glad for the choice provided.
I'm certain that SU could be done better. But I don't understand the emotional disgust portrayed in some posts here. I mean at least we have the functionality and it works. If Apple abuses this slightly, so be it. They've also included 3rd party updates when deemed valuable to a large user base. Seems reasonable. There's also a distinction between Apple's forcing (kinda) you to download their software and MS' forcing you to actually use theirs. OK, so I guess I'm taking issue with two things you said, but ultimately I could give a **** about this whole debate. I just don't like it when others are rude over such a silly topic.

CharlesS · Apr 19, 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Sarc:
this is an intresting question. by the same standard you post above ... iMovie ... idon't own a DV camera or anything like it and don't want one either. Then iMovie is an extra.
I do however have interest in digital photography, hence I do want iPhoto in my Mac ...
both are totally accessory to the OS, the lack of any of them will not cripple Mac OS X itself.
then should both be offered as system updates ?

You never answered my question. By this logic, Key Caps, Address Book, the Clock menu extra, TextEdit, all the localizations, and the Dock are also accessories. The system will work without any of them, and it won't cripple the OS to leave them out. Should I have to go to extra work to install them?

Originally posted by Sarc:

That's why Mac OS X 10.2 comes in two CD's ... CD 1 Operating System ... CD 2 Extra Applications (i.e. iApps.)

No it's not, the reason it comes on 2 CD's is because the files take up too much space to fit on one CD. If you get the install DVD that comes with newer SuperDrive-equipped PowerBooks, all those files are on one disk, in the same place.

Originally posted by mmj_ngen:
iApps are an extension of the OS? that's ridiculous, but it is a common mentality. Microsoft tried to sell this type of perspective during the whole anti-trust debacle. But it was bad when they did it, right?

The iApps aren't an extension of the OS, they are a part of the OS.

What Microsoft did was to make it impossible to remove Internet Explorer. However, iCal, iChat, or even the Finder or Dock can be deleted from Mac OS X, and it will work fine.

Sarc · Apr 19, 2003, 06:34 PM

charles ...
of course, if you go deeper with the key caps example ... you can get that there are about 3 apps. that are absolutely necesary ... but that's not the idea ... removing AppleSystemProfiler won't cripple the system either, but it's useful more or less to the whole of the population OTOH iMovie is not ... what's the percentage that owns DV cams ? rather low.
does that mean that iMovie should be put along with mandatory OS updates ? I think not. You might think it is.

look at mmj_ngen's post above, that's more or less my point.

everyone
all I'm saying is that SU could have a 3rd tab where you get iApps. because that's about everything non-OS that comes through SU. Call it More SW, Apple SW, whatever.

I do agree however that when you do a fresh install it's quite useful, but can be perfectly achieved by the metod above (3rd tab) and that it's not crippling SU, it's not crippling the OS, it's not robbing you of your god given right to choose. it's just showing in a clearer way wich updates are for your OS and wich are free apple apps.

and that's my main concern, when I launch SU, I wan't to update SW I don't want to download the 89MB "update" of iMovie wich btw. I don't have on my drive ...

Jasoco · Apr 19, 2003, 06:40 PM

Just Deactivate it already! This argument is stupid.

Don't want it, Deactivate it.

Sarc · Apr 19, 2003, 06:55 PM

the point is I'm not sopposed to deactivate it bacuse -IMHO- it shouldn't be there at all !

mmj_ngen · Apr 19, 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by aaanorton:
I was actually trying to come across casually in my reply to you. I guess I should have separated it into a whole new post. Subtlety is difficult for me on the web at times. I'm not taking issue with anything you've said, other than that I don't want any spam from Apple or anybody else. I appreciate that others see this differently and am glad for the choice provided.
I'm certain that SU could be done better. But I don't understand the emotional disgust portrayed in some posts here. I mean at least we have the functionality and it works. If Apple abuses this slightly, so be it. They've also included 3rd party updates when deemed valuable to a large user base. Seems reasonable. There's also a distinction between Apple's forcing (kinda) you to download their software and MS' forcing you to actually use theirs.

Those are good points. According to Microsoft, they weren't forcing end users because users have a choice to install other things, like Netscape. They knew that people often just use what is pre-installed, so forcing manufacturs to only include certain applications can corner the market in those areas of interest. Also, the only 3rd party app that I can think of that went through Software Update is IE. IE seems like a unique sitiation considering the state of the system and state and importance of the application during that time. Curious, were there others? Maybe...I can't think of them. Anyway, I understand what you're saying. I don't think Apple is trying to corner the lucrative freeware calendar market, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with using Software Update as an Apple marketing tool.

OK, so I guess I'm taking issue with two things you said, but ultimately I could give a **** about this whole debate. I just don't like it when others are rude over such a silly topic.

Man, me too. It would be nice if things didn't blow up so easily.