Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

stefls · Nov 5, 2003, 11:37 AM

Hi all,

Undoubtetly many customers are well-served by the frequent OS upgrades Apple releases. There are many advantages.

However, customers more and more have to keep in pace with Apple, because newly developed applications require recent versions of the OS. Many apps only work with Jaguar and above. Is this only because earlier versions of the OS were too rudimentary - not polished enough - to be supported for a long time? Or will Jaguar users find out that within several years new apps will only be supported by Panther and/or above?
Will Apple keep releasing a yearly major upgrade (which means shelling out a yearly amount of EUR 149,-), especially since a lot is to be gained by migrating to 64-bits software?

Please share your insights!

Stefan

Boondoggle · Nov 5, 2003, 11:47 AM

That is what makes the world go round.

It is not a new pattern.

Apple>Mac
16bit>32bit
68k>PPC
OS9>X
32bit>64bit

and many in between (classic?), and many more to come.

bd

KidRed · Nov 5, 2003, 12:41 PM

And M$ would be a better alternative?

Apple gives you reason to update by wanting better and newer apps, features and speed.

M$ forces you to upgrade becauee you need to fix the 1000s of bugs the previous version created.

Or perhaps M$'s pay now or pay twice as much later subscription formula is the way for Apple to go?

It's life and we have it easier then the other 95% do.

JLL · Nov 5, 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by stefls:
Many apps only work with Jaguar and above. Is this only because earlier versions of the OS were too rudimentary - not polished enough - to be supported for a long time?

Lots of things happened under the hood in 10.2 (for the better) which means that some apps made for 10.2 won't run in 10.1, but that doesn't mean that it will happen every time Apple releases an upgrade.

Love Calm Quiet · Nov 5, 2003, 12:57 PM

The continual development of OS X is a HUGE part of Apple's R&D, I'm sure. It'd be nice if they could give it away, but those are not the economics.

And really... it's the OS that keeps us going with Macs.

Most apps keep working from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3. But if you're using your Mac(s) for serious work, keeping at the cutting edge of increased functionality (in apps & OS) is at least worth the ~150/year -- since they are clearly REAL enhancements. Panther, for example: has kept me from needing to get a replacement Mac with faster CPU: that's some value!

Spheric Harlot · Nov 5, 2003, 04:20 PM

Backwards compatibility bloats and kills software.

Just look at Windows.

When developing new software, you have to draw the line at a certain point regarding both hardware requirements and software requirements.

You wonder if requiring Panther for certain software is merely intended to drive sales of Panther. I think it's much rather coding and testing for the best (newest, most optimized) code-base. It might actually *work* in 10.2. But it won't be supported, since portions of the code are outdated.

Sure they want to drive sales, but you might as well ask if UT2003 is intended to drive sales of new hardware, since it won't run on your Pentium II 300 with the Rage II graphics card.

-s*

mitchell_pgh · Nov 5, 2003, 04:36 PM

I'm happy with the current situation. Hopefully, over the next 5+ years, we will see Apple spending less R&D $$$'s on the OS and more on iApps and the such. Unfortunately, M$ will keep upping the bar even if it doesn't really mean anything for the end user and consumers will keep buying.

I'm sure we are going to play catch up with WinFS whenever it comes out for Longhorn. I'm almost sure that by 10.3.4... I'm going to be VERY happy with this iteration of the OS. 10.3.0 is a little buggy for me, but XP is like a virus.

Brass · Nov 5, 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Backwards compatibility bloats and kills software.

And forwards compatibility is impossible.

The main problem is that with each major revision of the OS (any OS), new API's are added, or new functionality added to existing API's. This means that application developers and programmers can get a lot more functionality more easily with the newer OS than with the older OS. If they write applications that take advantage of these new API features, then they will not work on older OS.

ShadowKatana · Nov 5, 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Love Calm Quiet:
The continual development of OS X is a HUGE part of Apple's R&D, I'm sure. It'd be nice if they could give it away, but those are not the economics.

And really... it's the OS that keeps us going with Macs.

Most apps keep working from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3. But if you're using your Mac(s) for serious work, keeping at the cutting edge of increased functionality (in apps & OS) is at least worth the ~150/year -- since they are clearly REAL enhancements. Panther, for example: has kept me from needing to get a replacement Mac with faster CPU: that's some value!

Panther should have been 10.0. It is responsive, may be just as OS9. Its a matter of two steps back, 1 step forward with respect to usability.

kcmac · Nov 5, 2003, 09:19 PM

I don't mind Apple's current strategy. We pay once a year and then get 7 or 8 updates during the year for free.

I prefer the constant tweeking idea to the issue software and update maybe in a year or so or even later strategy. I think this makes it appear that Apple is listening more to its user base. And I think they are listening now more than ever.

I can't imagine being a PC user and having to wait at least a year for the next XP patch and then until 2006 for Longhorn. Sure they will pay less for their OS the next several years but we are having more fun. And we are getting the cool stuff now vs. being told that it will be here someday.

SomeToast · Nov 6, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by ShadowKatana:
Panther should have been 10.0. It is responsive, may be just as OS9. Its a matter of two steps back, 1 step forward with respect to usability.

I don't know that there'd still be an Apple if it took them until October 2003 to release 10.0.

Cadaver · Nov 6, 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by SomeToast:
I don't know that there'd still be an Apple if it took them until October 2003 to release 10.0.

Agreed. Windows XP would have killed any hope. I could not imagine trying to go on with MacOS 9.x. I'm happy as can be with Panther, but if it was a choice between OS 9 and WinXP, it would have been XP.

Boondoggle · Nov 6, 2003, 09:14 PM

...if it was a choice between OS 9 and WinXP, it would have been XP.

I completely agree... but I also remember the day when I thought OS 9 was the coolest thing since sliced bread...

how things change...

Brass · Nov 6, 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Boondoggle:
I completely agree... but I also remember the day when I thought OS 9 was the coolest thing since sliced bread...

how things change...

For the last couple of years before OS X was first released, I was getting very sick of OS 9, but didn't like Windows (98 or NT then) any better. I was very disappointed in all the offerings at the time, except for BeOS, which of course never took off (despite it's being fantastic).

OS X was such a welcome relief, despite it's being very slow for the first couple of versions.

spatterson · Nov 7, 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by KidRed:
And M$ would be a better alternative?

Apple gives you reason to update by wanting better and newer apps, features and speed.

M$ forces you to upgrade becauee you need to fix the 1000s of bugs the previous version created.

Or perhaps M$'s pay now or pay twice as much later subscription formula is the way for Apple to go?

It's life and we have it easier then the other 95% do.

nailed it on the head!