[clebin]

I hope the rumours were correct - I hope Apple is delaying 10.2, until September in necessary, and I hope we don't have to keep installing vaguely worded updates with negligible. Apple has next year to become a mature software company - if they don't grow-up, the mainstream is going to get more and more tired of them, and us.

Last year's 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.0.4, 10.1, 10.0.1 and 10.1.2 are probably no more than a bunch of over-enthusiastic geeks deserve, but it didn't start there.

Apple's approach to classic Mac OS upgrades over the last 3-4 years, has been frankly amateurish. Users who haven't bought or upgraded through 8.0, 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 9.0 and 9.1 will have been left behind at some point before you even think about the 7 Mac OS X upgrades and 9.2+. Hardly any software should demand 9.1, but some of the most trivial, from Apple itself, does.

That's a lot of time and money, and it shows more than OS that fell behind the times. It shows a community of hobbyists.

I'm not convinced that 10.1.1 couldn't have been rolled into what became 10.1.2 (although that was definitely a must) or that 10.1.2 couldn't have been released at MWSF with a few more bug-fixes. I'm less convinced that Spring Loaded Folders are vitally necessary next month.

But while we're talking about bigger, less frequent updates, it's even more important is that Apple doesn't charge for another OS X upgrade for 12-18 months - they should just write off the inconvenience of Year 1.

When the next paying upgrade finally happens, OS X should already support any feature that comes with Apple hardware. Developers should have every API documented. They should be stable enough that they can write software that spans years of future releases, just as the Win32 APIs have been. Carbon and Cocoa should have feature-parity. This is all Apple Feedback really needs to hear.

The good news: I think this is more or less Apple's strategy.
The bad news: I'm using my head not my heart here.

Chris

[edddeduck]

Minor updates more frequently esp with 10 were needed but I agree better polished updates should be the way to go.

I also agree that by the time of the first paying update to OS X all the API's should be solid and the features should be on a par with OS 9. I love X and nearly never boot into 9 but certain aspects of 9 were more "polished" I hope by the first paid update for X they are for X too. I don't expect them to be perfect as 9 has years of polishing compared to X but for X they have less thinking to do as they already have OS 9 as a template of the solutions.

Cheers Edd

[Ron Goodman]

Apple can't win. If the updates don't come, people complain about missing features and unfixed bugs. If they issue updates too fast, they're "hobbyists". It's enough to keep the Apple executives and engineers on Prozac! As far as I'm concerned, they can come out with an update a month...their only disadvantage is messing up peoples' up-time statistics. If I was all that worried about what the mainstream thinks, I'd be running XP on a Dell.

[BuonRotto]

Pretty silly logic there. Who would criticize a company that updates its software as often as possible? This is how lots of companies do it. Get used to it. You rather have them hold out on improvements? Think, please.

[edddeduck]

No but the point is buy kicking out opdates to fast you introduce new bugs so by making the updates less frequent you cut down on the bugs introduced. We are not talking about slowing them down alot it's just the once every two weeks style update could add more bugs than it solves.

Cheers Edd

[--Helen--]

If 10.2 = Jaguar. What will be the next code name? Tiger?

It seems more and more like to me that OS X was not designed really at all for current hardware. It'll run on current hardware sure, in some cases really well.

When I installed OS 9.1 on a 5400/180 it was slower than molasses. Yet, when I uninstalled it and reinstalled OS 7.6 which came with it, it worked fine. No speed problems, whatsoever.

It's the same with X. At work, I have a dual G4. 10.1.... seems slow. Yet booting back into 9.1 everything soars, then crashes when there is anything to do with networking.

OS X seems to be meant for G5s, G6s, eventually bioprocessors. I mean, yes Aqua is pretty, but more of a resource hog at this point. I hope it doesn't stay that way. I also would like to see that the entire system is not controled via the Net Info Manager.

[Brit Ben]

Hmm, whilst I agree with the principle, now that there's a BSD-based core in the system, we need kernel updates and security patches etc more often anyway. That having been said, I would prefer to download, install and then have the restart occurr when the machine was inactive, maybe during the night.

Ben.

[LtKernelPanic]

I'd rather see Apple put out an update ever 6-8 weeks than only at MacWorld Expo. As others have stated now that OSX is based on BSD the kernel and other things will need to be updated more frequently. I also think it's a sign of a good company to post updats as soon as problems are found such as that lovely NetInfo Manager bug.

[GnOm]

Originally posted by Ron Goodman:
<STRONG>Apple can't win. If the updates don't come, people complain about missing features and unfixed bugs. If they issue updates too fast, they're "hobbyists".</STRONG>

sad enough but you�re right.
I apreciate the quick updates very much and rather have even more but quicker fixes for some very annoying bugs.
I don�t understand why this should be a problem at all, it helps us, the users, to participate in the progress the OS makes.
Quick updates are a very good thing!


bye.

[dawho9]

You know what I think if funny, I don't see any of the Windoz people complaining about all of the updates to WinXP. I just went into my control panel to see how many I have so far, 8 total updates since WinXP launch (approximately 2 1/2 months ago?).

Two are listed as Compatability Updates (i.e. Updates to their classic emulation, per se.)

Six are listed as Hotfixes SP1 (i.e. Small updates like 10.0.x)

I think if they have something to fix, send it out. Maybe they need to do what Microsoft does and not make every update as an OS upgrade. Its a bug fix, not a new version of the software.

dw9

[clebin]

Thanks Andy Crane's mate, Edd, for putting my point more concisely than I can... And dawho9 for a reasonable solution.

Ron: It's true - Apple can't win - but, hey, this is discussion and I'm still thrashing the arguments around in my head. It does matter what the mainstream think, whether we choose to believe it or not.

The difference between the Microsoft and Apple approach, is that Microsoft targets certain areas, like IIS or IE, for quick fixes, and rolls these fixes into less frequent service packs. When a service pack does come out, it's a polished release.

Apple, on the other hand, sends out prompt OS upgrades which touch all areas of the system. So the idea you get your critical update quicker is an illusion - because it waits for a Finder fix or a kernel update instead.

If changes to the core of the system happen with each upgrade, then software may be broken by 10.2 and again by 10.3. When you're talking about a 600mb download or a trip to the shops, this is unnecessary and damaging.

Delaying releases a little should help casual users, developers and administrators stay up-to-date and on top of their systems and improve Apple's reputation. The only people that lose out are the Lack Of Patience Brigade (who absolutely must have Spring Loaded Folders right now and will pimp their pirated software on Carracho if necessary to get them).

Chris

ps. It's early Christmas morning here, so Merry Christmas! A stomach bug has rendered me sober coming back from the pub on Christmas Eve. A new experience for me.

[dawho9]

I have to agree and disagree with you on this one. I think apple could send out little updates. Sure, some of the bigger updates needs to be put in 10.1.x release, but some of the smaller ones could be shipped seperately.

I know that I am not the only one who would like Apple to occasionally update certain apps, when they have the updates available. Take apache for instance, this is a stand-alone app that could be updated seperately (please don't think I am advocating they make an updater for every release of apache, as they seem to go burning through them at times).

Other things could also have this ability. Just looking at the list of things that were fixed with 10.1.2, some of these could have been released as "hot fixes" so people with these issues could actually use the product.

I am sure some of the people out there waiting to use some firewire devices sure would have liked to use them and not wait forever. Maybe its just me. (Or maybe Beta release some of the products like Novell does with its server software.)

Just my two cents,

dawho9

[nickm]

I love bug fixes as much as the next guy, but one of the things I like about MacOS (as opposed to open source operating systems like Linux) is that there are relatively small number of versions to keep track of. Linux is such a bear to deal with for that reason. I can only imagine trying to develop a large scale application for it --- there are half a dozen major distributions, all with different versions of the kernal and various libraries.

While that waits are painful at times (particularly when you have a bug crippling your machine) fewer updates means less testing for developers, which mean more stable applications.

[adamtki]

There needs to be a good balance between high quality updates, efficient use of the developer team's time, and faster response to bugs in products. I think Apple rushed at least 3 minor updates in OS X so far. They could've consolidated them into one release and make better use of their time to fix more bugs.

[supernature]

I believe frequent updates are important, but perhaps Apple should make it known in some way that minor updates aren't necessary. They should post minor updates every two months, major updates every six months (which would include any previous minor updates that may not have been done), sell major upgrades (at minimal cost, i.e. a $49 price tag) every two years. Something similar to this would be good IMHO for both Apple and consumers.

The software update could have a feature letting users know when it's necessary to update and when it's not necessary but possibly beneficial. Any security updates would be mandatory. All upgrades will be sold through the retail channel, and they would have 100% compatibility with major applications that were working with the previous major version.