[milhous]

It would be nice if those MacOS Proof of Purchase Coupons were of some use such that if you bought 10.2, you can get 10.3 for for a discount, say $99 or when you buy a new Mac, pay $200 and get all OS releases for the next 5 years.

Having said that though, I really wonder as to if Apple's going to be able to continually release a new version once a year. When does it ever stop? Could they eventually adopt Microsoft's model of a new OS every few years?

[lookmark]

Originally posted by milhous:
I really wonder as to if Apple's going to be able to continually release a new version once a year. When does it ever stop? Could they eventually adopt Microsoft's model of a new OS every few years?

Well....not sure why they should.

They need to stay ahead of Microsoft.

The annual deadline forces Apple to meet expectations and come up with new and exciting stuff.

They have a loyal fan base who's willing to pay every year.

I wish it was a bit less than $129, but why not every year? Definitely keeps things lively.

Originally posted by JLL:
Beginning? They've done it since Mac OS 8.0.

Heh, yeah, that's true. I should say, continuation of trend. Of which the only difference is a (mostly) much-improved OS and a price that's gone up by a third.

[ja]

Now this has been said a few times in this this thread - but please please please - if you don't like the price just don't buy it
Not only will you avoid feeling angry but the more people that abstain, the more of a message will be sent to Apple that their customers don't like the price
If however you can't resist then go right ahead

This is a complete replay of last year with with Jaguar and look what happened - it had an opening weekend like a blockbuster film
Apple made a pitch - they looked at their market and determined that enough people would be willing to pay the cost - and they were right
Underneath the Apple 'culture' is a business like any other
1 feature or 100 features - how do you determine what something is 'worth' anyway? - except for how it sits in the market and whether you want it or not
Luckily for Apple they do a good job of getting us excited
I freely admit that I am a serial irrational purchaser

As for panther, it is about time for a hardware upgrade so I will wait for the first round of new machines with it pre-installed or offering an upgrade deal

[sniffer]

As the .Mac is quite much an extension of the OS and probably will be more and more developed. I feel that .Mac users are getting forced into upgrading their OS to get all the .Mac features they "already" have paid for. Which is a shame. (In the sense they have expectations to get the extra goodies as .Mac develops over the time.)

This upcoming fall I am heading back as being a student, and I am very uncertain I can afford renewing my .Mac account next spring. I wish Apple had a better solution for .Mac members and OS upgrades. Perhaps some sort of discount perhaps? I dunno. I hope the educational discounts will help me some on the way.

[york28]

Contrary to a previous post, all Apple upgrades do not include the same full installer (well, they do, but they won't install unless the appropriate prior vetrsion is already present).
So this meant that when I replaced the HD in my iBook, I had to install 10.0, uprgade to 10.1, and then upgrade to 10.2 because 10.1 and 10.2 are upgrade CD's.
What a pain. I know there was a way around it posted online somewhere, but it's hard to get online without an OS installed.

I'm still paying for Panther.

Apple should charge $199 for .Mac for a year, and include the OS upgrade.

[JLFanboy]

Contrary to a previous post, all Apple upgrades do not include the same full installer (well, they do, but they won't install unless the appropriate prior vetrsion is already present).
So this meant that when I replaced the HD in my iBook, I had to install 10.0, uprgade to 10.1, and then upgrade to 10.2 because 10.1 and 10.2 are upgrade CD's.

How did you get a 10.2 upgrade? Jaguar was never an upgrade option. Just like Panther, if you wanted Jaguar you had to buy the full version for $129. When you reinstalled, did you try to just install 10.2?

[Eriamjh]

If you want the features, the upgrade is worth it.

iChatAV comes with Panther. Jaguar users must pay $30 if they want it.

Faxing comes with Panther. Jaguar users must buy other fax software. How much? $50? $100?

Panther has a speed increase in most tasks. You CAN't buy that for Jaguar. Any OS than can speed up current hardware is worth $129.

All-in-all, Panther is a worthwhile update in my book. $129 is about $10 a month. It will be sold with various rebates and can be had with coupons, etc. New G5 users will probably get it for free or at least $20.

I paid $80 for Jaguar an it was worth it over Cheetah (remember Cheetah? OSX 10.1?).

If all continues as it has, in 2009 Apple will release OSX 10.9. What will happen in 2010? OSX version 11.0? OSY? OS XP? OSXI?

Remember, if you never upgrade, your current OS will always perform then what it does now. If you don't buy OS software, then you probably don't buy any software. Don't complain that FCP 5.0 doesn't run on Jaguar cause it probably won't.

[clebin]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Well, by that logic......Panther is a new OS! OS X is built on top of a BSD-like OS called Darwin. Darwin is currently at v6.6, which is what's used in 10.2.6. Panther/10.3 will use Darwin 7.0. So you see, 7.0 (Panther) is an update to 6.0 (Jaguar). Does it make more sense now?

Um...no, sorry. Are you sure you didn't just argue my point by accident?

10.0 was a rewrite compared to 9.x. But 9.0 was just an update compared to 8.x. The numbers themselves are irrelevent.

Chris

[Hi I'm Ben]

If you have the money to get a mac, you have the money for a system upgrade on it too.

If you don't, the resale on macs are great. I'm sure you could sell it for quite a bit and buy yourself a brand spankin' new PC with the latest version of XP!

half of you complainers probably will just pirate it anyway. So what's all the fuss about.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by clebin:
But 9.0 was just an update compared to 8.x. The numbers themselves are irrelevent.

Apple started charging for major OS versions with System 7.0. 7.5 was just an update compared with 7.0, 7.6 was just an update compared with 7.5, 8.0 was just an update compared with 7.6, 8.5 was just an update compared with 8.0, etc. etc. etc. and we still paid full price ($99) for each major "upgrade."

Since 1996, Apple has tried to do a "major" release once a year, people didn't really complain back in the Classic days, but now that Apple is doing the EXACT SAME THING with OS X (Except the price is $30 higher), people are crying their heads off. Please.

[mrmister]

"If you don't, the resale on macs are great. I'm sure you could sell it for quite a bit and buy yourself a brand spankin' new PC with the latest version of XP!"

This is a straw man, ad hominem arguement. I feel Panther doesn't deliver enough goods to warrant a $129 price tag, and quite a few people agree--that doesn't make us traitors to the platform. In fact, it's my concern that Apple is overcharging and underdelivering that makes me concerned. Just telling people to go away doesn't help the problem.

"people didn't really complain back in the Classic days, but now that Apple is doing the EXACT SAME THING with OS X (Except the price is $30 higher), people are crying their heads off."

Yes--it is $30 higher than it used to be, and that's a significant increase. That is *exactly* what makes people complain, lose interest and direction.

I see the Panther/Jaguar transition as a serious divide, because Jaguar is good enough that many can stay with it and have a solid, brisk system for daily work. That means Apple needs to really deliver an update that compels the user base to update.

If they DON'T, you start losing momentum--developers have to support 10.2 and 10.3, code for changes & Apple loses a high adoption rate for iChat AV and other goodies, as the kind of folks who don't upgrade to Panther are the same kind that won't buy iChat AV seperately.

We're a small platform--we need the user base to stick together.

One example of what would have thrown it over the top would have been if Panther included Document--a Word-challenging word processor as sharp as Keynote is. I think that would have really made the difference in value to a lot of people.

Comments?

[mrtew]

Originally posted by mrmister:
We're a small platform--we need the user base to stick together.

One example of what would have thrown it over the top would have been if Panther included Document--a Word-challenging word processor as sharp as Keynote is. I think that would have really made the difference in value to a lot of people.

That's exactly how I feel. I hate to see the mac community get even more splintered by everyone running different OS's.

What is so tough about writing a good office program anyway for apple? It seems like it would be so easy to boot M$ right off the Mac if they could do something better than 'Office'.

[mrmister]

It would if it didn't have to interoperate seamlessly--that's the hard part.

Entourage is harder to beat than Word, for my money--I really think they should simply beef-up TextEdit an order of magnitude and they could do it. I'd bet even money that they are already working on it.

Too bad it isn't in Panther, though.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by mrmister:

"people didn't really complain back in the Classic days, but now that Apple is doing the EXACT SAME THING with OS X (Except the price is $30 higher), people are crying their heads off."

Yes--it is $30 higher than it used to be, and that's a significant increase. That is *exactly* what makes people complain, lose interest and direction.

I see the Panther/Jaguar transition as a serious divide, because Jaguar is good enough that many can stay with it and have a solid, brisk system for daily work. That means Apple needs to really deliver an update that compels the user base to update.

If they DON'T, you start losing momentum--developers have to support 10.2 and 10.3, code for changes & Apple loses a high adoption rate for iChat AV and other goodies, as the kind of folks who don't upgrade to Panther are the same kind that won't buy iChat AV seperately.

Comments?

That's fine; everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I for one think that Panther is a great upgrade and will buy it for full price when it comes out.

You may not. That's fine. As many others have said, if you don't like it, then don't buy it. Don't worry about "splintering of the platform;" Apple never worried about it before. I remember when OS 9 came out and several of my friends decided they were going to stay with OS 8.6. They still haven't upgraded. My parents are STILL using 7.5.5 on their old Power Macintosh 7600, even though it is perfectly capable of running 9.1.

If 10.2.6 works fine for you, then keep using it. Don't buy Panther if you don't feel it is worth it. Wait until 10.4 comes out or until 10.5 comes out.

I know there are probably people out there still running 10.1.

Just don't complain about it. The best way to get something accomplished is to actually do something... don't buy it, and tell Apple (but don't whine and cry or they'll ignore your suggestions).

[BZ]

Apple is not worried about OSX splintering, it is worried about 9/OSX splintering.

Panther is a new release that will get anohter x% of people to either get off of 7/8/9 and move to Panther or dump their 7/8/9 machines and buy a new machine with Panther. Either way it is a win-win for Apple.

The yearly upgrades are fine with me. For me, it is like Quicken. I use Quicken every single day. It is one of most critical apps (besides mail and a browser) that I use. Intuit releases a new version every year and every year I pre-order it and buy it. Why? Cause I like the product and want the upgrade.

To me, OSX is the same thing. I use Mail.app everyday, all the time. An upgrade to that is an upgrade I will pay for. Give me another 10% speed on my old hardware, some new features (faxing/expose) and it is so much worth it.

If it is the $129 price keeping you back, wait for a bit.

As of today on Dealmac:
- OSX 10.1 w/ 9.1 $49
- OSX 10.2 upgrade $68

So, in a little over a year it has dropped in half. Buy Panther in June of next year and pay $60 and if you are savy you can probably get it under $50 with rebates. Is that too much?

Every company knows that early adopters (ME) will pay a premium for something to get it when it comes out. It does not matter if it is a new cell phone, computer, palm pilot or OS, the early adopter wants to have it and will pay more for it. Apple is not stupid, they know this and they will play the game. If you are not an early adopter, go ahead, wait 6 months until it is worth your while.

BZ

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by clebin:
Um...no, sorry. Are you sure you didn't just argue my point by accident?

10.0 was a rewrite compared to 9.x. But 9.0 was just an update compared to 8.x. The numbers themselves are irrelevent.

9.0 wasn't just an update. It was a BIG update. In fact, it was more of a rewrite than an update. Just because you didn't see many visual changes doesn't mean a bunch of stuff didn't change under the hood. Many, many things changed in OS 9 - support for long filenames, carbon, multiprocessing stuff, etc. The same is true for System 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, and 8.5. All of those were rewrites. Although they looked more or less the same on the outside, they were completely different on the inside. 7.1, 7.6, 8.1, 8.6, etc were "just updates."

Panther is a new OS in the same way that 7.0, 7.5, etc were new OSes. Maybe not much is visible to the user, but a lot has changed under the hood. This is evidenced by the fact that Darwin has been bumped from 6.x to 7.x, indicating a major change. Apple's pretty good about version numbers. In the case of OS X they strayed a bit because "OS X" has become a brand. Brands are incredibly valuable, so they modified the versioning to maintain the brand. 10.0 was a new OS. 10.1 was a new OS. 10.2 was a new OS. 10.3 will be a new OS.

Think of 10.0 as System 7, 10.1 is 7.5, 10.2 is 8.0, and 10.3 will be 8.5. The parallels are quite appropriate, when you look at usability and depth/breadth of new features (especially under the hood).

So no, I don't think I argued your point (and the numbers *aren't* irrelevant, although they don't always mean what you think they mean).

[Boondoggle]

$130 is cheap for just about anything. Christ I spend about 4 times that much just on Gin and olives in a year.

I remember when Having a few $20 bill in your pocket made you feel flush. I don't get that feeling with a few $100's today. Hell it will take $50 just to fill up an SUV, and that only lasts a few days. If you don't have that kind of money then you will have to settle for what you can afford, just like in every other aspect of life.

God you can't even have a good meal out with a friend for much less.

Adjusted for inflation $130 is probably not much more that $99 back in '94. Maybe even less. That was 9 years ago. Software is not like hardware where growth of the whole industry has made components cheap. Software engineers still have to be paid and fancy this; they like thier salaries to at least keep up with inflation just like you and me. But maybe you think all those Apple engineers should take a pay cut for producing Jaguar and Panther.

Anyone here think OSX on a Mac is better than XP on a PC? Notice how much percent of revenu gets spent by Dell vs Apple on R&D? Oh but Apple isn't justified in trying to recoup some of that? You just want it better but not more expensive. Well I've got news for you buddy, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Apple could care less what the complainers think, because frankly most people don't upgrade thier software anyway, and a significant percentage of the remainder just steal it. Anyone notice how much anti-piracy software is built in to any Mac OS? Most people use the OS that came with thier computer. A new OS is to sell new computers. The retail box of an OS is just for the few of us who care to upgrade and like having our own copy on the shelf.

Still cheaper than a new Mac.

Be careful what you ask for, because they could possibly make it cheaper by enforcing against piracy, but man what a hassle. Is that what you want... a licence scheme like Windows? And notice windows isn't any cheaper either, which makes you wonder.

[osxisfun]

Well said.





P.S. Gin and olives <---- mmmmmm.....

[mrmister]

" Don't worry about "splintering of the platform;" Apple never worried about it before. I remember when OS 9 came out and several of my friends decided they were going to stay with OS 8.6. They still haven't upgraded."

I think the point I'm making is that splintering of the platform *is* something Apple should worry about--it makes developers jobs harder and harder each year, and reduces the nimbleness of the OS to implement big architectural changes.

"Just don't complain about it. The best way to get something accomplished is to actually do something... don't buy it, and tell Apple (but don't whine and cry or they'll ignore your suggestions)."

There's a bizarre undercurrent in the responses here--I'm argueing that by having the OS updates priced where they are and happening at a yearly pace means that Apple needs to make certain the feature set is really exciting each year--a daunting task.

Instead of addressing my arguements, people either keep telling me not to buy Panther to "make my voice heard", or they make loaded socioeconomic statements about how maybe the people who are too poor need to move to another platform. Boondoggle, where did that tone come from? Did you even read my post?

This sh!t is idiocy--I've made my case, and I still feel that Apple needed to add something else to really make this update shine. A word processor would have done it--I'm certain there are other suggestions.

The next yahoo that doesn't have anything to add but posts to tell me that I don't need to buy the update will respectfully get my foot shoved up their @ss.

[crayz]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Well, by that logic......Panther is a new OS! OS X is built on top of a BSD-like OS called Darwin. Darwin is currently at v6.6, which is what's used in 10.2.6. Panther/10.3 will use Darwin 7.0. So you see, 7.0 (Panther) is an update to 6.0 (Jaguar). Does it make more sense now?

Furthermore (as others have pointed out) "OS X" is a brand name now, in the same way that "Windows" is. Making the next release "OS XI" or "OS X 11.0" wouldn't make a whole lot of sense now, would it? That's why Apple sticks with the 10.x naming convention, which means no 11.0 for awhile.

Honestly....what in the f*ck are you talking about? By what logic? The person you quoted specifically said that point releases and full releases were usually upgrades versus rewrites. You seem to have totally misunderstood what he said, if you even read it in the first place.

The FACT is that 10.3 is not a new operating system. If they called it 11 or 12 or infinity it wouldn't be either. They took the code from 10.2 and updated it significantly. Is that worth paying for? Yes. Is that worth paying full price for? No, I don't think so.

You seem pretty unsuccessful with the whole "logic" thing so far, but let me try a little on you and see how it goes:

10.0 vs. 9.x was a "new" operating system, in the sense that someone owning OS 9 owned an OS that was almost completely different, code-wise, than OS X

10.3 vs. 10.2 is not a "new" operating system. Someone who owns 10.2 already owns an OS very similar in form and function to 10.3, and whats more a significant amount of 10.3 code is simply 10.2 code.

That is, if by paying for an OS we are paying for development costs, people who already own some version of OS X *have already paid* for some of 10.3's development costs, because 10.3 builds on previous versions of OS X. So those people should be able to pay a discounted upgrade price, instead of paying the full price as if 10.3 was a totally new OS whose development costs they had never before contributed to.

[crayz]

I remember when Having a few $20 bill in your pocket made you feel flush. I don't get that feeling with a few $100's today. Hell it will take $50 just to fill up an SUV, and that only lasts a few days. If you don't have that kind of money then you will have to settle for what you can afford, just like in every other aspect of life.

God you can't even have a good meal out with a friend for much less.

What the hell world are you living in? I was waiting for you to start talking about how much you pay your illegal mexican immigrant/employee/slave to wax your yacht, or how much you spent on your last monocle.

You pay $65/person when going out to eat??? Great. You've obviously been sucessful in life. But for the people who don't swim around in their vaults of money as a pastime, I don't find it unreasonable to expect a decently priced operating system from Apple.

[crayz]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
9.0 wasn't just an update. It was a BIG update. In fact, it was more of a rewrite than an update... The same is true for System 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, and 8.5. All of those were rewrites.

This is honestly getting kind of sad. Where do you get your information...Apple's old press releases? AFAIK, OS 9 still contained code from 1984. I know it still contained 68k code. Previous versions contained far more.

OS 8 was a big upgrade. It took in a fair amount of features from Copland and stripped out a lot of old code. The rest of those you mention were also big, but not as big as you want to believe.

Why would Apple have even bothered with OS X if they had made such progress between 7.0 and 9.0? I mean, I would think after 4 OS rewrites, they would have been able to modernize the OS as much as they wanted, no? But somehow OS 9 was still mostly the same old crashy, cooperative multitasking junk heap as before. Sh*t OS 9 still had the problem where if you opened apps in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then closed apps 1->4, there would be a gigantic hole in the memory.

Stop deluding yourself. Those old updates were not rewrites, and neither are the new updates.

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by crayz:
This is honestly getting kind of sad. Where do you get your information...Apple's old press releases? AFAIK, OS 9 still contained code from 1984. I know it still contained 68k code. Previous versions contained far more.

What does that have to do with anything? OS X still contains code from 1984, at least on a superficial level: Carbon, which is the legacy API. If you include Classic as part of the OS, that's even more old code...

Originally posted by crayz:
OS 8 was a big upgrade. It took in a fair amount of features from Copland and stripped out a lot of old code. The rest of those you mention were also big, but not as big as you want to believe.

System 7 was an enormous upgrade. Far bigger than 8.0. Go read up on it if you don't believe me. 8.0 was big in its own right - lots of stuff from Copland, new appearance, etc. 8.5 went almost 100% PowerPC native, which required lots of rewriting. Among other things, QuickDraw was rewritten to be be PowerPC native in 8.5. That alone is a huge deal. 8.6 was actually a major update under the hood, too - it introduced a new nanokernel, which is the very core of the OS. And so on.

Originally posted by crayz:
Why would Apple have even bothered with OS X if they had made such progress between 7.0 and 9.0? I mean, I would think after 4 OS rewrites, they would have been able to modernize the OS as much as they wanted, no? But somehow OS 9 was still mostly the same old crashy, cooperative multitasking junk heap as before. Sh*t OS 9 still had the problem where if you opened apps in the order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then closed apps 1->4, there would be a gigantic hole in the memory.

Apple changed many things between 7.0 and 9.0. As you so eloquently point out, it wasn't enough. Apple found out the hard way that they couldn't change the fundamental tenets of the OS (cooperative multitasking, unprotected memory, etc). That's why Copland failed - it just wasn't possible to do the things they needed within the constraints of the old MacOS. Go read up on operating system design to understand why this just wasn't possible (start with Tannenbaum's book for a good overview).

Apple *did* make tremendous progress between 7.0 and 9.0 in many areas: HFS+, Virtual Memory, the nanokernel, guard pages in memory, networking, etc. It just wasn't enough. As a software engineer, I can assure you that what Apple managed to pull off - both in the 7.0-9.0 series and in the transition to OS X via Classic - is absolutely incredible.

Originally posted by crayz:
Stop deluding yourself. Those old updates were not rewrites, and neither are the new updates.

Let's look at this another way. Do you consider Windows 98 to be an upgrade to Windows 95, or a new OS? Do you consider Windows XP to be an upgrade to Windows NT, or a new OS? By your definition, XP and 98 weren't new OSes (technically they're just continuations of the original DOS and NT codebases). That's fine. I bet that 95% of people would consider them new OSes, though. I do.

[mrmister]

These arguements about what is and is not an update vs. a new OS are somewhat academic, in my mind. My concern is features & cost--maybe we should split the discussion of past updates into another thread?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally posted by Telusman:
[B Expose is cool, but it's just eye candy, it really is, it's really not that special[/B]

Says you... Do you ever do any work on the system that requires 10+ windows open? Expos� is god for finding the window.

[kcmac]

Expose alone will be worth the upgrade to me. I am tired of hiding windows, finding the buried desktop, etc. Expose will be awesome!

[mark9939]

Originally posted by Telusman:
"Pirating Mac OS X's since Developer Preview 4"

Hey, if you're pirating the Mac OS, you have absolutely no place in this thread. This is for paying customers, and griping about the money we will pay for the OS.

[crayz]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Let's look at this another way. Do you consider Windows 98 to be an upgrade to Windows 95, or a new OS? Do you consider Windows XP to be an upgrade to Windows NT, or a new OS? By your definition, XP and 98 weren't new OSes (technically they're just continuations of the original DOS and NT codebases). That's fine. I bet that 95% of people would consider them new OSes, though. I do.

Cutting out the rest of your stuff...no 98 was not a totally new OS. XP is debatable. Arguably it was new for 95/98/ME users and not for Win2k users. But you are defeating your own claims with pointing this out. Microsoft always has upgrade pricing for its OS's.

Thats what I and others are arguing Apple should do. What is your problem with doing this?

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by crayz:
Thats what I and others are arguing Apple should do. What is your problem with doing this?

Does Honda give upgrade pricing on cars? After all, their new cars build on stuff developed in previous versions....right?

Why should software be different? Sure, I'd *like* it if things were cheaper, but it's hardly something to bitch about. Life ain't free. As an Apple shareholder, I think what Apple should do is whatever is best for their bottom line. If that means no upgrade pricing, great!

Assuming Apple comes out with one new paid OS per year and you purchase each OS when it comes out at a cost of $129, that amortizes to a whopping $0.35/day. A cup of coffee from Starbucks costs *ten times* that much. Ramen's about the only thing that costs less. What on earth is there to complain about?

[mrmister]

Scroll up. See my arguements. Let's talk about those, and not focus on whether this is or is not an upgrade.

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by mrmister:
Scroll up. See my arguements. Let's talk about those, and not focus on whether this is or is not an upgrade.

I'm game.

Re: splintering the platform:

For starters, the platform has been "splintered" since the very first update to MacOS came out (System 1.1 or whatever). You say that splintering reduces nimbleness and makes the developers' jobs harder. I call BS. Apple's been quite nimble since 10.0 came out - look at the cool new stuff like Quartz Extreme, Journaling Filesystems, Rendezvous, etc. OS X's architecture is such that it's relatively easy to add new things like that. And as the OS matures, the developer's job gets *easier*, not harder. The only hard part is choosing whether to support old platforms. There have been oodles of developer-friendly changes in OS X since 10.0 - everything from bug fixes to performance improvements to new APIs. How is this a bad thing? Sometimes the people still running 8/9/10.0/10.1 get left behind and don't get to run the shiny new apps, but they are the ones who made that choice by not upgrading! It's not like the computer magically stops working if you don't buy Apple's next OS. It does everything it used to, it's just that it can't do some new things. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

The argument that mac users need to stick together for the success of the platform is based on a bad assumption. The assumption is that the platform isn't - and hasn't been - splintered yet. There are still people running System 5/6/7 out there. Something like only 17% of the publishing industry's Macs have been upgraded to OS X from OS 8/9. That sounds pretty splintered to me. Users aren't sticking together for the good of the platform, they're using tools that work for the job they need to do. Remember: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Re: "don't complain, just don't buy it"

If Apple wants to continue selling new OSes, you're absolutely right that they need to continue to come up with exciting/useful new features, or people won't pay up. Nothing wrong with that. Some people will buy no matter what, some people won't buy no matter what, and most of the people in the middle will or won't buy depending on what's offered. The entire world works this way, and Apple isn't exempt. It's their problem to come up with the compelling features though - not ours.

Feedback (to Apple) is good. Write them a note saying "better interoperability with Windows networks is worth $129 to me" or "I'd be willing to pay for Panther if it had a better Dock."


btw, it looks like Panther might allow programs to read (and edit?) .doc files: http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/15/1054245

[mrmister]

"You say that splintering reduces nimbleness and makes the developers' jobs harder. I call BS. Apple's been quite nimble since 10.0 came out"

Well, that's because no sane person stuck with 10.0--everyone upgraded for free to 10.1, and because it had a compelling feature set + speed almsot everyone who was on X went to 10.2, I'm actually saying that the splintering within X begins with Panther.

"Something like only 17% of the publishing industry's Macs have been upgraded to OS X from OS 8/9. That sounds pretty splintered to me."

Exactly--and legacy 9 systems have been the Achilles heel of the entire OS X transition. Thank god Quark finally shipped their stupid app.

"btw, it looks like Panther might allow programs to read (and edit?) .doc files:"

What is more interesting is that this functionallity is built into the NS Calls within the OS itself--so other Cocoa apps should be able to read .doc files as well with proper coding.

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by mrmister:
"You say that splintering reduces nimbleness and makes the developers' jobs harder. I call BS. Apple's been quite nimble since 10.0 came out"

Well, that's because no sane person stuck with 10.0--everyone upgraded for free to 10.1, and because it had a compelling feature set + speed almsot everyone who was on X went to 10.2, I'm actually saying that the splintering within X begins with Panther.

"Something like only 17% of the publishing industry's Macs have been upgraded to OS X from OS 8/9. That sounds pretty splintered to me."

Exactly--and legacy 9 systems have been the Achilles heel of the entire OS X transition. Thank god Quark finally shipped their stupid app.

The point is that the platform is already splintered and has been for well over a decade (almost 2!). There are legacy 9 systems still out there, legacy 8 systems, legacy 7 systems, and so on. Apple managed to survive splintering before OS X came out, they survived splintering when they switched CPU architectures from 68k to PowerPC, and they survived the splintering that occurred when they introduced to OS X.

Historically it's very clear that Apple and Apple developers have experienced - and survived - "splintering" of several kinds on multiple occassions. Hardware performance has been the real killer, and Apple's managed to survive even that. The platform has been doing just fine without Quark. Apple may have lost a few sales to publishing customers because of the Quark debacle, but they gained a whole new batch of customers in the scientific and technical fields.

Apple's user base is splintered now. It has been splintered in the past. It will continue to be splintered in the future. What evidence is there that Apple suddenly won't be able to survive?

[Orion27]

I'm happy to report TextEdit does edit
MS Word docs, spell checks, and convert to .rtf
After saving as....... and closing the doc, when you later open the doc by clicking on it it opens in MS Word.

[mike one]

Originally posted by clebin:
I think $129 (or �99) is too expensive.

Apple have an extra revenue stream with .Mac and they need to re-examine their upgrade policy in the light of it. If they think that paying a yearly .Mac and buying a yearly MacOS upgrade doesn't change the public's attitude towards their prices, they're being naive.


There are features worth paying for in Panther. Expos� is truly great for anyone who seriously works on a Mac. Fast user switching is also excellent. But there's not much else in this release that screams out at you. Apple are still fixing the Finder rather than turning it into an incredible modern and innovative tool. Even now, there's still plenty that needs fixing!

i love cardiff btw. also have to agree with the post. if apple is expecting loyal users to shell out ~~~$230/~year for OS updates and .mac then i think they're crazy. seriously. now i'm in the fortunate postition that i'm a student and get the os upgrade for $70 and better yet i can get it for free by charging it to my research account, but if you don't have the money, don't upgrade. seriously. osx10.2 is solid. people in general are too concerned with which upgrade they have, blah blah blah, rather than realizing that they should be happy and are being productive with what they have.

this CONSUMEr based economy is really quite twisted, how many people get friggin' infiriority complexes because they don't have the latest greatest thing. who gives a crap. stop believing all the BS that apple is pumping out. 129 is a lot of money for this.

how many features will you actually use? i'm going to use some of the core features, but there is so much fluff that i could care less about e.g. ivchat, mail, any apple branded .app, not including the finder....

sure we'll take a few steps forward with this, good seious steps, but on some fronts we will no doubt step back, waiting endlessly for stupid and unaceptable bugs to be fixed.

yeah, and what are those goddamn software coupons good for anyway, none....

[crayz]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Does Honda give upgrade pricing on cars? After all, their new cars build on stuff developed in previous versions....right?

Why should software be different?

Because software *is* different. Do I go to the Honda dealships and see brand new undriven 2000 Accords selling for $100? No

Then why do I go to CompUSA and see brand new, unused games from 2000 or so selling for $5 in the bargain bin?

Hmm, maybe because a car and a software package aren't the same thing. Maybe because almost 100% of the cost of software is R&D, and while you're paying for R&D with a car as well, the majority of the cost is the actual production cost for your specific vehicle.

[hmurchison2001]

God this is so pointless.

If you want Panther fork over the $129

If you don't. Then keep your money. End of feckin' story.

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by crayz:
Because software *is* different. Do I go to the Honda dealships and see brand new undriven 2000 Accords selling for $100? No

Then why do I go to CompUSA and see brand new, unused games from 2000 or so selling for $5 in the bargain bin?

Car dealers have clearance sales just as often as CompUSA does. New stuff comes in, so you have to make room for it by getting rid of the old stuff. In each case the seller is trying to get rid of stock that they've already paid for. In each case, they often sell at or below their cost, but that price will vary depending on what the market will bear. Since cars are a big-ticket item, the demand curve is much higher at a 5-15% price reduction than it is for a piece of software. That's why cars don't sell for $100 - there's no reason to, if they can sell them at $20,000 (instead of $25k for a new one). Since a 5-15% price reduction in the price of a piece of software doesn't produce the same results, the software seller has to cut the price more: 50-80%. Both sellers are likely to lose money on the deal, but it's better to sell at a loss than to keep the stuff (that they've already paid for) on their shelves. That's why cars don't sell for $100, but old software sells for $5.

Originally posted by crayz:
Hmm, maybe because a car and a software package aren't the same thing. Maybe because almost 100% of the cost of software is R&D, and while you're paying for R&D with a car as well, the majority of the cost is the actual production cost for your specific vehicle.

I think you've made some bad assumptions. New cars routinely cost over $1b to develop. Assuming the car sells for $25,000 and costs $0 to manufacture once development is finished, you'd still have to sell 40,000 cars to cover the cost of development. If only $5,000 of that $25k is used to cover R&D, you have to sell 200,000 cars to cover the R&D costs. Other things come out of that $25k, too: profit, dealer profit, warranty service, etc. You're correct that the cost of goods (and labor!) is very large for a car, but don't discount R&D.

The R&D costs for a software program are high, but they aren't as high as you think. It costs about $35 to get a single copy of a software program onto a store shelf. A lot of that money goes towards documentation, duplication, packaging, distribution, tech support, store profit, etc. A surprisingly small amount is for the actual development of the software. Internet distribution is significantly cheaper, but even then the R&D costs are nowhere near 100% of the price of the software.

So you see, commercial software isn't free once you've written it in the same way that cars aren't free once you've designed them. The numbers may be different, but the concepts are the same. Get an economics textbook for further details, hmurchison is right.

And now, to make sure this thread goes even more off-topic, who believes in santa claus?

[osxisfun]

I believe in the

"best os on the planet doesn't come of the friggin thin air and is instead built thru hard work and a lot of cash on the barrel"

fairy...

[mrtew]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
I think you've made some bad assumptions. New cars routinely cost over $1b to develop. Assuming the car sells for $25,000 and costs $0 to manufacture once development is finished, you'd still have to sell 40,000 cars to cover the cost of development. If only $5,000 of that $25k is used to cover R&D, you have to sell 200,000 cars to cover the R&D costs. Other things come out of that $25k, too: profit, dealer profit, warranty service, etc. You're correct that the cost of goods (and labor!) is very large for a car, but don't discount R&D.

Not too many cars cost a billion dollars to develop! Those are the rare exceptions. Most cost a quarter to a half of that. And that guy is right.... most of the cost of a car is production cost. In fact the development cost is a tax writeoff so that makes it practically free, in a way. Of course taking his example the other way, I've seen a lot of cars with discounts of $1000 to $3000 of the regular price but I've never seen that much money off ANY software, let alone an operating system.

[MacmanX]

OK, let's assume I've been living in a cave for the past year. Fair enough. So, when I was last in contact with these boards, we were discussing Jaguar. So, I've come back from the cave, shaved my beard and rejoined the community. Hi, how has everyone been? Good.

So, I was surprised to see all this fuss about an OS I had never heard of (no, really). So, could someone help out my bat addled brain? Where do I go for info on the lastest and greatest OS. I mean, I want the hard facts (or, at least the press release).

If you still think my story sounds unplausable, consider this. When I went to purchase my new iBook 900 a couple of weeks ago, I was astonished when the sales person told me that Airport was now called Airport Extreme and operated on both the 802.11b and 802.11g protocols.

Anyway, any help on catching up on a year's worth of Mac advancements would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime, I'm still trying to adjust my eyes to the oh so bright light.

Cheers!

[Tomac]

NOTE: In the past, I've owned two iBooks (500 & 800MHz models) as well as a Dual 1.25 PowerMac (FW800). This post contains a mix of Canadian/US pricing and has been hacked/slashed and put together from what I've posted on another board. It might not flow real well. SORRY for the length too.

I'm not buying another Mac until Panther's either pre-installed or there's a free up-to-date program. I'm guessing that Power Mac G5 buyers will be getting free upgrades to 10.3 whenever it becomes available -- they'll likely ship will the last pre-installed version of Jaguar (10.2.7). Whatever new PowerBooks released in the future will probably be allowed a free update to Panther too -- unless Apple's SUPER CHINTZY. I'm not going to "give in" until the hardware's up-to-snuff and the software runs BLAZING fast. Apple has shipped underpowered "trasheesh" hardware with almost "beta-like" software for too long -- I gave in like a coward -- they must give back to users this year BIG TIME. Good things happening with the G5 and Panther -- but it's taken a LONG TIME.

$200CDN more -- for Apple's mistakes -- this year is unacceptable for me.

The "mistakes" are those Apple made in the past with OS X -- incomplete point releases with slow and sluggish performance (even on high-end machines). We're all hoping for stunning performance/features from Panther just as most expected the same from Jaguar. The money that an end-user of OS X has had to shell out and stay current -- with Apple's software -- has been unacceptable. The performance of OS X's GUI is still embarrassing -- the price/performance gain ratio is quite unfair. The performance should have been THERE in 10.0 and still isn't quite THERE in 10.2.

As for MS:
The Win XP upgrade would jump you from Win 98, Me, 2000 directly to XP for $149CDN (Home) or $249CDN (Pro). Official retail launch was in October 2001. Updates, including service packs -- equivalent to Apple's "point releases" -- have been FREE since that time. Their 100+MB updates have been available to download -- at least people were givin' this option without being forced to buy/pick up a CD(s) like Apple require(s)(d) with OS X.

No gouging from MS. Hmmm...

Now when we look at Apple's OS X and the updates involved, coinage to Apple comes into the equation. Apple's "point releases" are the equivalent of Microsoft's "service packs", yet Apple gouges the consumer whenever a new "point release" comes 'round, yet Microsoft keeps its "service packs" free, allowing people to continue running new apps without being forced to pay and upgrade. Ex. Mac OS 10.0 users are locked out -- they cannot use iChat AV, Safari, iSync, iMovie 3, iTunes 4, Keynote, etc, etc, etc, etc and all kinds of hardware too. They shouldn't have to pay for Apple's mistakes.

They should not have to, yet Apple locks its own users from Apple's own proprietary software, on its own proprietary hardware. Any consumer advocate would consider this unfair.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I wish Apple was a bit more like Microsoft.

OS X came out in March 2001 with the only option of buying the full version for $129US. Eventually -- I believe -- Apple gave a $30US rebate for OS X beta users, maybe it became free for them (seems so from previous poster). I don't believe a cheaper alternative was given to the norm' -- for OS 9 users moving to OS X.

OS 10.1 came round September 2001 with the option of getting it free in-store or pay a monstrous shipping charge of $19.95US shipped directly to one's home.

OS 10.2 (Jaguar) came round August 24, 2002 for $195CDN. The only small amount of give from Apple was this:

QUOTE:
The Mac OS Up-to-Date program covers both new Mac� purchases made on or after July 17, 2002 and Mac OS X v10.1 purchases made on or after July 17, 2002. The Mac OS X v10.2 Up-To-Date package is available for a shipping and handling fee of $19.95 (US) and includes the Mac OS X v10.2 upgrade CDs and an updated Developer Tools CD.

Original 10.0, 10.1 purchasers were burned.

Now with Panther coming along for $129US, the cash adds up for those who adopted OS X early on and even those who bought machines this year. Apple's Up-to-Date program is likely going to be as slim as it was in 2002 (Jaguar).

Add up the costs. ADD UP THE COSTS. If one had Mac hardware before the initial release of OS X in 2001 and paid for 10.0 (full), 10.1 update and 10.2 (full), you're looking at around $400CDN. If they get Panther, we're now looking at around/over $600CDN!!! It's still OS X -- we haven't jumped to OS 11, 12 or 13, yet the pricing is set like its a brand new MAJOR REVISION OS release.

Microsoft charges $299CDN/$449CDN for FULL home/pro versions but the upgrade pricing is what MOST people will look at -- considering they can move from ancient Win 98 to modern Win XP for a measly $149 no questions asked.

We ARE paying for Apple's mistakes. Point releases should not require MAJOR REVISION pricing. ALRIGHT, 10.1 and 10.2 brought along many "features", but THEY ARE STILL POINT RELEASES and should be FREE! I cannot bring myself to call them "major revisions" because each release was not drastically, supremely different from the last. The apple ripened abit, is a tad sweeter, but we're not sinking our teeth into something completely different -- an orange or banana. The point releases were fixes and add-ons that should have been in 10.0. 10.0 still "looks" a helluva lot like Panther. Hello Dock! Now a change from Win Me to XP, or definitely Win XP to Longhorn are to be considered MAJOR REVISIONS, in my opinion, and I bet others as well.

Microsoft's pricing is fair to the end-user. Apple's isn't.

I wouldn't dare buy hardware from Apple today knowing that I'd likely get burned in the future -- having to pay FULL coin for Panther, upwards of $200CDN. Again, I think Apple's Up-to-Date will have a very slim timeline; however, they'll still LIKELY spank users for $19US or so for the 10.3 update CD.

Apple had better make "Up-to-Date" SUPER DUPER POOPER SCOOPER cheap for many people.

I'm not paying TOP DOLLAR for inferiority anymore. Apple MUST "give in" to the consumer and not vice-versa anymore.

Why should we pay for Apple's "mistakes"?

Why do we get the yearly kick in the arse from Apple -- for coinage -- when they clearly deserve an @ss wuppin' for taking advantage of the end-user?

Updates -- point releases -- should darn well be FREE until they bring out OS 11.

Apple's trying to hack our bank accounts, while Microsoft is actually playing fair. Whoulda thunk it?

[crayz]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Car dealers have clearance sales just as often as CompUSA does....

Look, at the end of the day, you know and I know that a Honda Civic and Quake 3 are not the same type of thing. If you don't want to admit that here, fine. But I am sick of arguing about something which is blindingly obvious.

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
The R&D costs for a software program are high, but they aren't as high as you think. It costs about $35 to get a single copy of a software program onto a store shelf.

And how much would it cost to direct-ship to customers? And how much would it cost to make a BitTorrent of it and plop the file on a server with 100K of bandwidth? Please shutup, because you are being completely disingenuous.

Fine, yes, a car does cost money to develop. But a car also costs far, far more to manufacture and ship around than do some little 1s and 0s(or, at worst, a CD).

If the shipping costs are so high, then Apple should be able to just charge a nominal fee for shipping and/or and let people burn copies for free from the Apple Stores. Oh wait, they already did that with 10.1, so CLEARLY THEY COULD DO IT AGAIN.

If, that is, they weren't trying to squeeze a bit more blood out of the turnip that is current Mac owners.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Tomac:
Apple has shipped underpowered "trasheesh" hardware with almost "beta-like" software for too long

Yep, it's benn totally impossible to get any work done in that beta OS the call Mac OS X.

Originally posted by Tomac:
Official retail launch was in October 2001. Updates, including service packs -- equivalent to Apple's "point releases" -- have been FREE since that time. Their 100+MB updates have been available to download -- at least people were givin' this option without being forced to buy/pick up a CD(s) like Apple require(s)(d) with OS X.

Service Packs equals Apple's free 0.0.1 updates, and if size matters to you, some of the Mac OS X 0.0.1 releases were 50-60MB.

Originally posted by Tomac:
Now when we look at Apple's OS X and the updates involved, coinage to Apple comes into the equation. Apple's "point releases" are the equivalent of Microsoft's "service packs", yet Apple gouges the consumer whenever a new "point release" comes 'round, yet Microsoft keeps its "service packs" free, allowing people to continue running new apps without being forced to pay and upgrade.

Again, Mac OS X 0.0.1 updates eqals Service Packs. Perhaps you should take a look at the Windows version numbers.

Win2K is Windows 5.0 and WinXP is Windows 5.1.

Originally posted by Tomac:
Ex. Mac OS 10.0 users are locked out -- they cannot use iChat AV, Safari, iSync, iMovie 3, iTunes 4, Keynote, etc, etc, etc, etc and all kinds of hardware too. They shouldn't have to pay for Apple's mistakes.

Apple's mistakes? Many of the apps require technologies not existing at the time of 10.1 (Rendezvous among other things).

Originally posted by Tomac:
We ARE paying for Apple's mistakes. Point releases should not require MAJOR REVISION pricing.

Windows 95 = Windows 4.0
Windows 98 = Windows 4.2

Windows 2000 = Windows 5.0
Windows XP = Windows 5.1

Check for your self.

But I guess you would feel better if Apple had called Mac OS X for Mac OS 2001, Mac OS 2002 and now Mac OS 2003 XP+ Ultra

Originally posted by Tomac:
Now a change from Win Me to XP, or definitely Win XP to Longhorn are to be considered MAJOR REVISIONS, in my opinion, and I bet others as well.

XP is a successor to 2000 - not WinME.

See you next year - you only have to make minor adjustments to your post by then.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by JLFanboy:
How did you get a 10.2 upgrade? Jaguar was never an upgrade option. Just like Panther, if you wanted Jaguar you had to buy the full version for $129. When you reinstalled, did you try to just install 10.2?

I have a Jaguar upgrade CD. I also have a Jaguar full version CD.

Alas, the upgrade CD is pirated so I don't know where it's from. (It's pirated from an actual CD though, not off the net).

The full version CD is legal, and that's what you get if you purchase Jaguar.

Amorya

[tgrundke]

And the annual upgrade price bitching ritual begins again.

For the love of God - if you don't want to pay the price, don't. Nobody is forcing you. As far as I'm concerned, I've paid for 10.1 and 10.2, both of which were "vital' updates. 10.3 looks to have some keen features, but nothing that I would deem worth paying $129.00 for.

So, be sensible, kiddies. Don't go about bitching because you cannot afford it, how Apple is making you go bankrupt, how you'll just be an immoral fool and download it off the web. If you value the features, pay for it. If not, don't. But suck it up and quit yer bitchin.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by Tomac:
Apple has shipped underpowered "trasheesh" hardware with almost "beta-like" software for too long

Bloody hell!

How long will this FUD go on for? It annoyed me when 10.1 came out. It annoyed me when 10.2 came out. And I finally thought it had vanished, but here it is again.

OK, 10.0 might not have been a perfect OS. I'd have said it was better than a beta (look at all the bugs that slip into other production software packages), but I could understand the complaining, even if I didn't agree with it. (BTW, I used OSX full time from the days of 4K78).

10.1 was great. A free upgrade (I paid �2 for postage and got it sent to me) - most of my apps were now OSX native so I was just using Classic for Photoshop. All my hardware was supported, my Airport network worked great. Sure, some things were a bit iffy (and Epson's driver for the 1270 wasn't great) but most things like that weren't because of Apple. In my opinion, 10.1 was ready for primetime, and to be unleashed on newbies (the real test of an OS.)

Then we had 10.2. I'm using it now. It feels slick, polished, and better than any other OS. ALL (and I mean all) of my software is native, and my workflow is great. Building web sites is a dream - I swap between BBEdit, Photoshop and Omniweb effortlessly, and the built in PHP and native MySQL work great (even installing them is great, unlike on 10.0!)

How on earth, in any meaning of the word, can you say 10.2 is beta-like? What bugs does it have that haven't been fixed? (Except maybe FTP). What features aren't quite working right yet, that will be fixed in the final version?

I can't comprehend things like that. I can't understand how anyone can disagree that, overall, 10.2 is the best OS out there. I booted into 9 the other day, just to see if it was how I remembered it. And it was fun in a kind of nostalgic way, but too many things frustrated me for me to consider using it full time again. Multitasking was terrible. And windows XP - well, you all know (or can guess) my feelings about Windows!

Sorry to rant. My point is, 10.2 is a great product. I probably won't upgrade to 10.3 straight away - I'll wait until I have an app that requires it, or I get a new computer. 10.2 won't work any less well, and I think it's pretty amazing as it is now.

Amorya

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by crayz:
Please shutup, because you are being completely disingenuous.

Excuse me? How is explaining the costs of selling software in the real world "disingenuous?" I've explained what I know based on my experience selling real software to real people for a living. What's your knowledge based on?

BitTorrent might be acceptable for distributing RedHat or pirated stuff, but most companies don't work that way yet. Why? Because most people don't work that way yet. 99% of software customers have never heard of BitTorrent, and most of them want something tangible when they purchase. That means a CD, usually with a box and some semblance of documentation.

Selling a CD requires a lot of overhead. Even if the software were distributed only via download, supporting that software costs a fair amount of money. The money's got to come from someplace. What Apple did with 10.1 was a favor to users. They knew that 10.0 was inadequate, and they provided 10.1 at little/no charge as a favor to the early adopters.

Apple obviously didn't consider 10.1 to be inadequate, as they elected to charge for their next product, 10.2. I think it's safe to assume that they don't consider 10.2 inadequate either. Assuming that's the case, why wouldn't they charge for 10.3? They're a business, not a charity. Businesses charge money for goods and services. That's kind of basic.

You already have 10.2, right? Nobody's going to twist your arm and force you to buy 10.3. Switching to 10.3 is 100% voluntary. I promise that your computer will continue to function exactly as before when 10.3 is released. Apple owes you nothing, and you owe Apple nothing. They aren't trying to squeeze anyone, they're trying to make money off new products - the same as every other business on the entire planet.

[clebin]

Originally posted by mike one:
i love cardiff btw.

That's nice to hear! I've just moved back from London because I missed the place....

You're right in your post - it's .Mac and Panther combined that's the problem. When people compare now to what happened with System 7, they don't mention that .Mac didn't exist back then.

This is the argument I keep hearing:

God this is so pointless.

If you want Panther fork over the $129

If you don't. Then keep your money. End of feckin' story.

That annoys me. It's like nobody can possibly be thinking beyond their own circumstances or have a view on what Apple should be doing as a business.

For some reason or another we care that Apple is succesful. We don't want people still using 10.1 and saying that the Mac didn't work out and they're going off to Windows. That's not necessarily about me me me.

I'll buy Panther, no question whatsoever, but I bet many won't and many didn't buy the (on spec so far) superior 10.2 upgrade. That's Apple's problem, not mine - I'm just expressing an opinion.

Chris

[mrmister]

I agree EMPHATICALLY--it's a valuable subject to discuss where Apple is going with its OS in every area, including the end-cost to the user.

In some ways I am more disturbed by the reactions of certain folks to this question than I am by the somewhat lackluster Panther release.