[mitchell_pgh]

I'm not trying to be a child about this, but my wallet is glowing RED from all of the updates. $129 every 16 months is a little out there considering most people have had Windows 2000 for a VERY long time, and it's been completely supported by M$.

Don't get me wrong, I know Apple is doing it's best, but it's just getting a little expensive to the average user to keep on top of the technology that Apple is offering. Now I'm paying for the OS, the iApps, .mac, QT pro...

I realize that I would have to pay a crazy amount on Windows, but at the same time, I feel like I'm always pulling out my wallet...

I guess I'm just a little frustrated...

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not trying to be a child about this, but my wallet is glowing RED from all of the updates. $129 every 16 months is a little out there considering most people have had Windows 2000 for a VERY long time, and it's been completely supported by M$.

QT pro licenses on Windows are not free either. There are also no free iApps with the purchase of Windows and only when you buy a new Mac. Windows 2000 is from 4 years ago. Xp from about 3 with no NEW features and only one service pack for fixes. There is no comparable service for .Mac either. I guess you expect Apple to just give you all their software for free and forever. Those software engineers do have to get paid.
You could just stick with Mac OS X 10.1, as no one is forcing you to buy NEW UPDATED software with NEW features. Would you rather that Apple not innovate and just fix a 3 yr old OS?
Do you think LongHorn is going to be free when it comes out in 2005, if that?

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm not trying to be a child about this, but my wallet is glowing RED from all of the updates.

Whose fault is that, exactly? It is YOUR wallet. If you're not in control of it, you have bigger problems than paying for an OPTIONAL upgrade every 16 months.

<rant>
Why shouldn't people have to pay for new things? Should Sony upgrade your existing TV when they introduce a new model? Of course not. Should Honda upgrade your existing car when they introduce a new model? Of course not. So Should Apple upgrade your existing OS when then introduce a new model? Hint: of course not.

So why does this issue come up time and time again? Do people honestly not understand that writing software costs money? It's not like the upgrade fairy descends on Apple every 16 months with a new version of the OS for them to ship. People (lots of people) at Apple spent 16 months writing the upgrade. People cost money, as do bandwidth, facilities, training, tools, hardware, support, and all of the other things that go into writing a piece of software. Again, there's no magic fairy that comes out of the sky with a bag of money to pay for things every 16 months. That money has to come from someplace. Apple sells the OS upgrade to help recoup the development costs.

Is any of this truly not obvious?
</rant>

[CatOne]

Originally posted by echosphere:
WTF are you smoking moRonray?

Btw, is Lion really the name of the next release?
Or is it just Forum language? (like how we call the 867Mhz 12" PB a RevA, when really the 1Ghz should be RevA, as it is the first "revision" of the Al 12" PB, semantics, I know.)

Lion is a guess.

And it's a wrong guess

[Toyin]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Whose fault is that, exactly? It is YOUR wallet. If you're not in control of it, you have bigger problems than paying for an OPTIONAL upgrade every 16 months.

<rant>
Why shouldn't people have to pay for new things? Should Sony upgrade your existing TV when they introduce a new model? Of course not. Should Honda upgrade your existing car when they introduce a new model? Of course not. So Should Apple upgrade your existing OS when then introduce a new model? Hint: of course not.

</rant>

Bad, bad analogy. The appropriate last sentence should have been "So should Apple upgrade your existing computer when they introduce a new model? Hint: of course not."
You're comparing hardware to software. If Sony TVs and Hondas had software that was crucial to their use, then yes upgrades should be free. That means we need to ask: Is the latest and greatest OSX release crucial to the use of your Macintosh? Probably not, but you do miss out on some key features if you opt not to upgrade.

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by Toyin:
Bad, bad analogy. The appropriate last sentence should have been "So should Apple upgrade your existing computer when they introduce a new model? Hint: of course not."
You're comparing hardware to software. If Sony TVs and Hondas had software that was crucial to their use, then yes upgrades should be free.

You are wrong. My analogy is perfectly valid. I'm comparing manufactured goods to other manufactured goods. Like it or not, software is manufactured. Software also has a marginal cost associated with each copy, which is something that most people overlook.

There is no difference between a tangible good like a TV and a piece of software when it comes to the business side of things. In fact, the vast majority of software is still sold as a tangible good - that is, it has an installation medium, a manual, a box, and so on. Those all cost money. Support costs money. Distribution costs money. The cost of raw materials for a computer program is lower than the cost of raw materials for, say, a car, but it's still not zero.

Even if you download a piece of software, that copy you downloaded has a marginal cost to the company. They have to pay for bandwidth, support, etc.

Putting a boxed copy of a program onto a store shelf costs about $30 once you factor in the support, distribution, etc. Downloadable software is somewhat cheaper ($15 I think), but when you're talking about a 3GB OS upgrade it's not realy that much cheaper. Those numbers are the costs incurred *after* the program has been written. Writing the program itself costs a lot of money too.

Software's manufactured, folks. Just like your car, your TV, and yes, your computer.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
You are wrong. My analogy is perfectly valid. I'm comparing manufactured goods to other manufactured goods. Like it or not, software is manufactured. Software also has a marginal cost associated with each copy, which is something that most people overlook.

There is no difference between a tangible good like a TV and a piece of software when it comes to the business side of things. In fact, the vast majority of software is still sold as a tangible good - that is, it has an installation medium, a manual, a box, and so on. Those all cost money. Support costs money. Distribution costs money. The cost of raw materials for a computer program is lower than the cost of raw materials for, say, a car, but it's still not zero.

Even if you download a piece of software, that copy you downloaded has a marginal cost to the company. They have to pay for bandwidth, support, etc.

Putting a boxed copy of a program onto a store shelf costs about $30 once you factor in the support, distribution, etc. Downloadable software is somewhat cheaper ($15 I think), but when you're talking about a 3GB OS upgrade it's not realy that much cheaper. Those numbers are the costs incurred *after* the program has been written. Writing the program itself costs a lot of money too.

Software's manufactured, folks. Just like your car, your TV, and yes, your computer.

I'm not arguing that software isn't manufactured. I'm also not saying that software is free, but your analogy is flawed.

Software by itself does nothing. A TV and a Car are fully functioning self sufficient units. You can argue that the TV requires programming and the Car requires gas, but these are a fraction the cost of the unit. In contrast Software not only does nothing by itself but it is the "fuel" for a computer which is several orders of magnitude more expensive then the software.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment behind your post, I'm just saying your analogy is flawed.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Toyin:
You're comparing hardware to software. If Sony TVs and Hondas had software that was crucial to their use, then yes upgrades should be free.

Why? Not trying to be rhetorical here, but really, why?

Why should software be free and hardware not? Just because you can touch one but not the other? Engineering costs money no matter if it's the main board or the code that is being engineered.

Why this artificial distinction between hardware and software effort?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Toyin:
Software by itself does nothing. A TV and a Car are fully functioning self sufficient units. You can argue that the TV requires programming and the Car requires gas, but these are a fraction the cost of the unit. In contrast Software not only does nothing by itself but it is the "fuel" for a computer which is several orders of magnitude more expensive then the software.

Flawed argument.

Your Mac without the OS or apps (or any software actually) wouldn't be worth a single penny to you either.

Both are needed. Both require work. And both have much higher dev cost than the single piece costs to manufacture.

The distinction is artificial and outdated.

[cowerd]

Why? Not trying to be rhetorical here, but really, why?

Not having to upgrade to 10.3 to use Safari 1.2 would be a start. If Apple is going to make any inroads into enterprise yearly upgrades aren't going to cut it. Yearly upgrades don't help in areas like education either.

Now that OS X is fairly usable on an everyday basis it will be interesting to see if Apple keeps pushing the upgrade train on an almost yearly basis.

[Simon]

Originally posted by cowerd:
Not having to upgrade to 10.3 to use Safari 1.2 would be a start.

This discussion will never end. We're beating a dead horse.

Safari 1.2 requires Panther routines. Therefore if you don't have Panther you won't get Safari 1.2. Since Safari worked before 1.2 I see no issue here.

I think we have a fair deal. Jag works. The people that value Panther's innovations can buy it, those that don't don't buy it and keep working with Jag. It's simple and fair.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Simon:
Flawed argument.

Your Mac without the OS or apps (or any software actually) wouldn't be worth a single penny to you either.

Both are needed. Both require work. And both have much higher dev cost than the single piece costs to manufacture.

The distinction is artificial and outdated.

Not really. Linux PPC, Darwin, OS9 and I'm sure there are other ways to use a Mac without OSX.

The distinction isn't artificial or outdated. Hardware (especially in the world ofApple) cost significantly more than software. Again, I'm not saying the software should be free, but merely pointing out an imperfection in the analogy.

Personally I think every update that I've paid for 10.0, 10.2, and 10.3 has been worth it and I'll gladly pay for 10.4 not only because I like to be cutting edge, because I believe Apple is putting a lot of resources into OSX and it shows.

[iTunesHacker]

Originally posted by timmerk:
Don't worry, I love OS X, even DP4. I'm just asking because a friend of mine is getting a student ADC account and since it lasts only 1 year, I want to make sure he will get 10.4 for free.

They come out every year right? So I'm guessing Oct-Dec ish?

Thanks!

All I could find on this was a MacRumors message, but you can check back at http://www.macminer.com/index.cgi?u=10.4+os+x+mac

L8tr,

The iTunesHacker

[thefamousmred]

Originally posted by Toyin:
The distinction isn't artificial or outdated. Hardware (especially in the world ofApple) cost significantly more than software. Again, I'm not saying the software should be free, but merely pointing out an imperfection in the analogy.

The distinction *is* artificial. The analogy is perfectly valid, and that validity is why businesses treat software the same way they treat other manufactured goods.

Hardware does NOT always cost more - let alone orders of magnitude more - than the software. I've developed software that sold for well over $1m/license. Couple that with several hundred thousand in licenses for databases, application servers, and support software and you're looking at several million dollars per installation. The installations generally ran on $20-100,000 of hardware. The software isn't the 'fuel' for the hardware in those cases. In fact it's quite the opposite. The hardware is incidental, a means to run the software.

Granted that was enterprise software. That doesn't make a difference though. Final Cut Pro can run on machines that cost less than the FCP license did. The same holds true for Logic Pro, Shake, and hundreds (thousands?) of other applications that run on both the Mac and Windows.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
The distinction *is* artificial. The analogy is perfectly valid, and that validity is why businesses treat software the same way they treat other manufactured goods.

Hardware does NOT always cost more - let alone orders of magnitude more - than the software. I've developed software that sold for well over $1m/license. Couple that with several hundred thousand in licenses for databases, application servers, and support software and you're looking at several million dollars per installation. The installations generally ran on $20-100,000 of hardware. The software isn't the 'fuel' for the hardware in those cases. In fact it's quite the opposite. The hardware is incidental, a means to run the software.

I never said that hardware is always more expensive than software. I said, "Hardware (especially in the world of Apple) cost significantly more than software". What I should have said was, "in personal computing, Apple computers are generally more expensive than software." We are talking about OSX not some $1m/license software.

Originally posted by thefamousmred:
Granted that was enterprise software. That doesn't make a difference though. Final Cut Pro can run on machines that cost less than the FCP license did. The same holds true for Logic Pro, Shake, and hundreds (thousands?) of other applications that run on both the Mac and Windows.

True hardware can be cheaper in the Mac world if you're running FCP or Logic Pro on an emac. Though it may seem ridiculous to run Logic Pro an emac this investment could last through 1 or 2 more machines.

Software and hardware are different no matter what you say. It really doesn't matter which is more/less expensive. Software by it's nature is less tangible then Hardware. It can be copied, it can be downloaded, it can be put on different machines...etc. Whether that makes it more or less valuable is moot. In the comparison, you chose to compare an OS to hardware and that is where (for me) the analogy fails.

Anyway back on topic. I could care less when 10.4 comes out. I'm happy with 10.3, in fact I was happy with 10.2. Anything after Jaguar is just icing on the cake.

Any-who. This is my last reply on this subject (I'm home now). The analogy failed for me. Take or leave it.

[ginoledesma]

One common point brought about the complaints of annual upgrades is because most people feel that the "latest and greatest Mac OS X" should have been what we were given the first time Mac OS X was released. Much like 10.1 "should've been" 10.0, the same goes for 10.2 and 10.3.

I think it boils down to feature-envy and that Apple releases "point upgrades" (maybe there IS a psychological effect to the versioning scheme, which may be why Apple often insists on using the OS codenames). Safari 1.2 doesn't seem to be that "huge" of an upgrade over 1.1 (again, a point release), so why does it require a newer OS? Yes, I know all about the frameworks issues, so no, you needn't tell me the reason anymore.

I've been looking at this issue for quite some time now, and for my part, I think Microsoft has done a fantastic job with support for MS Windows 98 by introducing new features/support/updates to it over this long, since a huge portion of its user base is still using it.

[mitchell_pgh]

This is exactly what I expected from the peanut gallery...

I'm simply tired of paying $129 for a new version every 14 months. I'm already starting to look at "Lion" or whatever and say... "Ugh, here goes another $200"

I'm very excited about all of the updates, and I think they are doing an amazing job, but I feel like I pay a premium for the hardware and a premium for the software, they have cut out a large majority of the freebies and really aren't delivering some of the more critical updates...

Perhaps I'm in a bad mood, but I don't want "Apple" to represent "Time to get out your wallet"

[mitchell_pgh]

HARDWARE and SOFTWARE ARE fundamentally different.

Software can be duplicated with ZERO (or very minimal cost)
Hardware can NOT be duplicated at ZERO or minimal costs

If you create a piece of crap software, you can simply deliver a .1 update
With hardware, if you screw it up, it's screwed up

Software can be developed in full, partial and lite versions (all sold at different prices) [Example: FCP, FCE, iMovie]
Hardware doesn't work the same way.

There is an old saying... you can't duplicate bread without a pound of flower. This is the fundamental difference in hardware and software.

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

I'm simply tired of paying $129 for a new version every 14 months. I'm already starting to look at "Lion" or whatever and say... "Ugh, here goes another $200"

I think that pretty much applies to both the Mac hardware and software. People buy iBook G4s and the first "recommendation" they get from Mac experts is to max the RAM among other things. People hold off getting a new major release of the OS until the first update and then rumors start swirling off of the next upgrade to the "greatest OS to date". Definitely not one of the things you want to hear if you've depleted your savings.

About the only thing not needing a paid upgrade from Apple is their iPod (save AppleCare, of course).

[Superchicken]

The new finder,
Expose
Faster preview
And the new Classic improvements

And the general improvements of Panther make it VERY worth having. By the way do we know for sure that this next one is Lion? Wonder what they're gona do for it's promo... big furry x again? Maybe a yellow one... maybe give away a free copy of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe with every copy I dono uhh.

I'm suspecting they're gona take more of those touted Longhorn features like improved file system and put that in... I suspect that shall be the biggest thing for Lion.

I'm kind of curious as to how iLife 05 will be.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by Moonray:
I would like to see a mostly bugfree and "finished" operating system for that price like OS 7.5/6, 8.6, and 9.2 have been, but with the 10.x releases I can obviously be sure to buy a only half-tested OS that introduces more or less interesting new bugs.

Gack! I wouldn't touch an old MacOS with a 10 foot pole these days. When I stumble across a Mac still running one of these antique operating systems, I can't help but feel its "toy-ness" much the way Windows95 was.

I'd use Windows2000, WindowsXP or Mandrake 9.2 before I'd ever be forced to endure OS 7/8/9 again. My memories of those early Mac OSs, while better than the Windows95/98 of the time, are not terribly fond. Thrice daily lockup/reboots, even more reboots recommended should an application unexpectedly quit, freezing up all software running on the machine by simply holding the mouse button down, a software company that build a whole business around "Conflict Catcher"... the list goes on. And its not pretty.

I've been an Apple/Mac user basically forever, except for the (roughly) year between the release of Windows2000 and MacOS X 10.0. Windows2000 was so much more stable than OS 9.whatever, that I bought a PC and used Win2K nearly exclusively. I remember it running nearly two months before needing to reboot for a software update. MacOS X 10.1 turned me back to the Mac (that, and a rather speedy Dual 800MHz G4 Quicksilver).

MacOS X 10.3.x is 10 times more "finished" than OS 7/8/9 ever was, IMHO. In fact, I no longer own any "classic" software, nor do I have any hint of "classic" on my machine.

[cowerd]

The new finder

Gaaah. You think the Finder is new. Apple RFD must be working better than previously thought. What is new about the Finder?

Its merely been re-skinned, with the Toolbar now a waste of space, and what was the Toolbar shifted to a left pane. Add a couple of new symlinks and we have a new Finder.

There's not going to be any "new" Finder until Apple gets some religion on metadata outside of iTunes.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by cowerd:
Its merely been re-skinned, with the Toolbar now a waste of space, and what was the Toolbar shifted to a left pane. Add a couple of new symlinks and we have a new Finder.

...and new find/search functionality
...and labels
...and network browser (buggy, but great start)
...and speed improvements
...and action menu/buttons
...and more preferences

I personally like the toolbar and side pane. I use the toolbar more for commands, actions, and scripts and the side pane for frequent locations.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Toyin:
...and new find/search functionality
...and labels
...and network browser (buggy, but great start)
...and speed improvements
...and action menu/buttons
...and more preferences

I personally like the toolbar and side pane. I use the toolbar more for commands, actions, and scripts and the side pane for frequent locations.

I'm cool with the toolbar side (even though I don't use it all that much). I like the brushed metal, and I'm not saying that it's not worth the $129... it's more of a "gee, I wish they could wait a little while longer before upgrades."

I also wish they would beta test a bit more before releasing them... most of the 10.x.0 systems have small but quasi-serious issues.

[cowerd]

...and new find/search functionality
...and labels
...and network browser (buggy, but great start)
...and speed improvements
...and action menu/buttons
...and more preferences

oh fer fscks sake...
new search/find: nothing Command-F didn't already do.
labels: Hey welcome to 1990.
network browser: Now two ways to bungle networks connections. Seriously how is making something more complicated an improvement.
speed improvements: Yay no more pizza. NOT.
action menu/buttons: Why is a menu in the Taskbar that duplicates things that are in the Menubar a good thing?
more preferences: You go Apple. Now where is the preference where I can change the system font and icon grid spacing?

[Superchicken]

I agree a few nice customizable parts of the look would be nice, also I will point out I hate the new networking setup.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
newegg.com lists XP for $92, XP Pro for $137 with a hardware purchase.

Yeah...with a hardware purchase. So that's not really the price you're paying, now is it?

[Toyin]

Originally posted by cowerd:
oh fer fscks sake...

Someone needs to take a deep breath and just relax.

Originally posted by cowerd:

new search/find: nothing Command-F didn't already do.

Oh I didn't realize that hitting command-F, then typing in a search criteria, then hitting enter, then waiting for the search to finish, is the same thing as typing and having your search whittled down on the fly!

Originally posted by cowerd:
labels: Hey welcome to 1990.

Labels weren't in the PB -> 10.2, hence labels were a new feature in OSX. The OSX finder and the OS9 finder are not the same.

Originally posted by cowerd:

network browser: Now two ways to bungle networks connections. Seriously how is making something more complicated an improvement.

No, before you needed to know specific IP addresses in your network now you don't. Using command-k creates very stable network connections for me. I don't see how adding another option makes things more complicated. This is called options.

Originally posted by cowerd:

speed improvements: Yay no more pizza. NOT.

If you're referring to the SPOD it's been decreased significantly. In fact I can't remember the last time I saw the SPOD in the finder (except for .avi previews).

Originally posted by cowerd:

action menu/buttons: Why is a menu in the Taskbar that duplicates things that are in the Menubar a good thing?

Why are key commands that duplicate things in the Menubar a good thing? Sometimes I just want to use the track-pad and button, sometimes I'd rather use key commands, and sometimes I'd rather use menus. Again this is an additional option.

Originally posted by cowerd:
more preferences: You go Apple. Now where is the preference where I can change the system font and icon grid spacing?

Not there yet but at least now you can change the font size. It's step in the right direction

How about this, why don't you wait until the Finder is absolutely to your liking before you upgrade, that way you can feel your money is paying for the right number and types of features. I've never seen a bigger bunch of whiners. You don't have to upgrade each year.

[cowerd]

You don't have to upgrade each year.

Hey, guess what I didn't. When Apple sorts out the Finder I will be first in line to upgrade.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by cowerd:
When Apple sorts out the Finder I will be first in line to upgrade.

What's not "sorted"?

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
What's not "sorted"?

In so many ways:
- Previewing large files (e.g. AVIs, MPEGs, MOVs) will temporarily freeze the Finder (depends on CPU speed)
- Random crashes when multiple file copies (AFP, local FS, SMB, FTP)
- Lock-up when network volume unexpectedly becomes unavailable
- Is it even fully multi-threaded? The progress bars on file copies/etc are not updated when a menu is selected, or when the mouse is held down
- Random lock-up when multiple files are selected and accessing the contextual menu and choosing Open With
- Lack of option to change icon spacing

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Moonray:
I would like to see a mostly bugfree and "finished" operating system for that price like OS 7.5/6, 8.6, and 9.2 have been, but with the 10.x releases I can obviously be sure to buy a only half-tested OS that introduces more or less interesting new bugs.

-

7.5??? Bugfree?!

7.5. Bugfree.

7.5... Bugfree!

7.5... HA HA HA HA!

7.5 bugfr... HA HA HA HA!! God, my side hurts. 7.5 bugfree!

9.anything bugfree?!?!!! 9 finished?!!

God, you just made my day.

(7.5 bugfree... hoo... hee... gasp...)

[redJag]

Originally posted by Toyin:
Not really. Linux PPC, Darwin, OS9 and I'm sure there are other ways to use a Mac without OSX.

There are other ways to use an operating system without a Mac, too, what exactly does this statement prove? Economics is very simple: if you don't feel something is worth the price, do not buy it. As a developer I'm certain I'm biased, but you do not get things for free, plain and simple. Bug fixes, security updates, corrections to flaws in something you've paid for - those should be, and are, free. New features shouldn't be.

[waffffffle]

Here's my problem. Apple has been charged us $129 three times for OS X to regain the functionality all of OS 9 (which cost $99). Of course there are advantages to OS X but I feel that the $129 price tag should cover all of OS 9's features that Apple slowly brought back to OS X. Instead Apple chose to add new things to 10.2 and 10.3 to justify charging full price for each upgrade. Apple did the right thing with 10.0 in giving a $30 discount to all of us who bought the public beta (even if you bought at educational pricing). I think that 10.3 should have been half price for 10.2 owners who purchased a boxed copy at full price and that 10.4 should be the same. Either that or there should be some other sort of bundling (Panther + iLife '04 for $150 sounds good). It just seems that Apple is milking their loyal customers for all that we're worth.

I have been a student ADC member and have been taking advantage of student discounts for the past 4 years but when I graduate this year I will no longer be able to do that and I am not happy about it.

Here's hoping that 10.4 will be WORTH $129 to all of us. To me Panther was worth about $50, same for Jaguar, yet I still wanted/needed them. Strangely I feel the opposite about iLIfe '04 (I would have gladly shelled out $99 just or GarageBand).

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ginoledesma:
In so many ways:
- Previewing large files (e.g. AVIs, MPEGs, MOVs) will temporarily freeze the Finder (depends on CPU speed)
- Random crashes when multiple file copies (AFP, local FS, SMB, FTP)
- Lock-up when network volume unexpectedly becomes unavailable
- Is it even fully multi-threaded? The progress bars on file copies/etc are not updated when a menu is selected, or when the mouse is held down
- Random lock-up when multiple files are selected and accessing the contextual menu and choosing Open With
- Lack of option to change icon spacing

You really have experienced all of these problems? The only one I've encountered is the last, something that doesn't bother. And I've done my fair share of previewing (gig+ DV files). Hmmm, I'll look out for problems, but for the moment, 10.3's Finder is a great improvement over 10.2.

[Jasoco]

Originally posted by typoon:
Something people seem to not be talking about is Expose. that to me is one feature that Makes Panther worth the $129. I for one like the new finder. It's much better than the Jag finder or the OS 9 finder IMO. Also the speed increase from Jag to me is worth it as well. there are also a lot of minor refinements that make me enjoy Panther much more than Jag and make me feel it is worth the $129 upgrade. I for one will keep upgrading my OS when Apple releases a new one. Firstly because I want to support Apple and help Make OS X even better, second because I'm going to need it to support customers when they buy a new Mac that will have the New OS on it.

Ditto.

Expos� is well worth the $130.

Originally posted by Stradlater:
You really have experienced all of these problems? The only one I've encountered is the last, something that doesn't bother. And I've done my fair share of previewing (gig+ DV files). Hmmm, I'll look out for problems, but for the moment, 10.3's Finder is a great improvement over 10.2.

Yes. He is correct. 10.3 Finder is THE ABSOLUTE BUGGIEST YET.

In fact, if it weren't for Expos�, I wouldn't think it was worth it.

Mail has been "Fixed" in a way I can't change and I don't like, but I have to live with it. Where's the ****ing option to NOT Go Offline when a server can't be accessed? ****ING ****ERS **** MAIL ****ING ****. I want my old Mail. Mail that doesn't go offline and bounce out of ****ing control when MacOSX.com mail goes down every night for maintanence. Which it DOES and it cauises Mail to totally piss me off. ****ING ****!!! This is my biggest gripe.

Networking doesn't work how it should. I can't even connect to OS 9 on my 8100 anymore. I could in 10.2. And what the **** did they do to the layout? Why change what works to something less as cool? I miss 10.2 Networking.

Fix the damn Finder. Fix it. Make it not crash when doing something simple like updating an icon preview. Make it so if I click an AVI file in the Finder with Column view, it won't show me that stupid "Quicktime can't view this. May need to update..." message. ****ING ****!!

Fix Safari's ****ing God damn memory leak that makes it slow to a crawl after 10 minutes.

Fix the System Events. It is used so much in this OS. It is used to send commands from one app to another. And it's overused which slows the system so freaking much. Geeze. FIX IT DAMMIT!

They changed my ABSOLUTE favorite thing in 10.2 in the Finder. When you rename a file so as to change its extension, it would ask you and if you pushed ESC, which was easy as pie, it would change the extension. (Enter would cancel it and not change the filename.) NOW in 10.3, if you hit ESC it would cancel as well... though, now I'm trying to test it and it's not even asking me before changing the extension... guess it fixed itself.. I guess. Weird.

Every year I look forward to seeing the new features. But this year, I'll be satisfied if they fix the Finder and put Mail back to normal. BACK TO ****ING NORMAL, GOD DAMMIT!

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Jasoco:
They changed my ABSOLUTE favorite thing in 10.2 in the Finder. When you rename a file so as to change its extension, it would ask you and if you pushed ESC, which was easy as pie, it would change the extension. (Enter would cancel it and not change the filename.) NOW in 10.3, if you hit ESC it would cancel as well... though, now I'm trying to test it and it's not even asking me before changing the extension... guess it fixed itself.. I guess. Weird.

It's Command-Escape to do that now. And the dialog doesn't show up at all if you turn on "Always Show File Extensions."

[Jasoco]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
It's Command-Escape to do that now. And the dialog doesn't show up at all if you turn on "Always Show File Extensions."

Yeah. I guess I discovered that. But I could have sworn it showed up before and I hadn't changed the option. Whatever. I love extensions, so it's fine this way.

But someone please teach Mail to fix itself and I'll be a happy HAPPY guy. Because right now, I'm NOT happy with Apple OR MacOSX.com.. or Comcast as they go down once in a while too. I should NOT have to keep having to go back online just because Mail ASSUMES that the server that it was trying to connect to doesn't exist anymore. WHAT THE ****? Assumptions made by Mail make me go Bonkers.

[Toyin]

I said :
Not really. Linux PPC, Darwin, OS9 and I'm sure there are other ways to use a Mac without OSX.

Originally posted by redJag:
There are other ways to use an operating system without a Mac, too, what exactly does this statement prove? Economics is very simple: if you don't feel something is worth the price, do not buy it. As a developer I'm certain I'm biased, but you do not get things for free, plain and simple. Bug fixes, security updates, corrections to flaws in something you've paid for - those should be, and are, free. New features shouldn't be.

This was in response to the assumption the Macintosh was useless without OSX.

...and last I checked I installed Linux PPC on my PM 6500 for free. The value of software is variable and depends on a number of criteria. Say someone decides to make the develop a similar product to yours, and distribute if for free. If there product is as good as yours and they can capture your markets attention, you're product essentially becomes worth nothing.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Toyin:
I said :
Not really. Linux PPC, Darwin, OS9 and I'm sure there are other ways to use a Mac without OSX.
This was in response to the assumption the Macintosh was useless without OSX.

You should go back and read my original comment. You did not read what I had actually written.

I said the Mac was useless w/o apps or OS. I didn't say OS X, I didn't say any OS and actually it's also irrelevant for this argument.

The point was that a Mac w/o software (OS, apps, any code actually) is a useless piece of plastic and metal. You just didn't understand that point.

Just for the record, this is the original comment

Originally posted by Simon:
Your Mac without the OS or apps (or any software actually) wouldn't be worth a single penny to you either.

[Toyin]

Originally posted by Simon:
You should go back and read my original comment. You did not read what I had actually written.

I said the Mac was useless w/o apps or OS. I didn't say OS X, I didn't say any OS and actually it's also irrelevant for this argument.

The point was that a Mac w/o software (OS, apps, any code actually) is a useless piece of plastic and metal. You just didn't understand that point.

Just for the record, this is the original comment

I give up. The original argument was that hardware and software both have value. Hardware even without and OS and even with apps has value. Software does not.

I'm done.

[Moose]

Originally posted by cowerd:
If Apple is going to make any inroads into enterprise yearly upgrades aren't going to cut it. Yearly upgrades don't help in areas like education either.

Most of the vendors who pander to the "enterprise market" (Sun, IBM, HP, etc.) offer software subscriptions, which are a fixed, yearly cost per server for a particular software tier (the terms generally vary, but that's essentially what the contracts say). So, if Apple is going to make any inroads into the "enterprise market," then they'd do well to offer such a thing for Mac OS X and not just Mac OS X Server.

This would actually help in the education market as well if the price wasn't insane. It's much more palatable for school systems to pay the same (smallish) price every year instead of a big price every three years or so. School income is largely fixed, with $X/$X/$X from federal, state, and local government, so there isn't a lot of wiggle room for budget fluctuations.

Budgeting is a messy proposition in both the education and corporate worlds. The bottom line is that Those Who Control The Money do not at all like having different things on the budget every year.

The larger the organization, the more sense software subscriptions make. It's amazing how indignant everybody got when Microsoft started doing it, because The Big Boys have been doing it for years.

[jon l. dawson]

Look, I don't think too many people are saying that the features added in OS X revisions have no value. The problem is that you're not only paying for features, you're paying for fixes.

To bring the flawed analogy back, if you bought a Honda and one of its features was completely broken or the steering wheel was prone to locking up, you'd expect to have it fixed, wouldn't you? There's another distinction between software and hardware: hardware comes with a warranty, and software usually doesn't. We leave it up to Apple to decide when they want to stop supporting an OS with fixes and patches. Why is it acceptable to advertise a particular feature set in an OS, deliver it in a less than functional state and say to your customers, "Sure, it was broken, but for the low low price of $129 you can get an improved version!"

I'm perfectly fine with upgrading my OS to 10.4 when it comes out, provided it has enough features (as 10.2 and 10.3 did) to justify the cost. What worries me is: what if it doesn't? Am I going to feel forced to upgrade anyway?

[JLL]

Originally posted by Moose:
Most of the vendors who pander to the "enterprise market" (Sun, IBM, HP, etc.) offer software subscriptions, which are a fixed, yearly cost per server for a particular software tier (the terms generally vary, but that's essentially what the contracts say). So, if Apple is going to make any inroads into the "enterprise market," then they'd do well to offer such a thing for Mac OS X and not just Mac OS X Server.

They do.

[Angus_D]

Oh and as far as 10.4's release date goes, there'll probably be some statement at WWDC. Probably something along the lines of "before the end of the year" or something like that

[Angus_D]

Nobody replied to my post before, but don't you think that there should be a substantial discount for those that own the preceding point release? If 10.4 cost $69 for Panther owners but $129 for everyone else, I don't think there'd be as much complaining.

[Moose]

Originally posted by JLL:
They do.

Not quite.

What Apple offers for Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (I was mistaken about this) is a three-year term, lump sum up front, maintenance agreement. They don't offer a yearly payment.

[OpenStep]

All you guys say stick with Jaguar if you like it. I don't see a problem with this unless it comes time updated key apps (like MS Office 2004) are released and require 10.3. Sticking with 10.2 may be fine for now until you hit a brick wall when a new app you buy requires 10.3 and forces you to upgrade to panther.

[redJag]

Originally posted by OpenStep:
All you guys say stick with Jaguar if you like it. I don't see a problem with this unless it comes time updated key apps (like MS Office 2004) are released and require 10.3. Sticking with 10.2 may be fine for now until you hit a brick wall when a new app you buy requires 10.3 and forces you to upgrade to panther.

At which point it becomes worth the upgrade to you, so you pay. If paying for panther is too much for your wallet, it should outweigh your wanting to use MS Office2k4. The point is, no one is forcing you to use applications that require a new OS. Perhaps these apps require a new OS for a reason - the new OS is better.

[mikerally]

The pricing scheme is quite strange.

You could have bought an original bondi blue iMac 233Mhz in August 1998 running Mac OS 8.1 and still upgrade to Mac OS X 10.3.2 for the same price as someone who bought an eMac running Mac OS X 10.2.6.

To be perfectly honest, Apple never asked you to purchase Mac OS X 10.0.0, 10.1.0, and 10.2.0. You could have stuck with Mac OS 9 until you thought you were ready.

The reality is, however, a lot of people purchased Macs running Jaguar, which lacks a few Mac OS 9.0 features that Panther brings back (Labels and Scheduled Startup and Shutdown to name two). Panther also fixes a few bugs with emptying the trash that were never fixed in Jaguar (Jaguar uses, try emptying the trash with locked items in it by pressing Command + Option + Shift + Delete - doesn't work does it? Although it should. It works perfectly fine in Mac OS 9 and Panther). Other things like slow *slow* access to USB Zip drives and keyrings in Jag have been fixed in Panther.

There are also reasons not to upgrade either, particulary if you are not confident in Panther's network browsing ability (although it seems to work correctly most of the time for me).

I don't really see what the major problem is with sticking with Jaguar and saving you money for 10.4 or 10.5 even. Mac OS X 10.1 users can upgrade to 10.3 for the same price as 10.2 users.

How about you save your money and upgrade your Mac OS when it's particulary necessary or relevant for you?

That's the beauty of this pricing scheme - you can probably stick with Jaguar until Mac OS X 10.6 or 10.8 or whatever - and still pay the same price as everyone else to upgrade.

As Mac OS X continues to develop and get better, the less you will need to buy annual updates - besides the update cycle has been steadily getting longer anyway, I don't think we will be seeing 10.4 until 2005 anyway.

I'm afraid if you want to be on the cutting edge and have the latest OS everytime it comes out - you have to pay for it - how about you wait until Mac OS X is ready for you?