[ballmann]

during my research on the web regarding news about xserve i found this on the macnn homepage: "Xserve will not include Jaguar Server, announced last week at WWDC. It will be a paid upgrade."

does this mean the "client"-version of jaguar won�t be an (free) update but an (paid) upgrade too?

[KaptainKaya]

Originally posted by ballmann:
<STRONG>during my research on the web regarding news about xserve i found this on the macnn homepage: "Xserve will not include Jaguar Server, announced last week at WWDC. It will be a paid upgrade."

does this mean the "client"-version of jaguar won�t be an (free) update but an (paid) upgrade too?</STRONG>

It might be. I would hope there is an upgrade option like with 10.1 but this is Apple we're discussing

[mrtew]

It better not be or half of the three million people that have OSX on their computers will say forget it and stick with 10.1.4. I don't think it would be a good idea to start charging again until they have at least half the Mac users convinced that OSX is a good idea, not just a cash cow for Apple.

[piracy]

Hate to break it to you guys, but considering that OS X will have been out for a year and a half with all interim updates being free[1] by the time Jaguar is released, it is perfectly acceptable for it to be a paid upgrade.

[1] Mac OS X 10.1 was a free upgrade, regardless of whether you chose to pay Apple $20 to get it on CD.

[Mr. Blur]

That does seem to be a very good clue that Jag will be a paid upgrade. I can live with that as long as they have an *upgrade price* (ie: not $99 or $129 but something like half that....) - those upgrade coupons they put in all the boxed versions must be good for something!

[theolein]

I would pay even though I'm not exactly well endowed in money. OSX has been out for more than a year and I haven't paid for any upgrades yet. In the last year I paid for a new SuSE Linux, although I could theoretically have downloaded the 6GB from their website, but I believe that they can charge whatever they like. It's up to me to buy it or not. And I seriously doubt "that half of all the OSX users" will not pay for an upgrade. Some will try to get their OSX from Hotline or Carracho but most will pay for the upgrade.

[one]

"Mr. Blur" wrote": <STRONG> ...those upgrade coupons they put in all the boxed versions must be good for something! </STRONG>

I know there are plenty of folks around here who've been Mac users much longer than I have, but surely I'm not the only one who remembers the Up-To-Date program?

IIRC, here's how it works:

MacOS (version-number) coupon + USD 20 = next full-retail version

Of course, you don't have to upgrade to the next full-retail version, but that means that when you DO upgrade, it will be for full retail PRICE.

Big hint here: if you keep your OS "up to date" with each new version, you may never have to pay full price again. (Darn that Apple & its gouging ways! )

Of course, the decision is up to you.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

10.2 is going to cost you money. The last time you bought OSX was almost 2 years ago by the time this upgrade comes out. Get over it, cut some lawns, save your money.

[foamy]

Yes.

You will have to pay for Jaguar.

Get over it.

You probably have a few thousand dollars worth of equiptment in front of you, so paying 49.00 or even 99.00 is not the end of the world.

[edddeduck]

Originally posted by foamy:
<STRONG>Yes.

You will have to pay for Jaguar.

Get over it.

You probably have a few thousand dollars worth of equiptment in front of you, so paying 49.00 or even 99.00 is not the end of the world.</STRONG>

Damn good point

Edwin

[TheTraveller]

There's no way Jaguar is going to be free. It represents a lot of work on Apple's part and is a substantial improvement over 10.1. Get ready to fork over $49 for an upgrade. That's what my finger-in-the-wind says.

[mrtew]

If 22 million out of 25 million Apple users are still using the Classic OS do you really think that Apple can make more money by trying to squeak $45 or $100 out of the 1-3 million existing OSX users or by convincing the other 20 million to invest $120 in the WorldMostAdvancedOperatingSystem with the assurance that they won't be asked for another hundred bucks in the next year or two.? (Apple's user numbers, not mine).

Like I said before, it's NOT because I am too cheap or too poor, I HAVE a great job and LOVE to spend money on my computers. It's because I really think it's good for Apple to get everyone up to speed and not further subdivide Mac users into 10.1 and 10.2 users, especially since there are certain to be incompatibilities. It's already a pain for programmers to write for the Mac with OS9 and OSX. I don't want to see us end up like the M$ 95,98,2K,NT,XP etc. crowd.

And if you are really concerned about Apple recouping their programming investment just run the numbers!!!

3million x $100 = 300 million dollars if every 10.1 OWNER upgrades
(only 1million people actually USE OSX according to Steve)

20million x $120 = 2.4 BILLION dollars if every OS8 and OS9 owner upgrades.
(some can't upgrade and will buy new computers if OSX seems like a good idea.)

It's not that I think every two years is too often to ask for money for the OS (although I actually think the OS should be free with the Macs and fully upgradable for free since Apple is a hardware company and the OS is the enticement, not the money maker). It's that I think the OS is too young and unaccepted still to be considered out of date and in need of an Upgrade already. MOST Mac users by FAR are still thinking about upgrading to OSX and you want Apple to tell the people that already have that they need to Upgrade AGAIN!
I just don't think it's wise. I will buy it, certainlyl YOU will buy it, but I don't think 20 million Mac users will buy it. They will see OSX as a questionable money pit and after having heard that two years and $250 on it's STILL not as 'good' as the free OS9 they've been perfectly happy with for three years and they will just stay put. Not good for Apple, not good for OSX, not good for them, not good for us.
Does anyone see my point or will there just be another 15 posts saying, "Get a job and pay up cheapskate, it's gonna cost you!"

[Brass]

Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
<STRONG>If 22 million out of 25 million Apple users are still using the Classic OS do you really think that Apple can make more money by trying to squeak $45 or $100 out of the 1-3 million existing OSX users or by convincing the other 20 million to invest $120 in the WorldMostAdvancedOperatingSystem with the assurance that they won't be asked for another hundred bucks in the next year or two.? (Apple's user numbers, not mine).

Like I said before, it's NOT because I am too cheap or too poor, I HAVE a great job and LOVE to spend money on my computers. It's because I really think it's good for Apple to get everyone up to speed and not further subdivide Mac users into 10.1 and 10.2 users, especially since there are certain to be incompatibilities. It's already a pain for programmers to write for the Mac with OS9 and OSX. I don't want to see us end up like the M$ 95,98,2K,NT,XP etc. crowd.

And if you are really concerned about Apple recouping their programming investment just run the numbers!!!

3million x $100 = 300 million dollars if every 10.1 OWNER upgrades
(only 1million people actually USE OSX according to Steve)

20million x $120 = 2.4 BILLION dollars if every OS8 and OS9 owner upgrades.
(some can't upgrade and will buy new computers if OSX seems like a good idea.)

It's not that I think every two years is too often to ask for money for the OS (although I actually think the OS should be free with the Macs and fully upgradable for free since Apple is a hardware company and the OS is the enticement, not the money maker). It's that I think the OS is too young and unaccepted still to be considered out of date and in need of an Upgrade already. MOST Mac users by FAR are still thinking about upgrading to OSX and you want Apple to tell the people that already have that they need to Upgrade AGAIN!
I just don't think it's wise. I will buy it, certainlyl YOU will buy it, but I don't think 20 million Mac users will buy it. They will see OSX as a questionable money pit and after having heard that two years and $250 on it's STILL not as 'good' as the free OS9 they've been perfectly happy with for three years and they will just stay put. Not good for Apple, not good for OSX, not good for them, not good for us.
Does anyone see my point or will there just be another 15 posts saying, "Get a job and pay up cheapskate, it's gonna cost you!"</STRONG>

I'm not sure I follow your point

How does Apple making the next upgrade a free upgrade or a paid upgrade, affect people who haven't yet purchased Mac OS X at all? Apart from the very few (relatively) people who might purchase OS X in the 4 months before Jaguar is released, it doesn't really affect them at all.

The VAST majority of people currently using OS 8 or 9, will NOT be purchasing OS X in the next 4 months, but more likely over the next 18 months (particularly if they know there is a major upgrade about to be released). To them, it matters not what upgrades cost before they buy the full version of the product for the first time.

Or have I completely missinterpreded what you were getting at? (entirely possible )

[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: Brass ]

[Fillman]

I doubt that anyone currently using OS8 will ever upgrade that system to OSX. Chances are their Mac is not up to the required spec.

Most of the new OS development costs for jaguar and future sons of jaguar will be recouped from the OS charges built into the purchase price of new macs.

The rest of us will fork out the readies and get an upgrade.

We will be happy... So will Apple....

[NeilCharter]

Fact is most Mac users do not upgrade the OS on their machine EVER.

There maybe be 25 million Macs out there but only a few will be bothered to upgrade to X

The only way Apple will get everyone to run OS X will be when everyone buys a new machine with OS X as the default.

10.2 will be the same deal as 10.1. No question.

Want 10.2 for free? Buy a new Mac after 10.2 is released.

ps. make sure you don't buy old stock with 10.1 on it!

[Brass]

Originally posted by NeilCharter:
<STRONG>Fact is most Mac users do not upgrade the OS on their machine EVER.
</STRONG>

hmmm... that might be a bit of an exaggeration. Most Mac users I know keep their machines for 3 to 5 years before replacing the machine, and yet they are always running the latest or second-to-latest version of the OS. The OS gets a significant about once a year, so that means at least 3 upgrades for every Mac.

Of course, I'm only speaking for the users I know personally and through business. Other people may do things differently.

[reyes]

i will buy it just for the unix software (CUPS is a good example). If the interface gets another over haul then that is just a bonus for me.

[aafuss]

Well, I think Jaguar should be a paid upgrade, not free-unless you get it wiuth a new mac.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by Brass:
<STRONG>

I'm not sure I follow your point

How does Apple making the next upgrade a free upgrade or a paid upgrade, affect people who haven't yet purchased Mac OS X at all? Apart from the very few (relatively) people who might purchase OS X in the 4 months before Jaguar is released, it doesn't really affect them at all.

The VAST majority of people currently using OS 8 or 9, will NOT be purchasing OS X in the next 4 months, but more likely over the next 18 months (particularly if they know there is a major upgrade about to be released). To them, it matters not what upgrades cost before they buy the full version of the product for the first time.

Or have I completely missinterpreded what you were getting at? (entirely possible )</STRONG>

I'll say it in short form this time....

I think people will be more likely to buy OSX now or in 4 months if they know that it will be an investment that will last them for a LONG time. Non computer freaks don't want to pay $100-$150 every year or two. The nerds that hang out here thing that's reasonable, but most people think that's a lot of money when the computer's working fine as it is. If you pay ONCE to get OSX and then upgrades are free people will be easier to convince that it's a wise purchase, but if the money's just a ticket to a never ending series of paid upgrades, they will just stick with OS9.

Originally posted by NeilCharter:
<STRONG>10.2 will be the same deal as 10.1. No question.
Want 10.2 for free? Buy a new Mac after 10.2 is released.
</STRONG>

I think you are contradicting yourself. If 10.2 is the same deal as 10.1 then it will be free too, and I won't have to buy another $3000 dollar Mac to get it for 'free'.

[superblue]

"The nerds that hang out here thing that's reasonable, but most people think that's a lot of money when the computer's working fine as it is."

Yes, well that's the point isn't it. OSX hasn't worked fine since day one. At least not to a level comparable with OS9 or for that matter, comparable with what Apple lead us to believe.

I've run every version of OSX from the first release, eagerly upgrading in the hope that THIS time it'll become what it promises. I'm running a 500mhz dual iBook, 384MB which shipped with OSX. I know it runs better on G4s, and I accept that with regard to processor intensive jobs - burning Cds, ripping MP3s, DV, PShop work etc. but internet browsing is slow, the finder is slow, menus are slow, that damn beachball appears far too often.... Mail is VERY unstable and severely lacking in features.

This just isn't acceptable, and I resent paying for an upgrade that might just (if I'm lucky this time) give me an OS which does what it says on the box.

I will pay for it, as I love OSX (even with the sluggishness) and crave a system that doesn't make me wait. And I don't believe in ripping off software, music, ideas or anything else for that matter. But the way I see it, Apple still owe me - they haven't delivered what they promised me. If OSX will only ever run 'properly' on a G4 system then that should have been stated, but my iBook's less than a year old, I'm up to 10.1.4 and it's still offers far less than 'unprecedented performance'.

[bojangles]

Well, I’m on my tenth version of Mac OS X (10.0, 10.0.1, 10.0.2, 10.0.3, 10.0.4, 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, 10.1.3, 10.1.4) and I still never use it. Every time I upgrade, I hope the new version will allow me to print, scan, or burn CD’s from my G3/266 (a “supported” machine). I’ve been disappointed every time. Even if Jaguar brings these abilities (which I doubt it will), why should I have to pay for to upgrade an OS that, despite meeting the requirements, I was never able to use in the first place? And if it doesn’t bring these abilities, then why should I upgrade to another useless OS?

Just for the record, I love X. I love the way it looks, the way it runs (10.1.x is quite smooth on my G3/266, despite others’ complaints), the very idea of X. I love the Unix underpinnings. I love the number of programs we Macqies have become heirs to because of the Unix. But I don’t love the fact that when I’m booted into X, I can’t get anything into or out of my computer. I don’t love the lack of serial and SCSI (and, to a much lesser extent, floppy) support when Apple still claims that several million machines that use these technologies are “supported.” I bought my G3 to help with my business (which eventually failed), and though I’ve now been through college and have a good job, I’m not going to be buying another Mac until I finish paying off my old one (and, preferably, my college loans) — nor will I buy Jaguar if it’s as useless to me as Puma.

Just my 2�.

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: bojangles ]

[schwa]

Boy, the sense of entitlement among many of you is appalling.

"Until X does what *I* need it to, I won't pay for an upgrade." Fine, don't. Honestly, Apple probably doesn't care, because it's an indication that you'll never be the kind of loyal customer businesses covet. You don't have to like it, but accept it.

"I bought 10. Why pay for 10.2?" IIRC, I paid for 7.5, 8, and 9, among others. 10.2 is a significant upgrade, not a bug fix.

As someone pointed out, most people never upgrade their OS. In Microsoft's world, OS upgrades drive hardware upgrades. In Apple's world, this isn't the case, since people tend not to upgrade Macs piecemeal (though I will concede that many will upgrade their gfx cards for 10.2). Most people "upgrade" by buying a new computer, which comes bundled with a new OS. Individual upgrade prices tend to be in place less for the individual and more for leverage when negotiating larger upgrade deals for corporations.

[hmurchison2001]

John Tewksbury

Apple is not a charity. They have to pay for the Software/Hardware Engineers that have busted their a**es to bring you updates.

When you run your own company and test your ideals with success(get familiar with Bankruptcy Procedures IMO) then I will concur with your ideas. Computers are constantly evolving and NO one on these boards is hurting that bad for money(Your internet connection is still running).

[lookmark]

The question isn't whether Apple will charge for this update (duh!), but how much.

Something less than the usual upgrade price of $99 ($49? $79?) would be a nice gesture for those who have bought, advocated for, and supported OS X.

[bojangles]

I understand that Apple has to pay their employees. To quote lookmark, “Duh.” I just feel hurt that Apple — a company I support both vocally and financially — would tell me that my G3 is “supported.” In my book, saying, “You can do anything except print, scan, and use removeable media” does not qualify as supported. If they had said my machine wasn’t supported in the first place — for example, if they had said that B&W G3s were supported, but not beige G3s — I wouldn’t have complained a bit. If they’d even admitted that serial printing and SCSI devices were not supported, I’d probably hold my tongue. But they didn’t, and because they didn’t, I forked over my hard-earned cash for an OS that doesn’t realistically work on my offically supported machine.

I don’t think printing and CD burning are unreasonable requests, do you?

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: bojangles ]

[Kickaha]

Bojangles, is this a 3rd party driver issue, or a SCSI/serial issue?

MacOS X does in fact support SCSI and serial ports... but the drivers for such devices are few and far between, and that *isn't* Apple's responsibility. They provide the infrastructure. The peripheral manufacturers provide the drivers.

Heck, I have an ATA Castlewood ORB internal drive on my B/W G3 that has *NEVER* worked, and it's my main backup device. I have to boot into 9 to use Retrospect Express to back up to it. Is it Apple's fault? Heck no. It's Castlewood's for being such an incredibly backasswards company that they configured an ATAPI device to report itself as ATA (non-removable) and the OS acts accordingly... *AND* they refuse to produce a driver for it, *OR* allow anyone else to have access to the information to produce one. I've tried repeatedly over the last two years, and keep getting told "We'll get back to you." &lt;--- Blatant and obvious plea for any IOKit gurus out there to lend me hand with simply producing a driver that reports back correct ATA/removable status. It should just be overriding a small number of routines in the base IOATABlockSupport class to return the appropriate booleans, but I don't have the base experience to go working in IOKit. :/

[Leia's Right Bun]

Originally posted by Kickaha:
<STRONG>
Heck, I have an ATA Castlewood ORB internal drive on my B/W G3 that has *NEVER* worked, and it's my main backup device. </STRONG>

I have a SCSI ORB drive with the USB adapter that it came with and it has worked 100% since DP3 with no drivers.

[TNproud2b]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
<STRONG>John Tewksbury

Apple is not a charity. They have to pay for the Software/Hardware Engineers that have busted their a**es to bring you updates.

When you run your own company and test your ideals with success(get familiar with Bankruptcy Procedures IMO) then I will concur with your ideas. Computers are constantly evolving and NO one on these boards is hurting that bad for money(Your internet connection is still running).</STRONG>

I seriously doubt there has been any 'ass-busting' done by Apple engineers. A year later and the OS still isn't complete.

Rewarding slackers with a paycheck might bankrupt a company, too.

[bojangles]

Kickaha - I concur on the printer and ORB thing. (I have an ORB 2.2G, as well.) But have you heard of anyone getting a SCSI scanner to work with Mac OS X? If it’s just a driver issue, I don’t know why someone hasn’t come up with something. (Of course, stranger things have happened....)

As for the CD burning, I know it’s an Apple issue — both in Classic and X. Once upon a time, my Yamaha CRW4416S was officially supported by iTunes 1.1 (under 9.1 and X), and it always worked beautifully. I could burn CD-R’s, CD-RW’s, and MP3D’s, but as soon as I upgraded to iTunes 1.1.1, that functionality was gone — and it’s never returned. (And no, I’m not going to give up the features of iTunes 2.x — which I love — to get back that ability. That’s what Toast is for. I’d just like to be able to use Disc Burner/iTunes again, if I want to.)

Anyway, the issue at hand is not so much what Apple should/shouldn’t do as it is whether or not I’m willing to pay for Jaguar. Regardless of whose fault it is, an OS I can’t use is an OS I can’t use. If I can’t use Jaguar any more than I can Puma, I’m not willing to pay for the upgrade.

Just my 2�.

[Leonard]

As many have said, this is a major feature-rich upgrade so my guess is you're going to be paying $49 for the upgrade. I can't see why everyone is complaining. Half of you, like me, didn't pay for your original MacOS X anyways. Like me, you probably got it pre-installed with your system. The other half probably bought it over a year ago.

Quit whining...

If anything, Apple should be charging more for the OS and upgrades. What's the current cost of Adobe Photoshop or Final Cut Pro. And don't tell me the MacOS (with all the included free i-apps) isn't as complex as those software packages.

[snomac]

Really, who likes to pay for anything unless they have to, and even then people will complain about it. If you really don't want to pay, then use Carracho or Hotline come September and quit b!tching. I'll pay the fee because it brings a lot of improvements to the table, and seems to be even more significant of an upgrade than 10.1 was.

[mrtew]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
<STRONG>John Tewksbury

Apple is not a charity. They have to pay for the Software/Hardware Engineers that have busted their a**es to bring you updates.

Computers are constantly evolving and NO one on these boards is hurting that bad for money (Your internet connection is still running).</STRONG>

Since you obviously didn't read a word I said I will repeat....

I think that Apple will make more money by selling OSX to the 20 million Mac users that haven't bought it yet than by selling it AGAIN to the three million that have bought it. How does that imply that I think Apple is a charity???

And why insinuate that I was crying poor? I specifically said that I have a GREAT job, lots of money, and love to spend it on my Mac and WILL buy 10.2 if they charge for it. I am thinking about what would be good for Apple, not for me. Hell, I will probably buy a new Powerbook just for 10.2 since my 6 month old, $3500 Ti667 will barely be able to take advantage of the biggest advancement 10.2 contains!

Now go back and re-read that before you reply already!

[Brass]

Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
<STRONG>
I'll say it in short form this time....

I think people will be more likely to buy OSX now or in 4 months if they know that it will be an investment that will last them for a LONG time. Non computer freaks don't want to pay $100-$150 every year or two. The nerds that hang out here thing that's reasonable, but most people think that's a lot of money when the computer's working fine as it is. If you pay ONCE to get OSX and then upgrades are free people will be easier to convince that it's a wise purchase, but if the money's just a ticket to a never ending series of paid upgrades, they will just stick with OS9.
</STRONG>

Ah, well at least I get what you're saying now. People may think that way, but really that's a bit unreasonable.

To NEVER pay for an upgrade? I've never heard of any commercial software that works that way.

Or if you don't mean never, how often is reasonable. You certainly stated that 2 years is too often, and that in general upgrades should be free (implying indefinitely).

[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Brass ]

[mrtew]

Originally posted by Brass:
<STRONG> To NEVER pay for an upgrade? I've never heard of any commercial software that works that way. Or if you don't mean never, how often is reasonable. You certainly stated that 2 years is too often, and that in general upgrades should be free (implying indefinitely). </STRONG>

I guess I just don't think that the Mac OS should really be thought of as commercial software. Apple is a hardware company. I think it should be considered part of the computer and I think it would be in Apple's best interests to keep everyone up to date.

A lot of people say that OSX will be two years old and it's OK to charge again for it now. But what about my friend Tom who just bought it last month? He has to pay again in four months? And what about the guy I saw buying a Mac at CompUSA yesterday. He needs to pay again?

Oh, never mind, you guys want to pay again so bad... I hope you are happy if your wish comes true. Poor, poor Apple needs the money anyway. I don't see how they are going to get people to pay based on the magic of QuartzExtreme that won't work on most Macs though!

[theolein]

Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
<STRONG>If 22 million out of 25 million Apple users are still using the Classic OS do you really think that Apple can make more money by trying to squeak $45 or $100 out of the 1-3 million existing OSX users or by convincing the other 20 million to invest $120 in the WorldMostAdvancedOperatingSystem with the assurance that they won't be asked for another hundred bucks in the next year or two.? (Apple's user numbers, not mine).

Like I said before, it's NOT because I am too cheap or too poor, I HAVE a great job and LOVE to spend money on my computers. It's because I really think it's good for Apple to get everyone up to speed and not further subdivide Mac users into 10.1 and 10.2 users, especially since there are certain to be incompatibilities. It's already a pain for programmers to write for the Mac with OS9 and OSX. I don't want to see us end up like the M$ 95,98,2K,NT,XP etc. crowd.

And if you are really concerned about Apple recouping their programming investment just run the numbers!!!

3million x $100 = 300 million dollars if every 10.1 OWNER upgrades
(only 1million people actually USE OSX according to Steve)

20million x $120 = 2.4 BILLION dollars if every OS8 and OS9 owner upgrades.
(some can't upgrade and will buy new computers if OSX seems like a good idea.)

It's not that I think every two years is too often to ask for money for the OS (although I actually think the OS should be free with the Macs and fully upgradable for free since Apple is a hardware company and the OS is the enticement, not the money maker). It's that I think the OS is too young and unaccepted still to be considered out of date and in need of an Upgrade already. MOST Mac users by FAR are still thinking about upgrading to OSX and you want Apple to tell the people that already have that they need to Upgrade AGAIN!
I just don't think it's wise. I will buy it, certainlyl YOU will buy it, but I don't think 20 million Mac users will buy it. They will see OSX as a questionable money pit and after having heard that two years and $250 on it's STILL not as 'good' as the free OS9 they've been perfectly happy with for three years and they will just stay put. Not good for Apple, not good for OSX, not good for them, not good for us.
Does anyone see my point or will there just be another 15 posts saying, "Get a job and pay up cheapskate, it's gonna cost you!"</STRONG>

I can't say I agree with your numbers there John. Some things to consider:
1.Irrespective of how many people run OSX, up until now everyone who runs OSX has upgraded to the latest version of the system for the simple fact that it has become faster and had less bugs and supported more hardware. 10.1 is better on my old Lombard than 10.0 was. And I don't even use any of the iApps. Those who use OSX will upgrade even if they don't have hardware that supports Quartz extreme, because even then, 10.2 will be faster and offer more services (CUPS, Rendezvous, better SMB/CIFS suppport, Spring loaded folders etc).
2.Apple will most probably make this a paying upgrade. They backed down on 10.1, but I don't think they will do it again. Apple will probably have upgrade prices for those who already have OSX, and will probably offer it for free to people who bought a Mac within a certain time period before 10.2 was pre-installed on machines. I think only those buying the osx box will pay full price. Perhaps, Apple will charge everyone the full $129. I'll see when it's released. I'm sure there are loads of people who will not upgrade to OSX, but I seriously doubt those people will whatever Apple does.

Apple seems to have some sort of a cloack and dagger campign against SCSI, in that while not hindering it, they are not exactly pushing hardware makers into writing drivers for this, and SCSI hardware makers, a dying breed to be sure, since most peripherals now use USB or Firewire, have no incentive to write SCSI drivers since very few people are going to go out and buy new SCSI cards for their new Macs, and those that do will usually be using it for SCSI drives, which work in any case. So if you use a SCSI scanner I think you're better off using OS9 or switching to windows.

[superblue]

If I buy a new car that comes out of the garage with problems, I don't expect to have to keep paying the dealer to remove those problems.

I see OSX in the same way - it's not been right since day one. I'm more than happy to pay for upgrades for new features, as I can evaluate these new features against my current system, and think "yeah, that looks good - I want that" but all I want from 10.2 is an OS that works like it has always claimed to, and for many users, has never done.

The fact that it's by Apple, or that it's an upgrade (significant or otherwise) are irrelevant. I'm a consumer, I paid for a product, it doesn't work as well as it said it would.

As consumers we don't accept this kind of situation anywhere else, so why should we accept it with our software? Because we've no choice! We all love our Macs and love the OSX experience, and imperfect as it is, I still choose OSX over Windows.

As I said before, I'll pay because I don't want to steal it, but really, come on! Apple have many of its users over a barrel - going back to OS9 is of course workable, but hardly forward thinking with OS9 now 'officially dead'. The OSX I have now isn't good enough, so all I can do is move forward and pay again and again (potentially) until it works properly.

And to whoever said Apple are 'busting an ass' (I think that's what you said). Damn right! Why the hell shouldn't they be? I'm not about to start pitying Apple for working hard. I put a lot of my money into them, I wouldn't want it any other way! javascript: x()

[superblue]

Damn! How do those instant smilies work? I just dragged and dropped a wink into that last post and just got the javascript text! grr! &gt;

[superblue]

GYAAA! and that one I typed just worked!!!! I think I'll call it a day here.

[Kickaha]

Hmmm. I disagree... for what I do, 10.0 was a huge freakin' massive leap above 9.x in any incarnation. Of course, what I do is dissertation work in Computer Science focussing on deconstruction and analysis of object oriented systems, so the command line and developer tools are a godsend. Your mileage may, and probably does, vary.

Everything else after that has been gravy for me.

[masternew]

Jaguar IS going to be a paid upgrade period. Why are we even having this discussion?. Steve himself said that the OS X server Jaguar is gonna be a paid upgrade, is only reasonable that the client will be a paid upgrade like Mac OS X .1


My two cents

[Brass]

Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
<STRONG>

I guess I just don't think that the Mac OS should really be thought of as commercial software. Apple is a hardware company. I think it should be considered part of the computer and I think it would be in Apple's best interests to keep everyone up to date.
</STRONG>

Man I get sick of this argument, "Apple is a hardware company". Fair dinkum! Sony are a Hi-Fi company (or however else you want to define them). Does that mean they want to give everything else away for free? Sure the analogy is not perfect, as with Computers the software and hardware make the one system, however, Apple is not JUST a hardware company. They are a company with several sources of revenue, the primary one of which is computer hardware.

<STRONG>

A lot of people say that OSX will be two years old and it's OK to charge again for it now. But what about my friend Tom who just bought it last month? He has to pay again in four months? And what about the guy I saw buying a Mac at CompUSA yesterday. He needs to pay again?
</STRONG>

Well, for your friend Tom, and the guy in CompUSA, it's their choice really. They can wait until the new version of OS X comes out, and buy their computer then. They can buy it now, and not upgrade it until another version (or 2 or 3 or 10) comes out. How much free software do you expect a commercial entity to give away just to make their other stuff look good? There's got to be some limit.

<STRONG>
Oh, never mind, you guys want to pay again so bad... I hope you are happy if your wish comes true. Poor, poor Apple needs the money anyway. I don't see how they are going to get people to pay based on the magic of QuartzExtreme that won't work on most Macs though!</STRONG>

Just because some of us think it's reasonable to pay for an upgrade OCCAISIONALLY does not mean we WANT to pay for them ever. Your logic is really lacking here. I mean, do you think it's reasonable to pay for petrol when you fill up your car? Does that mean you WANT to spend money on petrol, or that you wouldn't like it if petrol was always free?

[milhous]

Although it is very possible that the next version of X will be a paid upgrade, what does this exactly mean? It could very well mean that the conditions of acquiring it may be very similar to that of obtaining 10.1.

Furthermore, 10.1 never completed the OS X transition timeframe (ala Jobs' hands on a clock).

We shall wait and see.

[Norm1985]

Wasn't 10.1 for server a paid upgrade? If I remember correctly, it was. And if that was the case, Jaguar for the Client may very well be a free upgrade.

[rek]

If this is a "paid" upgrade version, and not something that you can just download or get from apple for $20 to cover "shipping and handling" ... does that mean that the three software update coupons that I got with the new Mac I bought just yesterday will be useless?

I sure hope not.

[pathogen]

All I hope is that the Jaguar "upgrade" comes on a bootable CD and can do clean installs (which we all had to "make" for ourselves with good old 10.1 upgrade). I bet the coupons will count for some ort of discount.

Other than that, boo-freakin'-hoo if anyone's truly grumpy Apple will charge for the upgrade. "But when I buy a car, I expect the dealer to upgrade it to the newest model free every year because of the improvements in technology. Obviously my '99 Jetta was a work in progress if they then had to release a 2000 model, and I only want to pay for a finished product..." yikes-o-rama.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: pathogen ]

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
<STRONG>

Since you obviously didn't read a word I said I will repeat....

I think that Apple will make more money by selling OSX to the 20 million Mac users that haven't bought it yet than by selling it AGAIN to the three million that have bought it. How does that imply that I think Apple is a charity???

And why insinuate that I was crying poor? I specifically said that I have a GREAT job, lots of money, and love to spend it on my Mac and WILL buy 10.2 if they charge for it. I am thinking about what would be good for Apple, not for me. Hell, I will probably buy a new Powerbook just for 10.2 since my 6 month old, $3500 Ti667 will barely be able to take advantage of the biggest advancement 10.2 contains!

Now go back and re-read that before you reply already!</STRONG>

Your reasoning seems flawed. For those Mac users who don't have OS X, I doubt the major factor in deciding whether to buy the OS X upgrade is how often Apple charges for updates. What non-OS X users are thinking about is, "what does OS X do for me that my current Mac OS does NOT do?", and unless these users can think of a convincing reason to buy OS X, they aren't upgrading. Even if, after buying OS X, they were guaranteed free updates for the life of their computer, they would STILL need a more convincing reason to buy OS X in the first place.

Jaguar is exactly the sort of improvement Apple should be working on if they want to coax pre-Mac OS X users into upgrading. Features, functionality, and usability; these are all addressed in Jaguar, and they are the factors most likely considered by Mac users deciding to upgrade from their current Mac OS. IF they think OS X is a significant improvement over their current Mac OS, then they update.

[Bernard Ducamp]

Someone Complained: If 22 million out of 25 million Apple users are still using the Classic OS do you really think that Apple can make more money by trying to squeak $45 or $100 out of the 1-3 million existing OSX users or by convincing the other 20 million to invest $120 in the "World's Most Advanced Operating System" with the assurance that they won't be asked for another hundred bucks in the next year or two.? (Apple's user numbers, not mine).
----------------------
HEY!! Go over to the M/$ Windows World and find out how much $$$ per copy Billy G. and Commander Ballmer are squeezing the PC world for. Apple's OS X doesn't cost too much, when you consider how much is in there. You can spend just as much or more money or Windows XP and get the "Greatest Show on Earth" (Microsoft assures me that it is.) Better yet, check out M/$'s server licenses.

Apple does make money on their upgrades, which supports the R&D they do. Innovation does require money to pay people's salaries.

[Bernard Ducamp]

John Tewksbury wrote: I think that Apple will make more money by selling OSX to the 20 million Mac users that haven't bought it yet than by selling it AGAIN to the three million that have bought it. How does that imply that I think Apple is a charity???
--------------------------------------
I agree with you. Those 20 million users will become OS X'ers when the buy new computers.

[theolein]

John, I have to agree that Apple is not only a hardware company. Apple makes huge mileage out of OSX and OSX is the thing that is enabling Apple to make inroads into Windows and Unix territory where it wasn't before in any way. Without OSX Apple would be selling far fewer Macs than it is. With OSX Apple is being taken seriously by the software industry again.

[ratfink]

Originally posted by superblue:
<STRONG>I see OSX in the same way - it's not been right since day one. I'm more than happy to pay for upgrades for new features, as I can evaluate these new features against my current system, and think "yeah, that looks good - I want that" but all I want from 10.2 is an OS that works like it has always claimed to, and for many users, has never done.</STRONG>

I personally wish that apple would adopt a release system like SGI. Since IRIX 6.5, SGI has released two updates every three months. One update, the maintenence stream, is all bugfixes and optimizations, and is free to all users (even people that haven't bought anything in almost 4 years) The other release stream is the feature stream, which includes all of maint release, plus any new features. These releases need either to be purchase, or the the system needs to be under a maintenance contract.

The systems is up to 6.5.15, which means about 45 months. I havent purchased an update in about a year, but I do still get bug fixes every 3 months.

Geof