PDA

View Full Version : One Year release cycle




vmachiel
Feb 20, 2012, 05:28 AM
So, it seems like Apple is moving towards a one year release cycle for OS X. Why are they doing this? Do they want to integrate os x and ios faster? That's my guess at least, can anyone come up with another reason?



KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 05:38 AM
A lot of software vendors are going towards smaller, more concentrated releases on a faster cycle. Less features, less time between releases, less bugs to test for/debug/patch.

Gets features in customer hands faster, enables them to charge you for an upgrade more often and ensure revenue streams. It's overall a better solution for all parties.

I don't know what you mean "integrated iOS and OS X" faster. iOS never was split from OS X in the first place, they are already pretty much the same OS.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 20, 2012, 05:56 AM
A lot of software vendors are going towards smaller, more concentrated releases on a faster cycle. Less features, less time between releases, less bugs to test for/debug/patch.

Gets features in customer hands faster, enables them to charge you for an upgrade more often and ensure revenue streams. It's overall a better solution for all parties.

I don't know what you mean "integrated iOS and OS X" faster. iOS never was split from OS X in the first place, they are already pretty much the same OS.
They don't look at all alike... but they do share a common foundation. iOS has some frameworks OS X does not, like Core Touch. Likewise, OS X has frameworks iOS has no need for, like Python. Most of the frameworks are shared between the two.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 06:03 AM
They don't look at all alike... but they do share a common foundation. iOS has some frameworks OS X does not, like Core Touch. Likewise, OS X has frameworks iOS has no need for, like Python. Most of the frameworks are shared between the two.

I love when people quote me and then say the same thing I did. ;)

Think of iOS as Xubuntu and OS X as Kubuntu.

MattInOz
Feb 20, 2012, 06:09 AM
So, it seems like Apple is moving towards a one year release cycle for OS X. Why are they doing this? Do they want to integrate os x and ios faster? That's my guess at least, can anyone come up with another reason?

Well if you consider that with the 18 to 24 month product cycle it wasn't uncommon in many software products to get new features mid cycle. So two 12 month cycles could be consider slower feature release.

One vendor we work with suggested it was due to changes in accounting rules that they couldn't add features mid cycle anymore. I'd take that with a grain of salt though. so they changed to yearly cycles. I think even with lower fees the idea was to improve revenue.

djrod
Feb 20, 2012, 06:42 AM
They better price it really low or we would have a real fragmentation issue here, a lot of people is not going to pay 29 bucks every year

GermanyChris
Feb 20, 2012, 06:51 AM
They better price really low or we would have a real fragmentation issue here, a lot of people is not going to pay 90 bucks every year

OSX hasn't been over $40 since Leopard.

djrod
Feb 20, 2012, 06:55 AM
OSX hasn't been over $40 since Leopard.

My mind was thinking 29 but my fingers typed 90 :confused:

maflynn
Feb 20, 2012, 07:00 AM
They had the annual release schedule of OSX for a while but mentioned they could not keep up making major changes every year. Perhaps they're taking a page out of iOS and making smaller changes annually and charging a smaller amount for the upgrade.

This is a little bit conjecture since this is the first time in a long time that apple is planning on releasing an upgrade a year after the prior version.

Takuro
Feb 20, 2012, 07:00 AM
I'd like to say that they're attempting to take OS X in a new direction and increase focus on development of new features overall, but really I think they're just trying to synch the release cycles with iOS to back port functionality from the mobile platform to the desktop with less delay. Likely, most new functionality introduced to OS X is going to have some basis in a pre-existing iOS feature, rather than being unique to OS X itself.

GermanyChris
Feb 20, 2012, 07:41 AM
My mind was thinking 29 but my fingers typed 90 :confused:

I think people will pay the 29 per year..

But the fragmentation argument is very valid..

They also can't continue to drop support for older macs every year.

marc11
Feb 20, 2012, 07:46 AM
The perveiced obsolecence of older machines is what might bite them in the rear sooner than later. As it stands, if what I read is true about airplay not being supported on the 2010 i7 machines, I am already one foot out the door. Fragmentation is another big issue, especially with yearly hardware refreshes. Dropping support for 18 month to 2 year hardware, while refreshing hardware and software every year will really fragment the user base in short order.

Perfection is great, but the unsupported hardware, be it an iOS device or a PC that is only 18 months old will not sit well with users for very long, especially when new and great things come out every year. I mean, are we really expected to shell out $1000 to $2500 every 18 months just to be able to use the newest version of an OS to its fullest?

My concern is, that in no time, when the newest OS comes out, you will not only need a PC or iOS device that is less than 1 or 2 years old, but soon maybe we are upgrading our AEBS or TC and Apple TV devices to support these new features...mybe I am being an alarmist, but we have seen iOS drop support for fully usable devices that the jailbreak market has proven are still very capable, and now we are seeing the same with Macs, PPC is out, now some features not supported on C2D or even i7s...concerning.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 07:46 AM
They also can't continue to drop support for older macs every year.

Why not ? They sure as hell can.

GermanyChris
Feb 20, 2012, 11:16 AM
Why not ? They sure as hell can.

That's true they can..but in the end it's make it more difficult for them unless the drop support for the older OS's too. People aren't going to trade in hardware every two years..or at least I won't

Tmelon
Feb 20, 2012, 11:20 AM
They better price it really low or we would have a real fragmentation issue here, a lot of people is not going to pay 29 bucks every year

$30 a year is no big deal when you look at the price of Windows.

Partron22
Feb 20, 2012, 11:42 AM
$30 is $30.
Despite 'cheapness compared to something else' it's still an added cost to going w Apple devices. No one's going to be grateful for that.

Obviously the OS is going through some big changes now, and a 1 year cycle might be the best way to implement it gradually, but a neverending annual campaign to deprecate lots of older Apps and devices that charges users for the privilege likely wouldn't be popular with users.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 11:45 AM
Why not ? They sure as hell can.
Not to mention that they do it with the iPhone....

They kind of have to do it anyway. Maintaining lots of older hardware - even for a company like Apple - is not easy nor cheap.

klaxamazoo
Feb 20, 2012, 12:02 PM
I imagine the rate that Apple drops support for old hardware will slow down a little. A lot of big architecture changes occurred over the last 6-7 years, i.e. the switch to Intel, the migration from 32 bit to 64 bit hardware. Apple has already phased out a lot of that transition hardware which required the Universal Binaries and looks like it is phasing out the 32 bit hardware in 10.8.

Are there any big architecture changes that Apple wouldn't have phased out by 10.8 that I'm missing? Otherwise the hardware requirements should be pretty stable for the next few years.

iOS is different because the hardware is rapidly changing, there was a huge difference between the first iPhone and the 4th generation even though they were just 3 years apart.

In all honesty, I don't think Apple phases out hardware to drive sales. I think they phase it out because either the hardware can't support the UI experience they are going for, or because the architecture support (Universal Binaries, 32/64 bit) added to much bloat to the OS that it slowed progress too much.

Mal
Feb 20, 2012, 12:03 PM
$30 is $30.
Despite 'cheapness compared to something else' it's still an added cost to going w Apple devices. No one's going to be grateful for that.

Obviously the OS is going through some big changes now, and a 1 year cycle might be the best way to implement it gradually, but a neverending annual campaign to deprecate lots of older Apps and devices that charges users for the privilege likely wouldn't be popular with users.

I'm grateful that Apple is keeping up an active development cycle and pushing out significant new features at a low cost. If I have to spend $30 a year, that's better in my mind than Apple's previous $130 every 2-3 years (at most) and far better than Microsoft's $300 every 5 years. It's both cheaper than previous models and provides me with more timely updates. I, for one, welcome this change. Of course, you're also missing the fact that this may not be a trend. This may be a one-time thing for Apple. Either way, it's far better than how it used to be, and everyone should be embracing that.

jW

cambookpro
Feb 20, 2012, 12:08 PM
I'm grateful that Apple is keeping up an active development cycle and pushing out significant new features at a low cost. If I have to spend $30 a year, that's better in my mind than Apple's previous $130 every 2-3 years (at most) and far better than Microsoft's $300 every 5 years. It's both cheaper than previous models and provides me with more timely updates. I, for one, welcome this change. Of course, you're also missing the fact that this may not be a trend. This may be a one-time thing for Apple. Either way, it's far better than how it used to be, and everyone should be embracing that.

jW

I think Tim Cook mentioned in an interview that OS X is moving to a yearly release cycle permanently (or at least until it merges with iOS ;) :p )

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 12:16 PM
That's true they can..but in the end it's make it more difficult for them unless the drop support for the older OS's too. People aren't going to trade in hardware every two years..or at least I won't

I don't see any support for older OSes... Seems to me Apple supports 2 OSes, current and 1 older.

So they drop older Macs from the new OS, they drop the older OS. And the world keeps on turning. Dropping support does not mean stuff stops working.

Partron22
Feb 20, 2012, 12:26 PM
you're also missing the fact that this may not be a trend.Nah, I covered that. My money's on this probably being a short term strategy while Apple dumps Carbon and syncs OS with iOS.

GermanyChris
Feb 20, 2012, 12:35 PM
I don't see any support for older OSes... Seems to me Apple supports 2 OSes, current and 1 older.

So they drop older Macs from the new OS, they drop the older OS. And the world keeps on turning. Dropping support does not mean stuff stops working.

Leopard got a security update at the time lion launched..so that's 3 years..that the current +1 older but that span is three years not 24 ish months. They're dropping the support for 3ish year old HW now. If they drop to two what would be the cutoff? there is no technical reason to drop the newer C2D..

This is not to say they couldn't just that it would make life difficult. I can see them doing the IOS thing and not bringing all the new feature to the older HW maybe thats the plan.

May even have an OSX that is LTS and stay on the 1 yr release cycle.

Carl Sagan
Feb 20, 2012, 12:38 PM
So, it seems like Apple is moving towards a one year release cycle for OS X. Why are they doing this? Do they want to integrate os x and ios faster? That's my guess at least, can anyone come up with another reason?

Everything is getting faster or made micro. Google Chrome updates every six weeks is a case in point...

Gomff
Feb 20, 2012, 12:46 PM
I can see the logic in 1 year upgrade cycles with portable devices and the OS that they run but I'm not happy with doing the same on desktop and laptop computers that people depend on for real work.

If Apple want to get a foothold in large company IT infrastructure & education, they will struggle if their hardware and software become incompatible with each other over a relatively short period of time, requiring constant expenditure just to keep up. This is especially pertinent both in view of the global economic situation and the fact that for most everyday tasks, even 5 year old computing power is sufficient.

If you want a large install base, legacy support is part of the deal.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 12:52 PM
If Apple want to get a foothold in large company IT infrastructure & education.
I don't think that is their area of focus given their recent moves in this area. Apple has never been really focused on accommodating these groups.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 12:55 PM
Leopard got a security update at the time lion launched..so that's 3 years..that the current +1 older but that span is three years not 24 ish months. They're dropping the support for 3ish year old HW now. If they drop to two what would be the cutoff? there is no technical reason to drop the newer C2D..

Why would they drop to two ? Next year, hardware that is 2 years old today is going to be 3 years old.

Gomff
Feb 20, 2012, 01:06 PM
I don't think that is their area of focus given their recent moves in this area. Apple has never been really focused on accommodating these groups.


IT infrastructure back end stuff I'd agree, I should have been more clear. But I'm not so sure about front end, terminals on desks in public places. And I'd have to argue the point with education given Apple's pushing of iBooks and the whole electronic textbook thing.

Then again, maybe you're right.....Perhaps Apple see Macs and iDevices purely as home devices to entertain and distract.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 01:21 PM
IT infrastructure back end stuff I'd agree, I should have been more clear. But I'm not so sure about front end, terminals on desks in public places. And I'd have to argue the point with education given Apple's pushing of iBooks and the whole electronic textbook thing.

Note that iBooks is an iPad program though - Sure the iBooks author program is Mac only but people who are designing books and such are pretty much using Mac's already (I know that Adobe's market-share is about 50 50 PC and Mac). I don't see this as much of a problem. Most of these folks don't upgrade very rapidly anyway.

I think it needs to be emphasized though is that Apple is not forcing people to upgrade - Apple doesn't even require Lion to get ML. Companies can wait.

CmdrLaForge
Feb 20, 2012, 01:24 PM
For me the problem with updating more often is more in the form of the "hidden" costs because 3rd party software needs a paid update in order to support the new system and runs without bugs. I just got more or less all my software to be compatible with Lion. I will pass on the Mountain Lion.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 01:27 PM
For me the problem with updating more often is more in the form of the "hidden" costs because 3rd party software needs a paid update in order to support the new system and runs without bugs.


That's largely something on a case by case basis - most software I have dealt with on Mac OX generally required a basic free update unless it was already really old. The big exception was the major major transitions (OS9 to OSX and PPC to intel) but the changes there were much more fundamental.

maflynn
Feb 20, 2012, 01:29 PM
in the form of the "hidden" costs because 3rd party software needs a paid update
I don't think there's too much of that for OSX. Sure utilities need to be updated, but most apps won't need any update. Vmware provided an update to Fusion, but they also provided an upgrade to take advantage of Lion's features. You still could use version 3 if you wanted too. To that end, I don't think the issue is that bad today.

CmdrLaForge
Feb 20, 2012, 01:32 PM
I don't think there's too much of that for OSX. Sure utilities need to be updated, but most apps won't need any update. Vmware provided an update to Fusion, but they also provided an upgrade to take advantage of Lion's features. You still could use version 3 if you wanted too. To that end, I don't think the issue is that bad today.

Yes, but I hear this update drops some Carbon API ? I still use Final Cut Studio 2 for example.

adztaylor
Feb 20, 2012, 01:37 PM
That's true they can..but in the end it's make it more difficult for them unless the drop support for the older OS's too. People aren't going to trade in hardware every two years..or at least I won't

You buy the Mac for the software it has now. Not what it might or might not receive in the future. It will still work as good as the day you bought it, just not have the latest OS. So if Apple decides to drop support for older Macs more often it's their choice. They haven't conned you or given you any guarantees.

GermanyChris
Feb 20, 2012, 01:58 PM
You buy the Mac for the software it has now. Not what it might or might not receive in the future. It will still work as good as the day you bought it, just not have the latest OS. So if Apple decides to drop support for older Macs more often it's their choice. They haven't conned you or given you any guarantees.

Gee..thanks for stating the obvious.

----------

Why would they drop to two ? Next year, hardware that is 2 years old today is going to be 3 years old.

That will only be this generation the switch. From then on it's two if they elect to cull the HW.

Kasalic
Feb 20, 2012, 01:58 PM
You buy the Mac for the software it has now. Not what it might or might not receive in the future. It will still work as good as the day you bought it, just not have the latest OS. So if Apple decides to drop support for older Macs more often it's their choice. They haven't conned you or given you any guarantees.

Sorry but this misses a huge point. I have a late 2006 iMac 20" which cost me £999 when new. I have upgraded it to the maximum memory and it currently runs Lion perfectly well. When I pay as much for a Mac as I do I neither expect nor can afford to replace it after only 2 years. I'd accept 3 years as a minimum, but to say that you should buy a machine with no thought to how long it would be able to run current software/OS is wrong in my opinion.

Bear
Feb 20, 2012, 02:25 PM
Sorry but this misses a huge point. I have a late 2006 iMac 20" which cost me £999 when new. I have upgraded it to the maximum memory and it currently runs Lion perfectly well. When I pay as much for a Mac as I do I neither expect nor can afford to replace it after only 2 years. I'd accept 3 years as a minimum, but to say that you should buy a machine with no thought to how long it would be able to run current software/OS is wrong in my opinion.I think you've somewhat combined 2 different issues. But it all depends on how one reads what is written.

In terms of hardware, I expect my computers to last 3 to 6 years. This depends on type of systme. This is in terms of hardware reliability. If my usage changes, that is a different issue.

Software wise, I expect to be able to get OS updates and upgrades for at least 3 years after buying a system and preferably closer to 5. And that software updates from the various companies would still work even if I couldn't use some new features.

Now since you said you have a 2006 system, that makes it over 5 years old. A decent lifespan for a computer.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 02:33 PM
Heck, my 2007 era Blackbook came with Tiger and I basically got 3 OS upgrades out of it - each of those being at least 2 years apart. When I finally had to retire it, I realized that I had the thing for almost 5 years and considering all that, I got a lot of use and life out of it. I at first didn't want to upgrade, but I finally realized that I Had to do it and was happy I did. Even though it was expensive to do it. Upgrading can be expensive. But that's life I suppose.

afin
Feb 20, 2012, 02:39 PM
In terms of hardware, I expect my computers to last 3 to 6 years. This depends on type of systme. This is in terms of hardware reliability. If my usage changes, that is a different issue.

Software wise, I expect to be able to get OS updates and upgrades for at least 3 years after buying a system and preferably closer to 5. And that software updates from the various companies would still work even if I couldn't use some new features.


Excellent Point. I expect around four to five years of use out of my personal computer and three-ish years of OS support works for me.

Wouldn't it only hamper apple's creativity to increase support timeframes considering how often they update mac hardware?

JohnDoe98
Feb 20, 2012, 02:43 PM
So they drop older Macs from the new OS, they drop the older OS. And the world keeps on turning. Dropping support does not mean stuff stops working.

I guess I'd want to ask what kind of support we are talking about. If dropping support means that no more security updates will be forthcoming, then sure the system might not "stop working", but it may well stop working securely, since new vulnerabilities will emerge. So, in effect, if people want keep their systems safe, they would be forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

If support just means dropping development of new features and patching bugs, then that is something I can accept. But people who pay oodles of money for their, so I think, are entitled to expect a certain degree of support for many years, not just current year +1.

CmdrLaForge
Feb 20, 2012, 02:45 PM
You buy the Mac for the software it has now. Not what it might or might not receive in the future. It will still work as good as the day you bought it, just not have the latest OS. So if Apple decides to drop support for older Macs more often it's their choice. They haven't conned you or given you any guarantees.

I cannot accept this type of behavior from Apple if it comes from pure greed instead of actual technical requirments. :mad:

JohnDoe98
Feb 20, 2012, 02:45 PM
You buy the Mac for the software it has now. Not what it might or might not receive in the future. It will still work as good as the day you bought it, just not have the latest OS. So if Apple decides to drop support for older Macs more often it's their choice. They haven't conned you or given you any guarantees.

I buy it now expecting that security patches for my software will be forthcoming for any newly discovered vulnerabilities. I don't expect that level of support to go on forever, but I do expect it for a reasonable time frame.

adztaylor
Feb 20, 2012, 02:54 PM
I buy it now expecting that security patches for my software will be forthcoming for any newly discovered vulnerabilities. I don't expect that level of support to go on forever, but I do expect it for a reasonable time frame.

Which they do... There's a difference between security patches and a brand new OS with new features.

JohnDoe98
Feb 20, 2012, 02:58 PM
Which they do... There's a difference between security patches and a brand new OS with new features.

So you are saying SL might continue to get security patches in software update? Somehow I don't think we will ever see a 10.6.9 or a 10.6.8.1, even if a major vulnerability is discovered in 10.6.8. I think Apple would say, we told you 10.6.8 was the last! And even if there is one more when ML is released, that will certainly be the last. If they release on a yearly cycle now, in the summer of 2013 Lion may well get its last. Two years seems pretty short for people who bought a new spiffy Mac for a couple of grand with Lion.

Bear
Feb 20, 2012, 03:13 PM
So you are saying SL might continue to get security patches in software update? Somehow I don't think we will ever see a 10.6.9 or a 10.6.8.1, even if a major vulnerability is discovered in 10.6.8.
...A Security Update? Yes. 10.6.9? No.

Kasalic
Feb 20, 2012, 03:59 PM
I think you've somewhat combined 2 different issues. But it all depends on how one reads what is written.

In terms of hardware, I expect my computers to last 3 to 6 years. This depends on type of systme. This is in terms of hardware reliability. If my usage changes, that is a different issue.

Software wise, I expect to be able to get OS updates and upgrades for at least 3 years after buying a system and preferably closer to 5. And that software updates from the various companies would still work even if I couldn't use some new features.

Now since you said you have a 2006 system, that makes it over 5 years old. A decent lifespan for a computer.

I agree, my point was that I'm not upset that after 5+ years it can no longer run the latest OS, and I feel thoroughly justified in spending the extra on my first real Mac rather than the usual run of constant upgrades I used to go through to keep my Windows machines running up to date. I'd just be upset if I'd got less than 3 years so my point was that as long as no machines under 3 years can't run the latest OS I'm happy with the 12 to 18 month updates to OS X.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 04:16 PM
I'd just be upset if I'd got less than 3 years so my point was that as long as no machines under 3 years can't run the latest OS I'm happy with the 12 to 18 month updates to OS X.

I would think that Apple tries it's dardest to make sure of that too. We do need to make sure we clarify what we mean by age. A person can have a brand new mac purchased right before new models came out. That mac though is still new in their eyes but in fact it's a year old model. I think that we have to make sure that we specify 3 years from manufacture, not 3 years from purchase - otherwise we start having to include used macs and so on.

We also have to acknowledged extreme examples such as SL cutting off all PPC computers including the Mac Pro line which was notorious for being the last hold out in the platform transition. People complained that those models were under 3 years old when they bought them.

DeckMan
Feb 20, 2012, 04:21 PM
Yes, but I hear this update drops some Carbon API ? I still use Final Cut Studio 2 for example.

Does it? I heard that they just marked Carbon as deprecated, which is more like a warning to developers that they should stop using it and move on to Cocoa in the near future (some time after Mountain Lion is released). But I never developed anything in Carbon and don't have the Mountain Lion DP, so I wouldn't know if it still works - maybe some registered developer with Carbon apps can test this and shed light on the issue?

Gomff
Feb 20, 2012, 05:46 PM
I think it needs to be emphasized though is that Apple is not forcing people to upgrade - Apple doesn't even require Lion to get ML. Companies can wait.

They kind of are if you want to author something in iBooks, since it only runs in Lion unless you hack it.....Demonstrating that it's a superficial constraint.

For me, there's also a broader argument connected with built in obsolescence. It seems counter intuitive to design hardware as well as Apple does, only to reduce its effectiveness artificially through software limitations.

If we are to believe that Apple is sincere in its environmental concerns, why isn't it supporting its products for as long as they are reasonably viable? The answer can only be profit driven, which I do understand. But the principles of being environmentally responsible and planned obsolescence are contradictory and any company trying to play the two against each other should be called out on it..

JohnDoe98
Feb 20, 2012, 05:50 PM
If we are to believe that Apple is sincere in its environmental concerns, why isn't it supporting its products for as long as they are reasonably viable? The answer can only be profit driven, which I do understand. But the principles of being environmentally responsible and planned obsolescence are contradictory and any company trying to play the two against each other should be called out on it..

For the environment, but not at the cost of technological progress is their motto. Trim the fat! Chop out all antiquated HW and legacy code!

You are right though, they is something disturbing in this.

KnightWRX
Feb 20, 2012, 06:14 PM
That will only be this generation the switch. From then on it's two if they elect to cull the HW.

How so ? They've just cut the Core 2 Duos in 2 with this, those using Intel chipsets/integrated GPUs and those using nVidia GPUs.

Next they could simply drop 9400m equipped Macs with 10.9, keeping the 3 year barrier alive. Nothing says they have to cut accross generational boundaries using only the CPU, that's what you think they need to do.

Mr. Retrofire
Feb 20, 2012, 06:21 PM
So, it seems like Apple is moving towards a one year release cycle for OS X. Why are they doing this? Do they want to integrate os x and ios faster? That's my guess at least, can anyone come up with another reason?
Some reasons:
- Better security (security updates for a current OS cannot solve fundamental security flaws)
- Higher optimization for current hardware (Sandy Bridge & Ivy Bridge @ the moment)
- Better system-wide availability of new standards (Web, Desktop, Developers, iDevices and so on)
- ...

Gomff
Feb 20, 2012, 06:37 PM
For the environment, but not at the cost of technological progress is their motto. Trim the fat! Chop out all antiquated HW and legacy code!

You are right though, they is something disturbing in this.

From a traditional business perspective I understand it. But the broader question is whether traditional business principles of maximum profitability above everything else are ethical and sustainable. It works fine on a Monopoly board but in reality plenty of economies are suffering and manufacturing in the West has declined at least partly because of it.

I think a company's vision is compromised when it starts to make decisions based on keeping shareholders happy. Reminds me of the line from Tron Legacy when the CEO of Encom is asked what improvements have been made to Encom OS 12 and he replies "This year we put a 12 on the box". I'm not saying that Mountain Lion is as trivial as that, but shareholders like regular upgrade cycles, it gives them a sense that their investment is developing according to a predictable schedule.

throAU
Feb 20, 2012, 07:31 PM
They better price it really low or we would have a real fragmentation issue here, a lot of people is not going to pay 29 bucks every year

Here in aussie land, thats about as expensive as 6 cups of coffee...



I'm sure plenty can spare that amount of cash, PER YEAR....

----------

Sorry but this misses a huge point. I have a late 2006 iMac 20" which cost me £999 when new. I have upgraded it to the maximum memory and it currently runs Lion perfectly well. When I pay as much for a Mac as I do I neither expect nor can afford to replace it after only 2 years. I'd accept 3 years as a minimum, but to say that you should buy a machine with no thought to how long it would be able to run current software/OS is wrong in my opinion.

Did your iMac somehow stop working? You can keep running Lion "perfectly well".

They won't kill machines after 2 years, because that's less than how long a lot of companies depreciate them over (3-5 yrs), how long various tax laws in plenty of countries allow you to claim a machine on your tax return for (1 new machine every 3 yrs), and how long they offer applecare for (3 yrs).

thundersteele
Feb 20, 2012, 08:11 PM
Here in aussie land, thats about as expensive as 6 cups of coffee...



I'm sure plenty can spare that amount of cash, PER YEAR....[COLOR="#808080"]


If that means I would have to go without my morning coffee for 6 days... I'd rather not!

But thats besides the point. Apple says that fragmentation is bad... it's one of their big arguments against the Android platform. If the annual update costs $29, many people will not upgrade. Not because they can't afford it, but because they don't care. Then suddenly you have your user base spread out over 4-5 OSX versions, which is bad for developers.

A longer release cycle naturally lowers fragmentation, because the majority of laptops is replaced within 5 years.

An option would be to provide a free update from the previous version, i.e. Lion to ML, and only charge for a two or more version jump.

marc11
Feb 20, 2012, 08:23 PM
I think some of you are missing the point. It is not about the cost of the upgrade, even if it is free. And it is not about your pc which works fine today and will not stop working because a new os is out.

The issue to be concerned about, and one we have seen with ios devices, is when Apple puts in a plist or kext file a restriction of a certain hardware type to prevent that hardware from running the new os, which is later proven to be a false barrier put in place along side new highly desirable os features which in turn entice people to upgrade hardware. That is planned obsolescence.

This is disturbingly true when people repeatedly prove the excluded hardware is more than capable of running the new os and new features. Or even worse when the market proves this and then Apple back tracks and makes it available later, ala gestures on the iPad one.

That is what, IMHO, worries me most about this new release cycle.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 08:24 PM
But thats besides the point. Apple says that fragmentation is bad... .

They are talking about a different type of fragmentation - where you have different skinned versions of Android running on different hardware configurations of hardware made by different companies. Heck, MS has it easier with dealing with Windows upgrades in that instance!

Having different levels of software upgrades is just part of the game that you get into when you release software. Apple has dealt with this from day one. Right now the best solution that they have is to make upgrading cheap and easy. They didnít have a problem when it was costing users 130 bucks a pop every year or two.

The only way this becomes an issue is if they rapidly obsolete old hardware which I believe that Apple tries not to do. There is no reason to do that. Apple knows that people donít buy hardware that often. The costs donít make it possible. If people donít upgrade their software that is not Appleís fault or problem. Apple can nor nor do they force upgrades. They can encourage adoption (and it works - people do upgrade in large numbers) but I donít see the problems that you talk about. I just donít.

BrotherBeagle
Feb 20, 2012, 08:35 PM
If Apple want to get a foothold in large company IT infrastructure & education...

They don't. Not the way you, I nor enterprise expects them to. The Prom Queen doesn't need to court, son. She gets courted.

Apple's filled its warchest to the brim on consumer devices -- just because Enterprise has people that want to bring Apple to the table isn't necessarily indicative of Apple's interest in being there.

pdjudd
Feb 20, 2012, 08:45 PM
Thatís what I was saying earlier. Apple isnít going into a market that they never played well in the past and operates by rules fundamentally different than what Apple does. Apple doesnít have to - they play by their own rules and rarely do they play by others unless it doesnít impact their business.

pmz
Feb 20, 2012, 10:01 PM
Mountain Lion brings a lot of iOS 5 to OS X. This is sorely needed. The closer the relationship of Apps and important data, the better. I'm not surprised they're rolling this out quickly.

cocky jeremy
Feb 22, 2012, 10:51 PM
Why i love it: No long waits for new features.
Why i hate it: We'll never see another Tiger to Leopard type of huge update.

pdjudd
Feb 22, 2012, 10:56 PM
Why i hate it: We'll never see another Tiger to Leopard type of huge update.

Really? There is nothing in Apples release schedule that says that they cannot do a major upgrade down the line - Apple works on multiple projects at once.

ixodes
Feb 22, 2012, 11:07 PM
It's an annual fee to keep Apple happy. A mere pittance.

That makes it a screaming bargain, compared to the country club dues :)

cocky jeremy
Feb 22, 2012, 11:14 PM
Really? There is nothing in Apples release schedule that says that they cannot do a major upgrade down the line - Apple works on multiple projects at once.

If they plan on releasing a new OS every year, a Tiger to Leopard type of upgrade will be difficult, at best. I doubt they'd work on two OS's at once, too. Who knows though. We'll see.

MikhailT
Feb 22, 2012, 11:42 PM
I think you've somewhat combined 2 different issues. But it all depends on how one reads what is written.

In terms of hardware, I expect my computers to last 3 to 6 years. This depends on type of systme. This is in terms of hardware reliability. If my usage changes, that is a different issue.

Software wise, I expect to be able to get OS updates and upgrades for at least 3 years after buying a system and preferably closer to 5. And that software updates from the various companies would still work even if I couldn't use some new features.

Now since you said you have a 2006 system, that makes it over 5 years old. A decent lifespan for a computer.

That is a reasonable expectation half a decade ago. A current reasonable expectation is less than 2 years nowadays for majority of people. Your computer doesn't stop working after 2-3 years, you just can't expect new OS features after 2 years for Macs. This is already being strengthen by the iOS devices.

If they plan on releasing a new OS every year, a Tiger to Leopard type of upgrade will be difficult, at best. I doubt they'd work on two OS's at once, too. Who knows though. We'll see.

Think about Intel's Tick-tock model for their CPU, which is already a major success for Intel. That's what Apple will probably do, they'll alternate between two different type of updates. One that changes a lot of things under the hood and one that optimizes the changes and improve it with more features. Snow Leopard is the major change update but it didn't bring in a lot of new features over Leopard. Leopard is the feature-packed update over Tiger.

So Mountain Lion is the feature-packed update based on Lion, which improve a lot of things about Lion and add more features. Chances are that 10.9 will be the major under the hood update like Snow Leopard and 10.10 will alternate back to a major feature-packed update based on 10.9. So, they can actually have two-year development leads between updates.

Apple is fully capable of doing two OS tracks, they've done it for the Intel/PPC OSX project.

JohnDoe98
Feb 23, 2012, 02:10 AM
The issue to be concerned about, and one we have seen with ios devices, is when Apple puts in a plist or kext file a restriction of a certain hardware type to prevent that hardware from running the new os, which is later proven to be a false barrier put in place along side new highly desirable os features which in turn entice people to upgrade hardware. That is planned obsolescence.

This is disturbingly true when people repeatedly prove the excluded hardware is more than capable of running the new os and new features. Or even worse when the market proves this and then Apple back tracks and makes it available later, ala gestures on the iPad one.


Care to give specific examples? Because the issue is not simply, "can the old HW run the new OS and features?", but more importantly, how well can the old HW run the new OS and its features? Apple sets the bar very high in terms of its expectations on performance and user experience, perhaps too high you might argue. But to make a fair assessment as to whether they are simply doing this to push more HW sales, I'd like to consider the examples.

Take Airplay mirroring coming in ML. It seems well motivated to chop out the systems that they are chopping out. And trust me, I'd love to have mirroring on my computer, but that simply won't happen. The implementation would be pretty shoddy, like when I run third-party apps that try to do it.

Bear
Feb 23, 2012, 06:33 AM
That is a reasonable expectation half a decade ago. A current reasonable expectation is less than 2 years nowadays for majority of people. Your computer doesn't stop working after 2-3 years, you just can't expect new OS features after 2 years for Macs. This is already being strengthen by the iOS devices.
...I think it's still going to be a minimum of 4 to 5 years for OS updates for most Macs. And 3 to 6 years is still a reasonable expectation for a computer to last for most people as long as they don't buy the bottom of the line Dell system.

KnightWRX
Feb 23, 2012, 07:43 AM
I think it's still going to be a minimum of 4 to 5 years for OS updates for most Macs. And 3 to 6 years is still a reasonable expectation for a computer to last for most people as long as they don't buy the bottom of the line Dell system.

Computers can last decades and more. I still have a UltraSparc 5 in working order.

A vendor ending support for hardware does not mean it suddenly stops working or being useful. minimum 4/5 years ? We'll see, I doubt Apple will sustain their line-up for that long.

ML is already a little under the 4 year barrier by cutting out stuff that was sold new in box in September 2008.

Bear
Feb 23, 2012, 09:22 AM
...
ML is already a little under the 4 year barrier by cutting out stuff that was sold new in box in September 2008.Which is getting a bit short in my opinion. However, based on past experience (which I know is subject to change) Lion will get at least one or 2 more updates after Mountain Lion is released and then get at least several months (if not more) of security updates.

heisenberg123
Feb 23, 2012, 11:03 AM
for $29 price tag dont be surprised to see a new one every year

marc11
Feb 23, 2012, 04:53 PM
Care to give specific examples? Because the issue is not simply, "can the old HW run the new OS and features?", but more importantly, how well can the old HW run the new OS and its features? Apple sets the bar very high in terms of its expectations on performance and user experience, perhaps too high you might argue. But to make a fair assessment as to whether they are simply doing this to push more HW sales, I'd like to consider the examples.

Take Airplay mirroring coming in ML. It seems well motivated to chop out the systems that they are chopping out. And trust me, I'd love to have mirroring on my computer, but that simply won't happen. The implementation would be pretty shoddy, like when I run third-party apps that try to do it.

Gestures on iPad 1.
AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4
Siri on iPhone 4
AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.
iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.
iBooks on SL.

But AirPlay on gen 1 i7 gets me most since intel itself says it is supported.

There are more but These jump to mind.

JohnDoe98
Feb 23, 2012, 07:46 PM
Gestures on iPad 1.

This is enabled in iOS 5, so non-issue.


AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4

Do you have any evidence that it would work properly on the iPhone 4? So far as I know, no one has managed to implement it yet through a Cydia tweak, so there is no evidence that it works properly.


Siri on iPhone 4

There was an article a while ago on Macrumors that explained why the iPhone 4, though capable of Siri, would not be capable of doing it at the same caliber as the iPhone 4S can do it. Apparently the chip used in the 4S is better for decoding voice. So it probably is more an issue pertaining to performance as simply brute capabilities, which again explains saying they could do it is to oversimplify things.


AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.

The DP1 ML release notes clearly say the feature hasn't been fully rolled out yet, so it is far too premature to be complaining about this right now. Those devices may well get it.


iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.

Yes, bad example.

iBooks on SL.

??? There is no iBooks on OS X.

marc11
Feb 23, 2012, 09:09 PM
I do not feel like going back and forth on what was available when, why or how well it could or could not work. By iBooks I meant the publisher component that was forced to be lion only but works fine on sl or how many machines were noted as not lion compatible but with a tweak run it fine.

Apple is a hardware company, the incentive is to sell more hardware this year than last. If you think the iOS and osx upgrades which target specific hardware classes and restrict others has nothing to do with incenting new hardware sales; that Apple doesn't track hardware sales to existing customers just prior to and just after major is upgraded; that those upgrades are only about your positive user experiencing, I disagree, your rose colored glasses must have an Apple logo on them, mine do not.

Draeconis
Feb 24, 2012, 02:02 AM
If we are to believe that Apple is sincere in its environmental concerns, why isn't it supporting its products for as long as they are reasonably viable? The answer can only be profit driven, which I do understand. But the principles of being environmentally responsible and planned obsolescence are contradictory and any company trying to play the two against each other should be called out on it..

..which is why all of their more recent products from 2008 onwards are highly recyclable ;)

newagemac
Feb 24, 2012, 06:35 AM
Gestures on iPad 1.
AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4
Siri on iPhone 4
AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.
iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.
iBooks on SL.

But AirPlay on gen 1 i7 gets me most since intel itself says it is supported.

There are more but These jump to mind.

This reminds me of people who say the Apple TV 2 "can do" 1080p and Apple is just holding it back for "no reason". Well when you jailbreak the device and actually attempt to play a 1080p file, yeah it "works" technically if you want to call it that. But the performance is very subpar with so many freezes and pauses to make it not worth doing and it is also dependent on the actual bitrate of the movie. Action movies in 1080p were just terrible during the high bit rate action scenes. Like a slide show almost. Whereas with 720p, everything just works.

Also comes to mind is when Apple allowed the iPhone 3G (which had the same processor, graphics chip, and RAM of the original iPhone) to run iOS 4. This was a bad decision in my opinion. Yes it worked, but the experience itself was dismal. I don't think Apple wants to do that again. Each version has significant hardware upgrades now though.

So the point is, just because someone hacks something to make it "work" on older hardware does not mean Apple should have made it available on that hardware. Apple and its customers have higher standards than that. The difference between something working somewhat and something working very well is quite large and is the main difference between Apple and it's competitors.

djrod
Feb 24, 2012, 08:38 AM
Gestures on iPad 1.
AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4
Siri on iPhone 4
AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines.
iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example.
iBooks on SL.

But AirPlay on gen 1 i7 gets me most since intel itself says it is supported.

There are more but These jump to mind.

Gestures on iPad 1. - Only pinch to home screen works well in the iPad 1, application switch with 4 finger is slowwwww. But apple backed their decision and gestures are now available for the iPad 1

AirPlay mirror on iPhone 4 - probably the CPU is not strong enought to do that without compromising battery life/ performance

Siri on iPhone 4 - same as before but regarding the silent noise chip the iPhone 4s has

AirPlay on first gen core i7 machines. - you don't want your 4(8) cores at full throttle to encode the video that goes to AirPlay Mirror.

iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example. - You are right, this was a greedy/ lazy move

iBooks on SL. - Apple probably thinks that a computer is no good for reading books, I also think that.


There is an explanation for almost everything

JohnDoe98
Feb 24, 2012, 09:20 AM
iCloud on Snow Leopard. Maybe bad example. - You are right, this was a greedy/ lazy move

iBooks on SL. - Apple probably thinks that a computer is no good for reading books, I also think that.



And don't forget, these aren't hardware constraints but software ones. I must say though, new features typically come with new OSs, to expect the new features/programs to be released on OSs that are no longer being developed for strikes me as a little bizarre and people asking for handouts.

djrod
Feb 24, 2012, 11:02 AM
And don't forget, these aren't hardware constraints but software ones. I must say though, new features typically come with new OSs, to expect the new features/programs to be released on OSs that are no longer being developed for strikes me as a little bizarre and people asking for handouts.

But that is because Apple have spoiled us,back in the day when you bought a phone , that thing had 0 updates with new features along it's life.

People are now used to free software updates and bitch and moan if updates to get new software features have a cost.

Just wait till summer when everybody go mad when Apple kills the iMessages for Lion.

Tinyluph
Feb 24, 2012, 11:41 AM
It really shouldn't matter whether iBooks is lousy on a desktop. It should still be available there.

djrod
Feb 24, 2012, 01:46 PM
It really shouldn't matter whether iBooks is lousy on a desktop. It should still be available there.

There is actually almost no ePub app for the Mac, at least not a good one,no?

Partron22
Feb 24, 2012, 02:02 PM
There is actually almost no ePub app for the Mac, at least not a good one,no?

You cannot read books from the iTunes store on a Mac. The ePub DRM prevents it.

katewes
Feb 25, 2012, 08:57 AM
From my experience of Leopard and Snow Leopard - which both started really buggy (I spent 4 hours waiting on Apple's HelpLine on Leopard launch delay, so I know), it took 2 years for each to get absolutely granite solid - searching for words that are more emphatic than rock solid. So I'd bypass the early beta testing versions of 10.x.1 to 10.x.6, and update late in the cycle and really enjoy total peace of mind. By this stage, in a 2 year cycle, Apple would be developing the next OS, and I'd be enjoying a perfected OS, while the fanboys would be suffering angst beta testing the next OS.

Now, this 1 year cycle messes my approach up. I certainly hope that Apple are going to keep updating the former OS - even with this 1 year cycle.

i.e. even if 10.8 comes out, I hope Apple keeps going with Lion until, say, 10.7.8 - because that's probably how long it'll take for Apple to get Lion granite solid.

KnightWRX
Feb 25, 2012, 08:59 AM
Now, this 1 year cycle messes my approach up.

Again for those just tuning in :

- Shorter release cycles means less new features/changes per release
- Less new features/changes means less debugging and testing required to get it granite

Your experience thus does not reflect the new reality. Let's wait and see how it goes before going into "panic" mode.

whohasaquestion
Feb 25, 2012, 04:43 PM
This reminds me of people who say the Apple TV 2 "can do" 1080p and Apple is just holding it back for "no reason". Well when you jailbreak the device and actually attempt to play a 1080p file, yeah it "works" technically if you want to call it that. But the performance is very subpar with so many freezes and pauses to make it not worth doing and it is also dependent on the actual bitrate of the movie. Action movies in 1080p were just terrible during the high bit rate action scenes. Like a slide show almost. Whereas with 720p, everything just works.

Also comes to mind is when Apple allowed the iPhone 3G (which had the same processor, graphics chip, and RAM of the original iPhone) to run iOS 4. This was a bad decision in my opinion. Yes it worked, but the experience itself was dismal. I don't think Apple wants to do that again. Each version has significant hardware upgrades now though.

So the point is, just because someone hacks something to make it "work" on older hardware does not mean Apple should have made it available on that hardware. Apple and its customers have higher standards than that. The difference between something working somewhat and something working very well is quite large and is the main difference between Apple and it's competitors.

Even if what you said is true, that can still be part of "planned obsolescence" strategy. All they need to do is to NOT optimize the new OS for old hardware. Customer then feel the need to upgrade and Apple can come out and say "told you so".

Letting a company making this type of decision (what's obsolete or not), and you can be sure they will always have their own interest on top of the list.

newagemac
Feb 25, 2012, 10:17 PM
Even if what you said is true, that can still be part of "planned obsolescence" strategy. All they need to do is to NOT optimize the new OS for old hardware. Customer then feel the need to upgrade and Apple can come out and say "told you so".

Letting a company making this type of decision (what's obsolete or not), and you can be sure they will always have their own interest on top of the list.

But you see this is what allows Apple to make such great software. If you have ever been involved in software development or heck even if you have coded a website you would understand that backwards compatibility is a huge drain on what you can do and how well and how fast you can implement it. It's not a trivial thing at all.

Microsoft does have top notch programmers but they have made a strategic business decision to support enterprise first and foremost which means they have to be backwards compatible with old systems and software far more so than Apple.

And this is one of the major reasons why they seem to be so far behind Apple with Windows and why it takes them so long to put out stuff. Backwards compatibility comes at a price to both development as well as the end user who is up-to-date.

whohasaquestion
Feb 25, 2012, 11:06 PM
But you see this is what allows Apple to make such great software. If you have ever been involved in software development or heck even if you have coded a website you would understand that backwards compatibility is a huge drain on what you can do and how well and how fast you can implement it. It's not a trivial thing at all.

Microsoft does have top notch programmers but they have made a strategic business decision to support enterprise first and foremost which means they have to be backwards compatible with old systems and software far more so than Apple.

And this is one of the major reasons why they seem to be so far behind Apple with Windows and why it takes them so long to put out stuff. Backwards compatibility comes at a price to both development as well as the end user who is up-to-date.

Perhaps.

The thing is that Apple controls the hardware too. Unlike MSFT, they don't have hundreds of laptops/desktops to support. I can easily put in an argument that if MSFT could do what they do with backward compatibility, Apple should have no problem exceeding MSFT...just look at how simple their lineup is.

As a customer, there are some choices I like to make for myself. If my machine is running too slow and Apple did an honest job not crippling old hardware, then I will have a choice to make. However, letting a company make the decision just seems very arbitrary, if not a bit dubious.

atMac
Feb 25, 2012, 11:24 PM
If Apple want to get a foothold in large company IT infrastructure & education, they will struggle if their hardware and software become incompatible with each other over a relatively short period of time.


They are already struggling by killing the XSAN and XServe, they will be struggling more if they kill the Mac Pro like it is rumored.

They don't want a foot hold in those markets as they have as of late been KILLING the products for those markets.

DeckMan
Mar 4, 2012, 06:39 AM
That is a reasonable expectation half a decade ago. A current reasonable expectation is less than 2 years nowadays for majority of people.

Really? Most of the people I know expect to keep using their computer for *more* than 5 years, not less. When I told one friend that I wanted to keep mine for 5 years, she was like "I thought you could use Macs for longer than PCs" :)

There is actually almost no ePub app for the Mac, at least not a good one,no?

Yeah, the best one I found was actually an addon for Firefox. But it's definitely not as fun as using an iPad.

Liquinn
Mar 4, 2012, 06:51 AM
Really? Most of the people I know expect to keep using their computer for *more* than 5 years, not less. When I told one friend that I wanted to keep mine for 5 years, she was like "I thought you could use Macs for longer than PCs" :)



Yeah, the best one I found was actually an addon for Firefox. But it's definitely not as fun as using an iPad.
I'm a bit concerned by a one year release cycle as I've only switched to OSX. So perhaps it is worth me waiting for Ivy Bridge if the Sandy Bridge processors will become obsolete faster. But then again a new operating system doesn't mean better I guess.

Carl Sagan
Mar 4, 2012, 08:59 AM
Faster updates make sense, the world is a faster place these days. Google Chrome updates every six weeks, people have a new phone every 18-24 months, even TVs are replaced every 3-4 years compared to 5-15 years like they used too...

MikhailT
Mar 4, 2012, 11:55 AM
Really? Most of the people I know expect to keep using their computer for *more* than 5 years, not less. When I told one friend that I wanted to keep mine for 5 years, she was like "I thought you could use Macs for longer than PCs" :)

That's fine as long as they expect to use the same OS and apps with the same hardware. Most people do not have needs for newer versions.

PCs and Macs are two different cultures to when it comes with OS and hardware. There are a lot of flexibility in PCs than there are in Macs.

I know more people that are still running XP than people with W7. Those people have no needs to upgrade and they have 5-10 years old computers. Those people will expect the same for the next computer that they buy, that their computers will last 10 years with whatever Windows OS that comes with it.

That's reasonable but again, not everybody is the same. Gamers/Power Users have a much shorter expectation but they extend their timeframe by constantly upgrade their parts to catch up. Not something you can do with any Macs.

What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware. Just like how Lion came out 3-4 years later and no longer supports any PPC Macs and Mountain Lion coming out with no support for any 32-bit CPUs sold 3 years ago and some specific Macs with GPUs.

Those are the reasonable timeframes we're talking about. Computers can last decades, not a problem as long as you take good care of it but the newer Mac OSs aren't expected to have 10 years worth of backward compatibility with hardware.

Windows are expected to do that, Macs aren't.

wrldwzrd89
Mar 4, 2012, 12:03 PM
That's fine as long as they expect to use the same OS and apps with the same hardware. Most people do not have needs for newer versions.

PCs and Macs are two different cultures to when it comes with OS and hardware. There are a lot of flexibility in PCs than there are in Macs.

I know more people that are still running XP than people with W7. Those people have no needs to upgrade and they have 5-10 years old computers. Those people will expect the same for the next computer that they buy, that their computers will last 10 years with whatever Windows OS that comes with it.

That's reasonable but again, not everybody is the same. Gamers/Power Users have a much shorter expectation but they extend their timeframe by constantly upgrade their parts to catch up. Not something you can do with any Macs.

What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware. Just like how Lion came out 3-4 years later and no longer supports any PPC Macs and Mountain Lion coming out with no support for any 32-bit CPUs sold 3 years ago and some specific Macs with GPUs.

Those are the reasonable timeframes we're talking about. Computers can last decades, not a problem as long as you take good care of it but the newer Mac OSs aren't expected to have 10 years worth of backward compatibility with hardware.

Windows are expected to do that, Macs aren't.
That's only true if the hardware makers actually make drivers for the older OSes. This is a problem that prevents most installations of older OS X versions on newer hardware. True, on Windows this doesn't crop up as much. That doesn't mean it's nonexistent, though - just look at Windows XP. It cannot take full advantage of machines with 5 or more logical (or physical) CPUs.

MikhailT
Mar 4, 2012, 01:05 PM
That's only true if the hardware makers actually make drivers for the older OSes. This is a problem that prevents most installations of older OS X versions on newer hardware. True, on Windows this doesn't crop up as much. That doesn't mean it's nonexistent, though - just look at Windows XP. It cannot take full advantage of machines with 5 or more logical (or physical) CPUs.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. We're talking about forward compatibilities at the time when you buy a new computer. Who buys a new computer and install an earlier OS on it?

Apple's the only company working on hardware drivers for their OS or at least validate drivers that may be coming from their partners. They're the one who chooses to remove the drivers (even if it works perfectly) in the newer OSes.

At the time XP came out, there were no consumer CPUs with more than one core. So, it makes sense that there are restrictions to CPU and memory.

pdjudd
Mar 4, 2012, 01:33 PM
Who buys a new computer and install an earlier OS on it?

Business did as well as many consumers did simply because of Vista. Heck, our company still downgrades computers with Windows XP due to compatibility.

DeckMan
Mar 4, 2012, 02:43 PM
What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware.

But was that any different with Windows in the past? I think I remember Vista and Windows 7 upping the system requirements compared to XP, though I don't remember how old your PC had to be in order to not be supported by Vista.

Of course, most (if not all) Windows software is still compatible to XP - Mac developers might be less like to support many older OS versions, especially if there's a new one every year. (Didn't XP come out at the same time as, like, Puma? I have a friend with an iBook running Panther who has trouble finding compatible software. Though I'm pretty sure it's still way easier with Tiger.)

whohasaquestion
Mar 4, 2012, 07:39 PM
What Mac users shouldn't expect is that the new OS that comes out in 5 years would be supporting their Mac hardware.

I wonder why mac users "shouldn't" expect their machine be supported in 5 years time? Because Apple hasn't been doing that and you just cave in? Remember, we paid top dollar for a premium product. If the cheap window-based PC can be supported well beyond their avg. lifespan, shouldn't my mac be supported for 5 useful life years? It's only fair to ask Apple to do more with backward compatibility.

KnightWRX
Mar 4, 2012, 08:36 PM
I wonder why mac users "shouldn't" expect their machine be supported in 5 years time? Because Apple hasn't been doing that and you just cave in? Remember, we paid top dollar for a premium product. If the cheap window-based PC can be supported well beyond their avg. lifespan, shouldn't my mac be supported for 5 useful life years? It's only fair to ask Apple to do more with backward compatibility.

You can ask, but they don't have to provide it at all. If you want assured long term support, by from a vendor that can put it down for you in writing.

Apple isn't such a vendor. Only people with too much free time would want to waste it trying to "fight the big bad Apple". HP, Dell, Lenovo are ready to accept your money and provide the LTS you need.

By what fits your needs rather than buying your little wants.

whohasaquestion
Mar 4, 2012, 09:31 PM
You can ask, but they don't have to provide it at all. If you want assured long term support, by from a vendor that can put it down for you in writing.

Apple isn't such a vendor. Only people with too much free time would want to waste it trying to "fight the big bad Apple". HP, Dell, Lenovo are ready to accept your money and provide the LTS you need.

By what fits your needs rather than buying your little wants.

I understand Apple is free to do whatever it wants to. But instead of leaving it for some other brands, which I will if I don't see Apple taking action, I make a request on a mac forum and hope Apple can come to its sense.

50voltphantom
Mar 4, 2012, 10:29 PM
I think people will pay the 29 per year..

But the fragmentation argument is very valid..

They also can't continue to drop support for older macs every year.

Totally agree on the $29/year, makes me wonder if Microsoft is still going to charge $100+ for Windows 8? That's a huge gap.

----------

I don't think the yearly release cycle is actually going to be a re-engineered OS with every release. Regardless of what 10.X it is called. I have a feeling they will operate more like "Service Packs".

TheGdog
Mar 5, 2012, 05:26 PM
Totally agree on the $29/year, makes me wonder if Microsoft is still going to charge $100+ for Windows 8? That's a huge gap.

----------

I don't think the yearly release cycle is actually going to be a re-engineered OS with every release. Regardless of what 10.X it is called. I have a feeling they will operate more like "Service Packs".

I am not understanding why everyone thinks apple is dropping support for macs every year?. Trying to keep support for machines that are X years old is hard to do. Its more about what the hardware needs to be to run the new OS well. Age doesn't matter, clearly a Mac mini is going to lose new OS support before a Mac pro does, regardless of age. Its not about age, its about what is needed to have a solid user experience.

I can completely see why apple is not supporting macs with GMA graphics and core duo processors. They are slow and can't keep up with the new features. Heck I have a core duo macbook at work, and it can barely run SL smoothly. Your computer will not just stop working if you don't get the newest OS. There is still quite a bit of software thats runs on tiger for that matter. Most Devs keep support a few versions back. Also keep in mind the MAS is available to SL users, so SL will stay supported on the store for a while.

MJL
Apr 8, 2012, 03:52 AM
I've got software that ran under Windows 2000 and is still running under Windows 7. Developper went belly up and there is nothing similar that does what this is doing.

Let's put this in another perspective: trading is the oldest profession in the world (not the other one, it has always been: what is in it for me, what do I get for it in return?). Hence trading is deeply embedded in our psyche and plays on the fear. (Fear to miss out on something good, fear on being left behind and unable to get etc. Greed is just another form of fear.) Hence trading systems by definition do not have to change at all as long as one has a way to measure this "fear" (or "greed"). Heck, I know people who are using DOS software to trade the stock market and are using Lotus spreadsheets in addition. Got some friends still running PC's with Windows 95.

If I look at the total cost of ownership over the life of a product then Apple is clearly not the cheapest. Most definitely not (the cheapest) if one includes the cost for specialised software (if it exists for OS X , unfortunately no decent package exists).

Running Windows 7 on a Mac mini makes more sense than running OS X, it actually lowers the TCO. Still running office 2000 on Windows 7, as a stand alone machine I have no need for "collaboration" and "iCloud".

ADMProducer
Apr 8, 2012, 04:22 AM
I've got software that ran under Windows 2000 and is still running under Windows 7. Developper went belly up and there is nothing similar that does what this is doing.

Let's put this in another perspective: trading is the oldest profession in the world (not the other one, it has always been: what is in it for me, what do I get for it in return?). Hence trading is deeply embedded in our psyche and plays on the fear. (Fear to miss out on something good, fear on being left behind and unable to get etc. Greed is just another form of fear.) Hence trading systems by definition do not have to change at all as long as one has a way to measure this "fear" (or "greed"). Heck, I know people who are using DOS software to trade the stock market and are using Lotus spreadsheets in addition. Got some friends still running PC's with Windows 95.

If I look at the total cost of ownership over the life of a product then Apple is clearly not the cheapest. Most definitely not (the cheapest) if one includes the cost for specialised software (if it exists for OS X , unfortunately no decent package exists).

Running Windows 7 on a Mac mini makes more sense than running OS X, it actually lowers the TCO. Still running office 2000 on Windows 7, as a stand alone machine I have no need for "collaboration" and "iCloud".

Well, sir. Keep a windows machine on the side for your trading.

If the world was left to people like you, we'd still be on horseback.

limo79
Apr 8, 2012, 04:04 PM
So, it seems like Apple is moving towards a one year release cycle for OS X. Why are they doing this? Do they want to integrate os x and ios faster? That's my guess at least, can anyone come up with another reason?

New MacBooks with Retina displays require hi res graphics, so Apple must to adopt OS to this hardware change, so they decided a new OS X with some additional features like Safari 5.2, GateKeeper,iCloud for Safari that are that we know from DP reviews. This is also a chance to earn money. This update will cost probably 29$ like Snow Leo. But...

Developers do not stand the pace of Apple. This is a real problem. I tried to run Safari 5.2 (copied from ML DP2) under OS X Lion 10.7.3 and it is incompatible. So again we must wait for a new generation of applications compatible with ML. And I do not mean small apps but rather very complex products like Ableton, Adobe, AutoCAD and also buggy Apple Aperture etc.

This is sick because Mountain Lion looks like tuned Lion with small changes. There is no revolution inside. Is there a problem to replace old icons with the new HD icons, to add a new Safari and GateKeeper, Notifications using Combo Update? These features are not spectacular to release a new OS and sell it for low price 30$ ;) Believe me or not but even such low price generates a big profits for Apple and it is extremely clever from marketing point of view.

Apple released some time ago Migration Assistant for OS X Leopard, but I hope that Apple gave up with idea of curious migration (double upgrade) from OS X Leopard to OS X Lion spending additional 29$ for OS X Snow Leopard required - 60$ in total. In case of migration from OS X Leopard to OS X Mountain Lion it will means (triple update) the purchase of two unnecessary OS X systems: Snow Leopard and Lion (total 90$).

Did you ever heard about Windows 7 that require buying Windows Vista? No. You can install it without any problem.

Regarding Windows: many of Microsoft Windows applications are still compatible with 11 years old Windows XP standard which is a real advantage. There is no such wide compatibility (backward and forward) in Apple world. You can use applications built for Windows 7 under Windows 8 (maybe except such like disk utilities). Compare it with Apple environment - such small well known OS X app utility like OnyX - separate versions for Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion and Mountain Lion. Leopard is just a 5-years old OS. Happily developers are ready in this case - you can download OnyX for ML. So maybe OS X and software for Macs are cheaper, but you must to buy a new versions very often and loose nerves.

I realize that hardware changes each year but 2-3 years OS X release cycle is more comfortable for software developers and for customers situation is more stable also. Minor changes like Safari 5.2, Notifications, GateKeeper etc in ML shall be released in Combo Update form to Lion. After 2-3 years we can expect more significant changes i.e. HFS+ with sparse file support and without ancient PowerPC 16-bit support or totally new file system etc.