10.2.2, 10.2.3 before XMas

[MacRumors]

Spymac (http://www.spymac.com) offers a timeframe for upcoming point releases of Mac OS X.


The minor update is the first of two smaller revisions due out before the end of 2002. Mac OS 10.2.3, according to the current schedule, should arrive before Christmas.


[edit: Spymac corrected the date]

[Scab Cake]

With all of these updates coming so quickly, I hope this doesn't mean that it'll cost another $129 to upgrade to 10.3 in a few months. :)

[Billicus]

What a logical statement - updates are released every couple of months.

[Over Achiever]

Originally posted by Billicus
What a logical statement - updates are released every couple of months.

Yes, but is there usually two updates in a couple of months?;)

[skunk]

I presume they mean 2002, not 2003......:confused: :rolleyes:

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by skunk
I presume they mean 2002, not 2003......:confused: :rolleyes:

Doesn't anyone remember the 10.1.x update progression? We got 2 or 3 updates in a couple months.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by skunk
I presume they mean 2002, not 2003......:confused: :rolleyes:

Exactly my thoughts ... 10.2.3 by Christmas 2003 doesn't exactly sound like a good thing ...

[Hemingray]

Originally posted by skunk
I presume they mean 2002, not 2003......:confused: :rolleyes:

Right... like Apple would wait 14 months to release an OS update... :rolleyes:

[samdweck]

Originally posted by Scab Cake
With all of these updates coming so quickly, I hope this doesn't mean that it'll cost another $129 to upgrade to 10.3 in a few months. :)

I hope not too, but I think Jaguar has one year to go... also, i hope there are ichat updates in 10.2.3 or i will go nuts!

[rugby]

Well, I can definitely see 10.2.2 coming out by Christmas, but 10.2.3? Maybe. The nice thing about the iApps like iChat is that the application is just a gui over the actual ichat daemon which can be updated in an OS update or patch without changing the actual application.

[SilvorX]

M$ took 9-10 months to get "SOME" of the bugs fixed..but forgot thousands more...a 130 mb sp...and the only thing diff is "so called" removing access to ie...even tho when someone sends me a link on msn n i click it...ie still opens :P...psh....n thats with removing access to ie...same thing for win messenger...it still starts up with windows...

[medea]

I looking forward to hearing more on what these updates will entail.
until then.....

[jccbin]

It appears that Apple is changing its policy regarding paid updates/upgrades. In OS 9 terms, x.5 and x.0 upgrades were paid. In OS X x.1, x.2, x.3 and so on will appear at the same intervals as the 8.5, 9.0 etc upgrades and will be PAID upgrades.

Apple gave us 10.1 in good faith to make up for the crap that was 10.0 (at least the upgrade was free for some, only the cost of media/shipping/handling).

10.2 was paid.

10.3 will likely be paid, and released in spring, 2003.

Nothing new here. Please move along.:cool:

[ultrafiel]

<<10.3 will likely be paid, and released in spring, 2003.>>

I don't expect 10.3 to come out in Spring 03 that would be extremely early. More of a fall 03 time would be in accordance to what Apple has done. Expect Apple to have small updates to probably 10.2.5(6) and then 10.3 will come out in fall. They will promote it during the developers conference in the summer and also the expo, and will promote it as a must have for a few months why they work out the bugs and then give it to us, with some minor updates coming soon after to fix what they couldn't. I don't mind, OS X rocks! I've been classic free for over half a year now, and don't want to go back.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by jccbin
It appears that Apple is changing its policy regarding paid updates/upgrades. In OS 9 terms, x.5 and x.0 upgrades were paid. In OS X x.1, x.2, x.3 and so on will appear at the same intervals as the 8.5, 9.0 etc upgrades and will be PAID upgrades.

Apple gave us 10.1 in good faith to make up for the crap that was 10.0 (at least the upgrade was free for some, only the cost of media/shipping/handling).

10.2 was paid.

10.3 will likely be paid, and released in spring, 2003.

Nothing new here. Please move along.:cool:

I highly doubt 10.3 will be a paid upgrade or at least not a full price one such as 10.2 was. My reasoning is simply that 10.2 was a very major change to the whole OSX system and deserved very much a 10.5 or 11 designation. Though at this point I still feel that 10.2 as good as it is, is not a complete system and we will not be getting a complete OSX system for at least a year. 10.3 in my oppinion will be the equivalent of 10.1 and will carry a small upgrade fee I think they will charge full system prices every other .x number which will be on a time line of about every year to year and a half. What they are doing is stretching 10.x name out as long as they can to get people use to it and keep the campaign momentum going. In a few years they will go to 11.x system but it will still be called OSX in my oppinion though it may be something like OSX reborn or OSX2 or something like that.

[Telomar]

10.2.2 should be out towards the very end of this month or very early next month. 10.2.3 should definitely be out before the end of 2002 considering it contains some necessary support for things.

Those dates are definitely what is being timelined although you can speculate until you turn blue on the 10.3 release date :p

[j763]

There are loads of bugs in 10.2.1 (http://www.ambitiouslemon.com/hints.php?id=17) and apple really needs to start addressing them. I hope we'll see many more 10.2.x releases, as the more bug fixes the better!

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by j763
There are loads of bugs in 10.2.1 (http://www.ambitiouslemon.com/hints.php?id=17) and apple really needs to start addressing them. I hope we'll see many more 10.2.x releases, as the more bug fixes the better!
Most of these "bugs" would more accurately fit the description of Feature Requests. Wanting the OS to change the way it does things is a feature request. Wanting the OS to not freak out when you set it to do something that it says it does is a bug.

If most of these "Bugs" were refered to as "Feature Requests" then I would agree with you more.

RL

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Though at this point I still feel that 10.2 as good as it is, is not a complete system and we will not be getting a complete OSX system for at least a year.

What about 10.2 is not a complete system? J/C

RL

[Scab Cake]

Originally posted by Scab Cake
With all of these updates coming so quickly, I hope this doesn't mean that it'll cost another $129 to upgrade to 10.3 in a few months. :)

Edit: I guess I forgot to mention that this was a joke. Sorry for all those offended.

[TechLarry]

Originally posted by rugby
Well, I can definitely see 10.2.2 coming out by Christmas, but 10.2.3? Maybe. The nice thing about the iApps like iChat is that the application is just a gui over the actual ichat daemon which can be updated in an OS update or patch without changing the actual application.

I don't have a problem with IE in XP (though version 6 is the most bloated, slowest and buggiest browser MS has ever released. Bring back 5.01 !!!), but you are right about Windows Messenger.

It's a friggen' Cockroach and you can't kill it. I'ts totally annoying.

TL

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by RogueLdr


What about 10.2 is not a complete system? J/C

RL

10.2 is still missing a lot of features that I expect from a system that even OS9 had. It's little things like all the little bugs that aren't necessarily Apples fault but more incompatibilities with developers. I think most of these things will be ironed out in about a year.

[Thirteenva]

Originally posted by MacBandit


I highly doubt 10.3 will be a paid upgrade or at least not a full price one such as 10.2 was.


i agree... i think 10.3 will be a more along the lines of refinement not an overhaul like 10.2. It will be an actual UPGRADE like 10.1 was to 10.0.4. If you notice apple never refers to jaguar as an OS upgrade.


My reasoning is simply that 10.2 was a very major change to the whole OSX system and deserved very much a 10.5 or 11 designation.

I disagree here. 11 is way to drastic for what 10.2 was. Jaguar was to much of an overhaul to be a typical "upgrade" (hence the price. But shares to much with 10.1 to have been labeled OS 11.

They prob didn't use 10.5 designation because they know they need more room to grow. They were working on 10.3 before jaguar even hit the shelves.


Though at this point I still feel that 10.2 as good as it is, is not a complete system and we will not be getting a complete OSX system for at least a year.

Could you please explain this further, i know you answered this a couple posts up but you really didnt elaborate. I think this is a very complete OS, thats why it was packaged and sold as a complete OS for full price. I find this OS to be way more complete and feature rich than any windows systems i use. If you're talking about minor bugs, well that doesnt make it any less complete. Windows OS's are so buggy that they'd still be considered beta's by that logic(and maybe they should be, lol).



10.3 in my oppinion will be the equivalent of 10.1 and will carry a small upgrade fee....


I agree here.


I think they will charge full system prices every other .x number which will be on a time line of about every year to year and a half.

Interesting thought... i think the next full price update may be 10.5 which is probably well in the future.


What they are doing is stretching 10.x name out as long as they can to get people use to it and keep the campaign momentum going.

Yeah some of it has to do with marketing hype, and some has to do with the fact that OS X has been in development for many years now. They've had it as a plan for the future for quite a while and aren't going to jump to a new OS version till they feel the need to make a major innovation as apple is known for doing.


In a few years they will go to 11.x system but it will still be called OSX in my oppinion though it may be something like OSX reborn or OSX2 or something like that.

We'll just have to see. maybe it will be OS X 2.0 or maybe it will be OS11 or maybe it will have a name and not a version number...
who knows...

[mjtomlin]

By the time Apple completes the development cycle of OS X ... the operating system will run on many other Apple branded products, not just Macintosh labeled computers. (Already powering Xserve, which does contain the Macintosh label)

They've also removed the "Happy Mac" power up screen and replaced it with the Apple logo. The same way the iPod powers up.

So I predict they'll end up changing it to Apple OS or something like that. If they even decided to stick with "OS" at all.

I also believe that once Apple gains enough market share (maybe double what they have now), they'll begin to license the operating system again. There has to be enough evidence that 'other' people are willing to use or switch to Apple's OS to justify having it on non Apple hardware. It of course also helps to have a fairly large hardware user base out there to help keep revenue up, once some of them switch to non-Apple hardware.

However once enough Cocoa apps are available, Apple may also choose to come out with a very cheap low end system using a x86 CPU. Cocoa allows for easy cross platform development. It is after all an abstract environment, completely removed from hardware. Compile your app twice ... once for PPC and again for x86 or any other CPU for that matter and you instantly have a program that will run on any Apple OS based system, regardless of what hardware it's running on.

Anyway, that's what I predict the future holds for Apple.

[Thirteenva]

i don't see them licensing the operating system. What makes apple great is the fact that everything works so well together and issues are easy to trouble shoot. Allowing the apple OS to run on many different systems with many diffrent pieces of hardware would create a situation where there would be compatibility issues between hardware and the OS, more difficulty in tracking these issues and less control by apple over how the final product, the computer as a whole, perform.

Mac's work because of the overall quality control apple has over everything. What distinguishes a dell from a mac is that the dell was put together with the cheapest parts with no regard for overall functionallity, macs are put together to function together as a whole, the overall mac experience is what keeps people buying apple computers, not just the OS.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Thirteenva


Though at this point I still feel that 10.2 as good as it is, is not a complete system and we will not be getting a complete OSX system for at least a year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please explain this further, i know you answered this a couple posts up but you really didnt elaborate. I think this is a very complete OS, thats why it was packaged and sold as a complete OS for full price. I find this OS to be way more complete and feature rich than any windows systems i use. If you're talking about minor bugs, well that doesnt make it any less complete. Windows OS's are so buggy that they'd still be considered beta's by that logic(and maybe they should be, lol).



I'm sorry I haven't responded promptly on this but believe it or not as much as I love all of you I do have to give and go to work some times.

Okay here goes I will try to explain this. I'm not necessarily comparing the system as a whole to winbloze or any other system. I think that OSX has come the closest to perfection that any GUI system ever has structurally. I still think that the user experience has a long way to go. In OS9 I could organize my applications by categories in any folder I wanted and the system updaters would always find them or install a completely new version. Not so in OSX if it doesn't find it, it either installs an incomplete version or none at all. Also I hate to do this but XP has some features I want starting with list view you can organize any folder containing music by Artist, time, bit rate, etc.. This carries over to the iApps. There just isn't enough user customizable preferences in OSX. I don't feel that it's not possible in OSX it's just that Apple has been focusing on system level improvements. This has been the correct goal for them in my opinion and they nearly have that end of it licked. I see vast user interface improvements in the year to come as the system requires less and less of there time.

This is what I mean as 10.2 being an incomplete system. I know that all systems are improved over time but I feel that we are still dealing with a version 1.x system here. Although a very good, if not the best system at this level ever.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mjtomlin
By the time Apple completes the development cycle of OS X ... the operating system will run on many other Apple branded products, not just Macintosh labeled computers. (Already powering Xserve, which does contain the Macintosh label)

They've also removed the "Happy Mac" power up screen and replaced it with the Apple logo. The same way the iPod powers up.

So I predict they'll end up changing it to Apple OS or something like that. If they even decided to stick with "OS" at all.

I also believe that once Apple gains enough market share (maybe double what they have now), they'll begin to license the operating system again. There has to be enough evidence that 'other' people are willing to use or switch to Apple's OS to justify having it on non Apple hardware. It of course also helps to have a fairly large hardware user base out there to help keep revenue up, once some of them switch to non-Apple hardware.

However once enough Cocoa apps are available, Apple may also choose to come out with a very cheap low end system using a x86 CPU. Cocoa allows for easy cross platform development. It is after all an abstract environment, completely removed from hardware. Compile your app twice ... once for PPC and again for x86 or any other CPU for that matter and you instantly have a program that will run on any Apple OS based system, regardless of what hardware it's running on.

Anyway, that's what I predict the future holds for Apple.


There are serious problems with licensing a System. The biggest is that if there are incompatibilities the end user is always looking to the end System developer for help. This is why Winbloze sucks so bad. They have to write the system for the lowest common denominator. That being the slowest oldest crummiest put together system that they will license the system to run on. There are a lot of systems that meet those definitions out there and this explains in part why Windows is a perfect example of bloatware. They just keep having to write more and more code so it will work under these systems.

Apple's current ideology is nearly perfect not only do they write the system but they write it to work on there system. They don't have to worry that some computer meeting all the specs out there somewhere put together by some licensee crashing on startup just because the system doesn't recognize something. This also lets Apple develop the hardware to fit there image of what they want there software to do and ensure that it all works correctly.

[Thirteenva]

Originally posted by MacBandit



I'm sorry I haven't responded promptly on this but believe it or not as much as I love all of you I do have to give and go to work some times.


lol... i hear ya, i sneak some personal internet time in during work....


Okay here goes I will try to explain this. I'm not necessarily comparing the system as a whole to winbloze or any other system. I think that OSX has come the closest to perfection that any GUI system ever has structurally. I still think that the user experience has a long way to go.


Interesting perspective. I actually enjoy my user experience more in os x than i did in 9. So i'm on the other side of the street here.



In OS9 I could organize my applications by categories in any folder I wanted and the system updaters would always find them or install a completely new version.


I disagree, i had this problem in os 9 on a number of occasions with updates not finding the apps and i had to manually select the folder they resided in. I see not being any diffrent in OS X.


Not so in OSX if it doesn't find it, it either installs an incomplete version or none at all.

My situation with this has been different. Any time my updates couldnt find the app it usually gives me a prompt to locate it myself. I've never had an incomplete version install.


Also I hate to do this but XP has some features I want starting with list view you can organize any folder containing music by Artist, time, bit rate, etc..

No worry, i understand there are some small features in windows that the mac could benefit from. I use windows all day at work :( but i do find some small features that i think would be useful on a mac. However as a whole i do not enjoy fighting....uhh i mean using windows...


This carries over to the iApps. There just isn't enough user customizable preferences in OSX. I don't feel that it's not possible in OSX it's just that Apple has been focusing on system level improvements. This has been the correct goal for them in my opinion and they nearly have that end of it licked. I see vast user interface improvements in the year to come as the system requires less and less of there time.

I agree. I want more user customizable preferences also. This is my major UI complaint with OS. I wouldn't label OS X as being incomplete without it BUT it would be nice to have some more prefs...



This is what I mean as 10.2 being an incomplete system. I know that all systems are improved over time but I feel that we are still dealing with a version 1.x system here. Although a very good, if not the best system at this level ever.
I understand your complaints, i would not choose to use incomplete to describe them. Maybe its a less personal computing experience, seeing as how most of the interface was easily customized in 9 and not as much can be customized in 10, yet..

[Anecdoter]

Hi,
Just a quick question. If I were to buy a Mac now, would it have just 10.2 on it, or would 10.2.1 be installed? Likewise, are all the iApps the latest version, or do they need to be upgraded as well?
Basically, I'm wondering how long I'll need to download updates to make a new Mac current.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Anecdoter
Hi,
Just a quick question. If I were to buy a Mac now, would it have just 10.2 on it, or would 10.2.1 be installed? Likewise, are all the iApps the latest version, or do they need to be upgraded as well?
Basically, I'm wondering how long I'll need to download updates to make a new Mac current.

It will have 10.2.1 and on some of them they are coming a new version of 10.2.1.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Thirteenva

I disagree, i had this problem in os 9 on a number of occasions with updates not finding the apps and i had to manually select the folder they resided in. I see not being any diffrent in OS X.

My situation with this has been different. Any time my updates couldnt find the app it usually gives me a prompt to locate it myself. I've never had an incomplete version install.


I kind of specifically talking about the Apple update installers. They are the ones I've had problems with. When I had iTunes in a sound folder it did not find it and it did not install correctly. It also did not give me an option to find it. At least in OS9 it would install completely or give you an option to find the missing program.

Okay I guess incomplete is open to interpretation but I think a system is made up fo two parts. The underlying base that you don't ever mess with and the GUI that you interact with. At this point I think the GUI is at least half missing options and functions that would make life a lot easier. This in my mind makes it incomplete.

Also I think it would be difficult to argue that OSX is not still a 1.x version or even just on the verge from beta to 1.x. I have never considered a program done until it hit at least 2.x. At that point the main functions of the program have been added and everything from that point on is debugging or adding little stuff or even complete rewrites to completely change the program but I think you get my point.

[Thirteenva]

Originally posted by MacBandit


I kind of specifically talking about the Apple update installers. They are the ones I've had problems with. When I had iTunes in a sound folder it did not find it and it did not install correctly. It also did not give me an option to find it. At least in OS9 it would install completely or give you an option to find the missing program.


Oh, apple updates, didn't even think of that. I have had that problem.

At one point when i still had the 20 gb HD in my tibook, i was running out of room in my system partition (housing both oS 9 an 10) so i moved a bunch of stuff to my Files partition and made alias of system related programs and files. I was able to update without too much of a hassle but i hear what your saying, If apple is going to assume that the mail.app or itunes or whatever is in the default spot then they should at leas perform a check and allow you to point to it manually when it is not located.