Mac OS X Updates Less Frequent

MacRumors · May 24, 2004, 09:41 AM

CNet reported last week that Apple will be slowing the pace of Mac OS X releases in the future.

Apple has released 3 major updates to Mac OS X since it's initial release in 2001. A preview of the newest version (Tiger; Mac OS X 10.4) is due at the World Wide Developer's Conference in June of this year.

Apple's Chief Software Technology Officer Avie Tevanian is quoted as saying "We're slowing that (pace) down a little bit...because that's not a sustainable rate." But does promise that "You'll still see us go really fast".

hob · May 24, 2004, 09:45 AM

Well, that seems fair - they've done a lot of work since 2001, and I don't think they can really sustain all the new features - like in panther, they've kind of hit a wall, there's only so much you can add to an OS before it gets clutterred!

Windowlicker · May 24, 2004, 09:49 AM

i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad.

adamfilip · May 24, 2004, 09:50 AM

personally i love the yearly releases.

keep it comming.. hey lets bump it up too a new version every 8 months!

its only like 120 bucks

dizastor · May 24, 2004, 09:51 AM

so... $129 every 18 months ??

mklos · 09:59 AM

I think this is the best thing Apple can do. Right now in my opinion they have the best OS in the industry and they can afford to slow down a little. This will give them a chance to sit back a little but and really put some thought into some really cool new features. It gives them the time needed to implement these new features too. Since they've announced this they will no longer be forced to release an OS every year. So now they can make sure its actually ready to be released. It gives them a chance to do an in depth check for bugs, security holes, etc. Finally, it calms down the customers from bitching and complaining that they have to spend $129 every 12 months for an OS update. You poor babies! Now you'll have to wait 18-20 months to spend that $129! The OS X developers deserve a little break as said before they've worked their @$$ off for 3 or 4 years getting an OS released every year since its introduction, something Microsoft has failed to do.

mklos · May 24, 2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windowlicker

i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad.

Thats what I thought about Jaguar! I thought man this does everything I need it to do, but then Apple seems to keep coming up with great ideas to add to the OS and keeps me buying it every year. Plus, I'm an update freak!

oingoboingo · May 24, 2004, 09:59 AM

Hopefully this means that some of the core frameworks and APIs in Mac OS X have been bedded down. While it is a common refrain that "Mac hardware remains useful longer" (regardless if that is actually true or not), it is not as true for Mac operating systems. If you want access to the latest software, you really need to be running Jaguar (OS X 10.2) or later. I do understand the reasons for this...OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were really about Apple actually getting OS X to a state where it was truly 'finished', which having something modern and updated to ship to customers and developers in the meantime. But adding new graphical and usability features from here on in to OS X hopefully doesn't have to mean that new applications won't run on older versions of OS X. For example, Internet Explorer 6 still runs on Windows 98...the latest versions of Safari require OS X 10.2 or better.

A little more core OS/API stability would be nice.

JFreak · May 24, 2004, 09:59 AM

as long as they keep optimizing and manage to release a faster os (with the same hardware) than the previous, it's fine. no need to release every year, but i'd like them keeping up the pace at least until longhorn - microsoft needs a good slap in the face by apple on a regular basis

gadg · May 24, 2004, 10:03 AM

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

Stella · May 24, 2004, 10:03 AM

Good news that apple are going to slow down osx releases.. Apple cannot expect consumers to pay $129 every year, plus its a headache to business uesrs who cannot upgrade every year. Makes an Apple expensive to own. Yes, you don't have to upgrade, but how many people want to be on an old OS (Windows doesn't matter, OSX does).

I just want to see optimized version of OSX with plenty of good features regularly, but not every calendar year! If Apple can do this, then I'm happy.

Also, I'm wondering if this will be the last OSX .... will the next one be 11?

oingoboingo · May 24, 2004, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mklos

The OS X developers deserve a little break as said before they've worked their @$$ off for 3 or 4 years getting an OS released every year since its introduction, something Microsoft has failed to do.

Presumably the OS X developers are being paid for their efforts, and afforded whatever standard benefits Apple provides their employees such as vacation time and sick leave. We pay for OS X when we buy our Macs, and we pay US$129 for the upgrades. Apple is a profitable company, with large cash reserves. While I congratulate the OS X development team for their fine work, let's not get too misty eyed for them either. They're just doing their job, and I believe the Mac user base pays a very solid premium for them to do this.

pjkelnhofer · May 24, 2004, 10:05 AM

Does this mean I should not plan on pitching at tent in front of the AppleStore in Cambridge this October.

Seriously, people have been complaining about updates coming to quickly, now I wonder if people will start complaining about have to wait too long for OS updates. IMO, Panther is what OS X should have been when it first came out. The original OS X and 10.1 were both jokes. With Jaguar, Apple finally got it right, and with Panther the added a few things that were left out.

Now they can start to work on the true next generation OS rather than worry about minor improvements to the current one. I wonder if the means we should expect more from Tiger and if we will not see it until 2005. Maybe it will even be designed for the G5 and not be availible until the whole line has migrated to the chip which could be quite some time from now.

nsb3000 · May 24, 2004, 10:06 AM

If I remember correctly, did Steve jobes say something like, "Because Mac OS X is so modern , we are making updates that much faster"...

But really, while I think Apple needs to do a better job at supporting the OS's it has out there, there is no reason they should stop adding new features. Just because Mac OS X is mature enough to be a usable OS for everyday use, doesn’t mean Apple should stop now. You know Microsoft is not.

macmunch · May 24, 2004, 10:10 AM

And again Apple User dont look on the side of windows ?!

What does a Windows XP cost ?
more than 300 $ !

So 129 $ are more than fair !

But I am also would like to see updates every 1 1/2 year or at latest 2 years cycle.

nsb3000 · May 24, 2004, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjkelnhofer

Does this mean I should not plan on pitching at tent in front of the AppleStore in Cambridge this October.

Seriously, people have been complaining about updates coming to quickly, now I wonder if people will start complaining about have to wait too long for OS updates. IMO, Panther is what OS X should have been when it first came out. The original OS X and 10.1 were both jokes. With Jaguar, Apple finally got it right, and with Panther the added a few things that were left out.

Now they can start to work on the true next generation OS rather than worry about minor improvements to the current one. I wonder if the means we should expect more from Tiger and if we will not see it until 2005. Maybe it will even be designed for the G5 and not be availible until the whole line has migrated to the chip which could be quite some time from now.

Exactly, now that we (Finally) have a decent OS we need to keep the updates coming to stay ahead of the competition…

johnnyjibbs · May 24, 2004, 10:12 AM

Tiger will have to have G3, G4 and G5 support, or there will be many annoyed customers. I also think that Mac OS X will be with us for a long time. Who cares whether it's called OS X or XI? The name of Mac OS X is a clear distinction from the classic Mac OS (1-9), which is not compatible. There's no reason why Mac OS X cannot last the decade. This way it also establishes itself firmly as a brand.

Maybe the answer for Apple would be to not charge £129 for each and every update. After all, most of their sales come from new Macs or other software (or iPods). New Macs include the latest release of the OS with them.

jelloshotsrule · May 24, 2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadg

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

they are going to talk about it in a few weeks. it would be released in several months at the earliest

JFreak · May 24, 2004, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyjibbs

Maybe the answer for Apple would be to not charge £129 for each and every update. After all, most of their sales come from new Macs or other software (or iPods). New Macs include the latest release of the OS with them.

osx for free and 100 dollars for the yearly ilife package? that way they would be able to push the latest os for everyone and charge the premium for software eveyone wants to have...

soosy · May 24, 2004, 10:33 AM

I loved the yearly updates too. Hopefully it won't slow down too much.

I could see how the yearly updates wouldn't work as well for businesses and organizations. And I think it would great for Apple to devote more effort to stable and documented API's (how 'bout opening up iSync, for example?)

wPod · May 24, 2004, 10:34 AM

they need to slow down software and speed up hardware development!!! are they ever going to come out with new monitors?!!! or maybe spend more time with iPhoto and less with the OS . . . i have never had a problem with OS X cause its soo good, why do they have to upgrade it?!

geneshifter · May 24, 2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hob

Well, that seems fair - they've done a lot of work since 2001, and I don't think they can really sustain all the new features - like in panther, they've kind of hit a wall, there's only so much you can add to an OS before it gets clutterred!

I can think of one thing that might help - how about write priviledges for FTP in the Finder. This read-only stuff is outrageous.

Sped · May 24, 2004, 10:40 AM

I don't know anything about writing OS code, but it seems that slowing down will coincide nicely with 64 bit computing coming online. It will take some time for Apple's entire lineup to become G5 or better, and of course there will still be G4 and older machines being used for a long time. Like I said, I am not a software designer, but it seems supporting 64 bit and 32 bit hardware has the potential to bloat the code. If this assumption is correct, slowing down will allow the user base to gradually transition to newer hardware.

By the way, remember the tremendous bitching going on about how OS X was crap and that many would never stop using OS 9? I was switcher during that time and have never really used OS 9. I think it's funny now how hardly anyone is griping anymore.

BornAgainMac · May 24, 2004, 10:45 AM

I bet it is from all those people complaining about yearly O/S updates. Well, it was nice while it lasted. What Panther doesn't do for me today, I try to find addons from Versiontracker. Perhaps having an update every 18 months is the right balance and if it includes 300 new features.

I hope we still get iLife updates every year and really improve .Mac for that $99 bucks a year.

Mord · May 24, 2004, 10:52 AM

damn my inability to use anything but the latest os

i will get 10.4 even if it just has a few cosmetic changes

May 24, 2004, 09:41 AM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	Mac OS X Updates Less Frequent CNet reported last week that Apple will be slowing the pace of Mac OS X releases in the future. Apple has released 3 major updates to Mac OS X since it's initial release in 2001. A preview of the newest version (Tiger; Mac OS X 10.4) is due at the World Wide Developer's Conference in June of this year. Apple's Chief Software Technology Officer Avie Tevanian is quoted as saying "We're slowing that (pace) down a little bit...because that's not a sustainable rate." But does promise that "You'll still see us go really fast".

May 24, 2004, 09:45 AM	#2
hob macrumors 68000 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: London, UK	Well, that seems fair - they've done a lot of work since 2001, and I don't think they can really sustain all the new features - like in panther, they've kind of hit a wall, there's only so much you can add to an OS before it gets clutterred! __________________ see robmac.net for my work

May 24, 2004, 09:49 AM	#3
Windowlicker macrumors 6502a Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Finland	i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad. __________________ I was elected to lead, not to read.

May 24, 2004, 09:50 AM	#4
adamfilip macrumors 6502a Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: burlington, Ontario canada	personally i love the yearly releases. keep it comming.. hey lets bump it up too a new version every 8 months! its only like 120 bucks __________________ PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0, 3gb Ram,74gb Raptor,1.5TB Seagate,Canon 40D DSLR,Dell 24" LCD, Epson 1660 scan, Wacom,

May 24, 2004, 09:51 AM	#5
dizastor macrumors 6502a Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Los Angeles	so... $129 every 18 months ?? __________________ ejc on Twitter

May 24, 2004, 09:54 AM	#6
mklos macrumors 68000 Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: My house!	I think this is the best thing Apple can do. Right now in my opinion they have the best OS in the industry and they can afford to slow down a little. This will give them a chance to sit back a little but and really put some thought into some really cool new features. It gives them the time needed to implement these new features too. Since they've announced this they will no longer be forced to release an OS every year. So now they can make sure its actually ready to be released. It gives them a chance to do an in depth check for bugs, security holes, etc. Finally, it calms down the customers from bitching and complaining that they have to spend $129 every 12 months for an OS update. You poor babies! Now you'll have to wait 18-20 months to spend that $129! The OS X developers deserve a little break as said before they've worked their @$$ off for 3 or 4 years getting an OS released every year since its introduction, something Microsoft has failed to do. __________________ 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Mac Pro (Nehlem) 24" LED Cinema Aluminum MacBook 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo 16GB iPhone 3GS Last edited by mklos : May 24, 2004 at 09:59 AM.

May 24, 2004, 09:59 AM	#8
oingoboingo macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Sydney, Australia	Updates versus support Hopefully this means that some of the core frameworks and APIs in Mac OS X have been bedded down. While it is a common refrain that "Mac hardware remains useful longer" (regardless if that is actually true or not), it is not as true for Mac operating systems. If you want access to the latest software, you really need to be running Jaguar (OS X 10.2) or later. I do understand the reasons for this...OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were really about Apple actually getting OS X to a state where it was truly 'finished', which having something modern and updated to ship to customers and developers in the meantime. But adding new graphical and usability features from here on in to OS X hopefully doesn't have to mean that new applications won't run on older versions of OS X. For example, Internet Explorer 6 still runs on Windows 98...the latest versions of Safari require OS X 10.2 or better. A little more core OS/API stability would be nice. __________________ - 24" 2.8GHz iMac / 512MB nVidia 8800GS - 15" 2.4GHz MacBook Pro - 20GB 4G iPod

May 24, 2004, 09:59 AM	#9
JFreak macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland	as long as they keep optimizing and manage to release a faster os (with the same hardware) than the previous, it's fine. no need to release every year, but i'd like them keeping up the pace at least until longhorn - microsoft needs a good slap in the face by apple on a regular basis

May 24, 2004, 10:03 AM	#10
gadg macrumors newbie Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Amsterdam	Hrmpf I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks! __________________ the difference between men and boys, is the price of their toys

May 24, 2004, 10:03 AM	#11
Stella macrumors 68040 Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada	Good news that apple are going to slow down osx releases.. Apple cannot expect consumers to pay $129 every year, plus its a headache to business uesrs who cannot upgrade every year. Makes an Apple expensive to own. Yes, you don't have to upgrade, but how many people want to be on an old OS (Windows doesn't matter, OSX does). I just want to see optimized version of OSX with plenty of good features regularly, but not every calendar year! If Apple can do this, then I'm happy. Also, I'm wondering if this will be the last OSX .... will the next one be 11? __________________ iPhone: The cell phone for communists and censorship

May 24, 2004, 10:05 AM	#13
pjkelnhofer macrumors 6502a Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston	Does this mean I should not plan on pitching at tent in front of the AppleStore in Cambridge this October. Seriously, people have been complaining about updates coming to quickly, now I wonder if people will start complaining about have to wait too long for OS updates. IMO, Panther is what OS X should have been when it first came out. The original OS X and 10.1 were both jokes. With Jaguar, Apple finally got it right, and with Panther the added a few things that were left out. Now they can start to work on the true next generation OS rather than worry about minor improvements to the current one. I wonder if the means we should expect more from Tiger and if we will not see it until 2005. Maybe it will even be designed for the G5 and not be availible until the whole line has migrated to the chip which could be quite some time from now.

May 24, 2004, 10:06 AM	#14
nsb3000 macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston, MA	If I remember correctly, did Steve jobes say something like, "Because Mac OS X is so modern , we are making updates that much faster"... But really, while I think Apple needs to do a better job at supporting the OS's it has out there, there is no reason they should stop adding new features. Just because Mac OS X is mature enough to be a usable OS for everyday use, doesn’t mean Apple should stop now. You know Microsoft is not.

May 24, 2004, 10:10 AM	#15
macmunch macrumors regular Join Date: Jan 2002	And again Apple User dont look on the side of windows ?! What does a Windows XP cost ? more than 300 $ ! So 129 $ are more than fair ! But I am also would like to see updates every 1 1/2 year or at latest 2 years cycle.

May 24, 2004, 10:12 AM	#17
johnnyjibbs macrumors 68030 Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: London, UK	Tiger will have to have G3, G4 and G5 support, or there will be many annoyed customers. I also think that Mac OS X will be with us for a long time. Who cares whether it's called OS X or XI? The name of Mac OS X is a clear distinction from the classic Mac OS (1-9), which is not compatible. There's no reason why Mac OS X cannot last the decade. This way it also establishes itself firmly as a brand. Maybe the answer for Apple would be to not charge £129 for each and every update. After all, most of their sales come from new Macs or other software (or iPods). New Macs include the latest release of the OS with them. __________________ johngriffithsapps.com - Get It Done! \| Grocery Checkout 15" MBP, iPhone 3G, 12" PB, iPod 4G, iPod shuffle

May 24, 2004, 10:33 AM	#20
soosy macrumors regular Join Date: May 2002	I loved the yearly updates too. Hopefully it won't slow down too much. I could see how the yearly updates wouldn't work as well for businesses and organizations. And I think it would great for Apple to devote more effort to stable and documented API's (how 'bout opening up iSync, for example?)

May 24, 2004, 10:34 AM	#21
wPod macrumors 68000 Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Denver, CO	they need to slow down software and speed up hardware development!!! are they ever going to come out with new monitors?!!! or maybe spend more time with iPhoto and less with the OS . . . i have never had a problem with OS X cause its soo good, why do they have to upgrade it?!

May 24, 2004, 10:40 AM	#23
Sped macrumors regular Join Date: May 2003	I don't know anything about writing OS code, but it seems that slowing down will coincide nicely with 64 bit computing coming online. It will take some time for Apple's entire lineup to become G5 or better, and of course there will still be G4 and older machines being used for a long time. Like I said, I am not a software designer, but it seems supporting 64 bit and 32 bit hardware has the potential to bloat the code. If this assumption is correct, slowing down will allow the user base to gradually transition to newer hardware. By the way, remember the tremendous bitching going on about how OS X was crap and that many would never stop using OS 9? I was switcher during that time and have never really used OS 9. I think it's funny now how hardly anyone is griping anymore. __________________ Switcher since Jan 02 3.06 gHz 24" iMac, 1.5 gHz G4 15" PowerBook 1G 5gB iPod, iPod mini, 1G 4gB iPod nano, 2G 8gB iPod nano, 3G 8gB iPod nano, iPhone 3G

May 24, 2004, 10:45 AM	#24
BornAgainMac macrumors 68030 Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Florida Resident	Complaints I bet it is from all those people complaining about yearly O/S updates. Well, it was nice while it lasted. What Panther doesn't do for me today, I try to find addons from Versiontracker. Perhaps having an update every 18 months is the right balance and if it includes 300 new features. I hope we still get iLife updates every year and really improve .Mac for that $99 bucks a year.

May 24, 2004, 10:52 AM	#25
Mord macrumors 601 Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: People's Republic of Yorkshire	damn my inability to use anything but the latest os i will get 10.4 even if it just has a few cosmetic changes __________________ Consider the lily.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode