I was. It wasn't that buggy mostly due to the fact that it wasn't that much.
It was barely even Windows.
I do have the disks in storage still.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Apple Has a Poor Track Record ... On Dot Zero Releases'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was. It wasn't that buggy mostly due to the fact that it wasn't that much.
It was barely even Windows.
I do have the disks in storage still.
I think its urban myth that Apple's dot zero record is worse than any other large tech company. I'm an early adopter and personally can't say I've experienced backbreaking problems w/ dot zero Apple products. Moreover, in today's tech world very few products are enhanced clones of their predecessor. Hardware had different procs., logic boards, etc. S/W has new code, etc. Every revision, not just dot zero, is subject to human error.
That said, it's just plain common sense for pros to not veer from the tried and true until it's 100% known to be safe to do so. I don't think that is a slam on the new FCPX. It will eventually be adopted by pros.
That said, it's just plain common sense for pros to not veer from the tried and true until it's 100% known to be safe to do so. I don't think that is a slam on the new FCPX. It will eventually be adopted by pros.
Do you mean that Apple is just as crappy as Google, Microsoft...etc?
i thought everything Apple did was better than all those companies
Radicals are very insecure people.
Do you mean that Apple is just as crappy as Google, Microsoft...etc?
i thought everything Apple did was better than all those companies
Radicals are very insecure people.
No. This just means that no company in existence has been successful in releasing a .0 update after a major revision without breaking a few things. In this case, it's a complete rewrite. You'd have to be completely ignorant to not expect a few problems, no matter who's doing the rewrite.
happens to everyone, and even with all the beta testing in the world there will be bugs no matter what you do. this is hardly news.
Really? Are they both written in the exact same computer language? If not, then having port code from an old language to a new one, even if it's just a later version of the original, can sometimes be worse than starting from scratch.
I'm a tester for an MSDN company, we ported VB6 to VB.Net 2008, and it's been a nightmare getting it all to work properly. We'd have done better re-writing, but that wasn't a possibility for various reasons.
So what? You can still get it on day one, and play with it to get to know what's coming, and start using it professionally once the bugs get fixed. Buying it sooner is better than buying it later, you can always not use it until 2-3 updates come out...
Good points made in April LAFCPUG
This must be the 1.0 release of this rumour because it is credited to Larry Jordan at the London Supermeet (which is next week). These comments were made in April at an LAFCPUG. FCP.co is equally to blame for not making the source clear on their website. Larry Jordan has since retracted the statement for vague reasons. Perhaps Apple gave him a spanking?
There is no reason to believe from Apple's sneak peak at NAB or any of the screen grabs appearing on the web recently that FCPX will be ready for the majority of the professional market (i.e. TV, Film, multi-platform environments) and I suspect that Larry was correct when he made the statement. That does not mean I and thousands of others won't buy it immediately; I just don't expect to cut any television on it for a year or more.
This must be the 1.0 release of this rumour because it is credited to Larry Jordan at the London Supermeet (which is next week). These comments were made in April at an LAFCPUG. FCP.co is equally to blame for not making the source clear on their website. Larry Jordan has since retracted the statement for vague reasons. Perhaps Apple gave him a spanking?
There is no reason to believe from Apple's sneak peak at NAB or any of the screen grabs appearing on the web recently that FCPX will be ready for the majority of the professional market (i.e. TV, Film, multi-platform environments) and I suspect that Larry was correct when he made the statement. That does not mean I and thousands of others won't buy it immediately; I just don't expect to cut any television on it for a year or more.
Last edited:
Most of Final Cut Pro's code hasn't changed since Apple bought Final Cut over a decade ago.
To all the people saying "no .0 release is perfect", no one claimed that they wanted a perfect initial release. In the context of this meeting, they are professionals discussing whether or not they should adopt the new application at release.
It's all theoretical and "well nothing's perfect" until your living is on the line. If you go out on a limb, try a project, and it doesn't work, these people could very well be fired.
I don't blame them - Apple's been super tight-lipped about Final Cut - will it roll Color, Motion, etc. into one big $300 package? HUGE questions like that are still unanswered and will probably not be until the product launches. That's asking a lot of their customers.That was simply another way for Larry to remind professional editors that relying on brand new product without first learning it & it's limits could be costly if it causes them to mess up a job. He wasn't being a jerk or arrogant, he was being very pragmatic.
As for your hypothetical conversation. The point Larry was making is that he and other sensible people won't have to pry your clients from your cold dead fingers if you fail to deliver. The clients will search out a more reliable supplier.
Terrible Advice
Not only will I install FCPX, I will de-install FCP7 and burn all the discs on a hibatchi. (Probably roast wiennies over the fire ;-)
Everyone will have dual installations until we feel confident. We'll jump back and forth. We'll cut our home movies on FCPX. We are, after all, still using Quicktime Pro 7 even though Quicktime X was released with Leopard - or Snow Leopard - so long ago I can't remember.
I still can't imagine how I'm gonna cope without bins! I'm a neat freak. I want containers to put things in. It feels more real. It feels like a 2nd approach when search fails, even though from a purely technical point of view, it might be exactly the same thing.
Not only will I install FCPX, I will de-install FCP7 and burn all the discs on a hibatchi. (Probably roast wiennies over the fire ;-)
Everyone will have dual installations until we feel confident. We'll jump back and forth. We'll cut our home movies on FCPX. We are, after all, still using Quicktime Pro 7 even though Quicktime X was released with Leopard - or Snow Leopard - so long ago I can't remember.
I still can't imagine how I'm gonna cope without bins! I'm a neat freak. I want containers to put things in. It feels more real. It feels like a 2nd approach when search fails, even though from a purely technical point of view, it might be exactly the same thing.
I'm not exactly sure what point you're making here. OS X is a 'brand', rather like Windows, with different versions, so comparing OS X with XP is irrelevant.
And those of us who used Cheetah might contest your claim that Apple "nailed it" with OS X. They nailed it eventually (like MS did with Windows), but even so the first releases of subsequent upgrades have required updates to become stable enough for trusted daily use.
It wasn't about the "not-invented-here syndrome". It was a decision to not port crusty old code from a uniquely different set of frameworks & custom libraries to the newer Cocoa frameworks and OS X environment.
They are not converting a 40 year old internal GOTO laden Cobol system simply to run on the latest character based OS. They are bringing their technology up to date in a highly competitive open market.
Rather than fired, they should be praised!
Would you kindly explain what sales numbers have to do with reliability of .0 releases?
For all I know subsequent releases are also found in thopse sales.
On the other hand if you don't understand the difference between a private user standing in line to get hardware/software X on release day and a corporate enviorment in which even a downtime of a couple of houres can mean multimillion losses then none of us can obviously help you.
The software business is similar to the drug industry. In the lab you might have pretty good control over things, including those healthy (or not) volunteers responding to your protocol, getting the results you expect... However, it is not until the "dot zero stuff" (pharmaceuticals/software app) are "released" into the real world setting that you will get the "real" results based on the actions of real (crazy) people... The net effect of this is often further development, sometimes due to really scary and unexpected interactions and side effects etc. I wonder how next version of OS X will do.... we'll find out in July!
This is true, often times with Apple it's felt like a half beta release that they inflict on us. I'm very hesitant to unleash Lion on my business machine. Even SL took a few point updates to get to a good spot where I went for it.