I'm much more interested in your exotic cars than anything from Apple
Do tell, please.
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 Seeds OS X Mavericks 10.9.2 Build 13C62 to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm much more interested in your exotic cars than anything from Apple
Do tell, please.
I think the decision to move to these fast release cycles is the culprit, not the people in charge of OS X. (Many developers were also moved to iOS in recent years, there was braindrain on the OS X side).
Why release a new desktop OS every 12-15 months? I really don't get this (I get it for iOS because it corresponds to tablet/phone hardware refresh cycles).
I think OS X should move back to 2+ years between release cycles.
I would love to hear differing opinions, but I really see no advantage since OS X is so polished after years of development.
PS: Same for Windows. It's even worse on Windows because many large corporations use it, updates and testing are a huge headache. What's the point in releasing Win 7, 8 and apparently 9 in such a short time frame. I think nothing was wrong for Win 7 in business use - apart from that it's still Windows
I think the decision to move to these fast release cycles is the culprit, not the people in charge of OS X. (Many developers were also moved to iOS in recent years, there was braindrain on the OS X side).
Why release a new desktop OS every 12-15 months? I really don't get this (I get it for iOS because it corresponds to tablet/phone hardware refresh cycles).
I think OS X should move back to 2+ years between release cycles.
I would love to hear differing opinions, but I really see no advantage since OS X is so polished after years of development.
PS: Same for Windows. It's even worse on Windows because many large corporations use it, updates and testing are a huge headache. What's the point in releasing Win 7, 8 and apparently 9 in such a short time frame. I think nothing was wrong for Win 7 in business use - apart from that it's still Windows
Version numbering is all arbitrary anyways; I'm perfectly happy running 13B42 for now until 13Cxx gets the bugs ironed out.
Assume you can add 10 features per year to OS X. If you release one update every 2 years, the updates will have 20 new features. If you release one update every year, they will have 10 more new features.
So if you are someone who is waiting for one of the features in the first half of that 20, you will wait 1 year instead of 2. And for the rest, there's no difference.
Also it gives faster feedback about the added features. Assume you added one feature, and people didn't like it and you figured out a way to improve it. If you are on a 2 year cycle, that feature will be corrected/modified after 2 years instead of 1.
In the end, the more releases the better. And if you are someone who does not like yearly upgrades, you always have the option to wait out every odd release and install every even one. There you go, you have updated the OS every 2 years instead of 1.
PS: Same for Windows. It's even worse on Windows because many large corporations use it, updates and testing are a huge headache. What's the point in releasing Win 7, 8 and apparently 9 in such a short time frame. I think nothing was wrong for Win 7 in business use - apart from that it's still Windows
It's part of the "consumerisation of IT".
Indeed, IT departments at large corporations have a difficult time keeping up with Microsoft and/or Apple. If it's their job to support the PC's and the apps running on them, then they will have to create "a point in time" where all the software is tested on all the hardware they have, create an image of the OS with apps and then be conservative about change.
IMHO, that type of IT-strategy will become more and more outdated. This strategy is to have an IT department who are responsible of IT hardware and Data.
In the 80's and 90's this was a no-brainer. The average user was a complete no-know regarding PC's and the apps on them. IT had to "help the user" by forcing idiot-proof policies.
Nowadays IT is being used differently. IT devices are easy-to-use devices and users are more IT-savvy.
IMHO, there is less and less need for IT-enforced "idiot-proof" policies on IT devices. The end-user becomes more and more responsible for their own device and, more importantly, the data on them.
The IT department becomes more of an internal service provider, than the IT-policy-enforcer.
When the end-user is more or less "self-servicing" regarding the IT devices, then the end-user can choose whether or not a new OS is suitable for him. If the end-user likes new features and can handle the higher possibility of some bug or another when the new OS is just released, then the end-user can download and install it himself. It's not rocket science anymore to install (or update) a new OS.
Of course, it depends on the type of corporation if and how IT self-service can be used. But, I'm sure that the tendency is towards more self-servicing than idiot-proof policies.
OK, let's put this into perspective. I give you 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1 - 2-year release:
Apple introduces 20 new features, and it takes 2 years to perfect them before introducing 20 more on the next release. Stable OS.
Scenario 2 - Yearly release:
Apple introduces 10 new features in an ODD release, and it takes 1 year to address them, and they are still half-baked. Then POOF...! No more bug fixes as Apple releasing 10 more new features on an EVEN release.
Imagine those old Macs that meet the minimum requirements to run the ODD release but NOT on the EVEN release. So that poor Mac will have to be contented with the former 10 half-baked features. Even if the said 10 half-baked features from the ODD release are finally perfected at the end of the EVEN release, so what..? They are still stuck with an ODD release with 10 half-baked features. If they do get thru that update, they still have to be contented with the latter 10 half-baked features. (This also sounds like the OS X development team never focus on fixing anything no...?)
Now re-apply this analogy of a poor Mac user to Scenario 1, what will he/she get by the end of a 2-year release...? 20 stable features regardless of whether or not he/she makes it to the next major OS release...
Are you following me so far...?
So, how can you ask someone to skip one ODD release and update on EVEN release when at the end of the EVEN release he/she may get 10 stable features and 10 half-baked features as opposed to an end of a 2-year cycle where he/she gets 20 stable features...?
2011 MBP. Having trawled the threads its affecting a wide range of Apple hardware (it was initially thought to affect portables only). The only constant is that the issue occurred shortly after upgrading to Mavericks.
I can't see why there can't be yearly releases AND more minor updates. Apple has the resources to beef up their OS X developers departments and this is critically affecting a lot of people.
Cheers for the well-wishing.
Your scenarios are imaginary. You either get 10 stable features every year and 20 stable features every 2 years, or 10 half baked features every year and 20 half baked features every 2 years. This is not a mix and match situation. The amount of people working on OS X is more or less the same whether Apple chooses yearly releases or not so the stability of the OS and the new features does not change depending on the release cycle. Only the amount does.
I
PS: Same for Windows. It's even worse on Windows because many large corporations use it, updates and testing are a huge headache. What's the point in releasing Win 7, 8 and apparently 9 in such a short time frame. I think nothing was wrong for Win 7 in business use - apart from that it's still Windows
Windows 8 theoretically should have better security than Windows 7. Other than that, I agree with you. And, the latest fad is extra-dumb-- when you don't have actual technology-based features to roll out, start changing the UI every model year and tell people that it is new and improved. That is what Detroit always did when they couldn't come up with any drivetrain improvements -- change the sheet metal and tell people that it is progress.
Having an End User update their OS to the latest version is a bad idea. Especially if they have programs that won't work in the newest version. At home? Sure. In the workplace? No. People are ignorant. It doesn't matter how easy it is if the user doesn't understand what they are doing in the first place.
BTW - It hasn't been rocket science to install a new OS for the past 13~ years. It's incredibly easy but end users should not upgrading their systems unless they understand what happens in the actual process. It causes far too many problems.
I'm all over the place here but people are just as ignorant today as they were twenty years ago. Letting the end-user decide to upgrade their piece of software because they like the new features is a bad idea. We had someone upgrade to Mavericks and it's been a headache ever sense. Can't connect to the SBS server, can't logon normally sometimes, can't see Companyweb. It's a pain and a huge hassle.
Stop the Cats and the Wine, just give me updates, use dates. I like the new version of Photoshop CC and how new features are pushed out continuously, and since Mac OS X doesn't require any cash, why have big releases?
The PR of the release is still a big deal, but after Steve Jobs, the wow factor is gone. They still make the best software + hardware combo, still no real astonishment except for the retina display, which is more a technical trick rather than a brilliant software move, which is the true reason I followed Apple closer in the past. It's sad to see the evangelism of Mac as a brand loose its footprint after Jobs left, and we are now more than ever, as fans, spread.
The PR of the release is still a big deal, but after Steve Jobs, the wow factor is gone. They still make the best software + hardware combo, still no real astonishment except for the retina display, which is more a technical trick rather than a brilliant software move, which is the true reason I followed Apple closer in the past. It's sad to see the evangelism of Mac as a brand loose its footprint after Jobs left, and we are now more than ever, as fans, spread.
Last edited:
Wha?
I don't even understand your argument? That they shouldn't have names for their products? That they shouldn't take the time to try to polish features and instead just ship quicker than every year? What are you trying to say?
Yes. I haven't really noticed anything worth talking/tweeting/blogging for a long time. In iOS there are evident changes with iOS 7, but from Snow Leopard to Mavericks there isn't enough material to really rebrand the OS.
Windows on the other hand have made considerable changes to their layouts and feels, and each time they have released something it feels and looks different. Quality wise, they may not have hit the jackpot, but you must see the point I'm trying to make.
Most of the innovations regarding usage in Mavericks is more linked to great third party apps, rather than the base OS. Computers, as in laptops and desktops, doesn't do well compared to the iPhone in the sales department, and there is evidently a decline in focus put into legacy products. The traditional computer isn't a necessity anymore, so yeah, why give it so much attention PR wise? Roll out improvements, skip the show. We are just waiting for a new iPhone anyways...
What I am trying to say is that they shouldn't bundle an "impressive" or "amazing" list of features to present to a specific deadline, but polish and produce features silently until they are ready, and then push them in form of updates.
I used to buy Macs because of the software, now I do it for the hardware package. Stuff like retina display, touchpad, weight, thinness and battery life. Apple used to be a software company who sold compatible hardware, now they are a hardware company bundling compatible software.
Last edited:
I'd argue that 8-8.1 had roughly the same amount of changes as Mt Lion to Mavericks.
Because some OS changes are big and can break compatibility with apps. In order to make big changes, the major OS releases need to be obvious to users so they know which apps work with which OS versions. App releases don't have that issue and it's way easier to just keep releasing updates all the time.
It's not really about "rebranding" at all although there will always be a bit of that with any product update. And updated look and feel can be good when it's done right but I'd argue that other things can be way more important and they shouldn't feel obligated to be changing the look and feel with every major release.