LOL. Do you not remember OS X 10.0? So bad they had to give away 10.1 to restore missing features, like DVD players and CD burning? And then the fact that it had tons of bugs that resulted in Kernel Panics....
Let's take a trip down memory lane:
http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-1.html
I didn't come to the Mac until 2002 and 10.0 was BAD! 10.1 wasn't much better but serviceable...
I thought you might come up with 10.0 as an example. But as you know then, at that point in time of the major os transition, people had the rock solid os-9 to fall back on. Any major os tranitions are going to be rough and thats to he expected, but Apple didnt expect people to use the earliest versions of osx as their main system, as all macs at that time could boot into os 9 as well.
In fact, well into 2003, two years after the release of 10.0 (and well after the release of the fairly solid 10.2 'Jaguar') new macs sold could still natively boot in os 9.2.2. So its wasnt like Apple was hanging you out to dry with a buggy os.
Nowadays we're talking about nasty bugs in even minor incremental software updates - a far cry from a massive os transition. So to compare osx 10.0 to this is, imo, completley daft
[doublepost=1459335239][/doublepost]
Many people don't really actually know the past, forgot the past, or just ignore the past...all while trying to draw some sort of conclusions and come up with some sort of theories referencing simply what they wish or think it was (rather than what it actually was).
Given what I explained above, I would contend its him, not me, who is distorting 'history' to suit his bias.
Last edited: