Is OS X upgrading too quickly?

[InuNacho]

In the days of yore, Mac OS version updates were a few years apart and for the most part things worked smoothly between them, minus the 68K - PPC transition. With this new annual update system Apple's got going on, it feels that unless you've got software from a big box brand or something relatively lightweight, don't expect longevity from your software.

Anyone else think the same way about the latest updates?

 

[grahamperrin]

Yes/poll

Yes.

Please, can you make this a poll?

Related

Are we seeing a post-"Everything just works"-Apple?

… "… yearly release cycles of OS X, iOS, iPhone & iPad are resulting in too many things seeing the light of day that aren’t finished …" …

 

[randomgeeza]

In the days of yore, Mac OS version updates were a few years apart and for the most part things worked smoothly between them, minus the 68K - PPC transition. With this new annual update system Apple's got going on, it feels that unless you've got software from a big box brand or something relatively lightweight, don't expect longevity from your software.

Anyone else think the same way about the latest updates?

Ultimately, unless they [Apple] change the current pattern, they will go the way of MS... regardless of hardware or their fashion statement logo...

People are tiring of things just not working... Especially those that have been long time Apple loyals, myself included. Once the next best thing comes along, people will jump ship. Time and time again, companies get far too big for their boots and their customer base will leave them behind... Another classic example of what is slowly, but surely happening to MS.

I hope and pray that, given the current issues with 10.10 and upwards, they will pause for a moment and really work on getting 10.10 right. It is a good system but the attention to detail is sorely lacking and a lot of us have noticed this!

 

[AndreSt]

The upgrades and updates are released too often.
At least too often to be seriously tested internally.

Apple has to focus on quality.

At the moment it's no good idea to install any software released by Apple without checking the forums first.

 

[w0lf]

All the big 3 (Windows, OSX, Ubuntu) do this now though. The old way is never coming back, or at least not anytime soon.

 

[Yaboze]

I voted yes. It seems that as soon as we get to a good point with the current version of OSX, a month or two later a new one comes out with a whole new set of problems.

We literally get 1-3 months of good stability before we have to start all over again.

 

[Small White Car]

All the big 3 (Windows, OSX, Ubuntu) do this now though. The old way is never coming back, or at least not anytime soon.

Indeed, you're correct. But this is a marketing problem with a marketing solution.

Imagine that, internally, Apple decides not to work on 10.11 for 2015 and instead plans to make Yosemite better in 2015 and pushes 10.11 to 2016.

Like you said, they can't actually do that anymore, they'll look bad compared against every other tech company.

So what to do? Well, they should just do that, but just call it 10.11 anyway. It's all just marketing. Throw in some consumer-friendly features like new Mail and Calendar features and people are happy they have something "new."

So yeah, there'll be some changes, but those are in-app changes that won't affect other software. Things like Photoshop, printer drivers, and Fusion all keep working the same as before and OS X just gets better.

So you have a situation where alternate years get deeper changes underneath that developers notice (what we used to call "OS updates") and the other years get skin-level changes that consumers notice more (that consumers still call OS updates, but we know better).

Yearly updates but on on a 2-year rotating cycle.

I just totally made this up, but what if one of those cycles are called OS X and the alternate years are called OS X-S years. I mean, where on earth did I come up with this crazy idea??

 

[simonsi]

Releasing Yosemite didnt break Mavericks, if you feel it is too frequent/quick then dont update. Simple as.

 

[ABC5S]

You all feel better now ? Yup, make a poll, and all will be fine, Tim Cook will come to this forum, apologize, and never do a yearly release again.

 

[jdphoto]

All the big 3 (Windows, OSX, Ubuntu) do this now though. The old way is never coming back, or at least not anytime soon.

I agree with this statement. I'd wouldn't mind an every other year release of OS X instead of the yearly pattern we're starting to see. I think Apple would be afraid to slow down though as they may fear the accusations that they're "failing to innovate".

 

[simonsi]

You all feel better now ? Yup, make a poll, and all will be fine, Tim Cook will come to this forum, apologize, and never do a yearly release again.

LOL

 

[grahamperrin]

Here's a poll to really make some one laugh

You all feel better now ? …

Now that ABC5S is on my ignore list until I don't know when:

[√] yes
[ ] no

End of poll. It's my list

 

[steve62388]

All the big 3 (Windows, OSX, Ubuntu) do this now though. The old way is never coming back, or at least not anytime soon.

I totally agree with your sentiment, except your last of the 'big 3' should not really be in the category 'big'.

 

[pickaxe]

Way too fast. This combined with Apple's terrible QA mean that OS X is losing polish at a frightening pace.

 

[kazmac]

Definitely way too fast. 18-24 months was much better (or longer, I am not remembering the release span between OS X...) And given the crap quality of recent software releases and the overstretched programming talent, it would be wise for Apple to slow for many reasons, including security.

It's unfortunate to see the QC slip in software too.

 

[grahamperrin]

Quality control, quality assurance

… terrible QA …

It's unfortunate to see the QC slip in software too.

Some slip is observable but I doubt that QA people are to blame.

 

[CEmajr]

I totally agree that it's upgrading too quickly. It's impossible to do enough testing to get everything ironed out and working smoothly in just one year. By the time Apple gets most of the bugs worked out of Yosemite, a new OS will be released and repeat the cycle all over again. That might be a good working model for iOS but not a good idea on the Mac. The initial Yosemite release broke some very important apps for some people.

 

[randomgeeza]

You all feel better now ? Yup, make a poll, and all will be fine, Tim Cook will come to this forum, apologize, and never do a yearly release again.

Helpful, insightful... educated...

And for what it's worth, Apple patrol both this forum (with others) and Apple Support Comms... quite regularly.

I know this following a random contact from an Apple Engineer in Texas... who called out of the blue to discuss a bug and to collect some reports. And on checking his employment number, he was a legit employee...

So...

 

[bigpoppamac31]

Indeed, you're correct. But this is a marketing problem with a marketing solution.

Imagine that, internally, Apple decides not to work on 10.11 for 2015 and instead plans to make Yosemite better in 2015 and pushes 10.11 to 2016.

Like you said, they can't actually do that anymore, they'll look bad compared against every other tech company.

So what to do? Well, they should just do that, but just call it 10.11 anyway. It's all just marketing. Throw in some consumer-friendly features like new Mail and Calendar features and people are happy they have something "new."

So yeah, there'll be some changes, but those are in-app changes that won't affect other software. Things like Photoshop, printer drivers, and Fusion all keep working the same as before and OS X just gets better.

So you have a situation where alternate years get deeper changes underneath that developers notice (what we used to call "OS updates") and the other years get skin-level changes that consumers notice more (that consumers still call OS updates, but we know better).

Yearly updates but on on a 2-year rotating cycle.

I just totally made this up, but what if one of those cycles are called OS X and the alternate years are called OS X-S years. I mean, where on earth did I come up with this crazy idea??

This is actually a pretty good idea. For example when Apple updated to Snow Leopard a lot "new features" were actually under the hood fixes which made the OS much more stable. To my knowledge many Apple users still say SL is the most stable OSX to date.

 

[maflynn]

In the days of yore, Mac OS version updates were a few years apart

Back when OS X was first introduced, it was on an annual update cycle. Then of course those days of yore with system 6, system 7, they and their own set of issues, even though updates didn't come out every year.

I think Apple is making smaller updates on an annual basis like what many Linux distros are doing. I'm not a fan of it, but then its free, so I'm not going to complain.

 

[2984839]

It's not that it's upgraded too quickly; it's that the project seems like it's run by people with little or no programming experience. There are 2 good ways to handle an OS release cycle.

The first is to set a hard date to release the OS and stick to it. However, if this is the approach taken, only the software that is ready should make it in the release. If a piece of software is not stable or thoroughly tested, it waits until the next release. This ensures timeliness and reliability/quality of the releases, at the expense of a fancy feature set.

The second is to set a list of features that absolutely will be included and stick to it. If this is done, then don't set a release date. Ship the OS whenever it is ready, not at a predetermined time. If it takes 6 months, then it takes 6 months. If it takes 2 years to get everything right, then it takes 2 years. This ensures a set of well tested and bug free new features with stability, at the expense of quick upgrades.

Most software companies are not run by developers. They take a hybrid approach where they list the features that will be in the release and promise the public it will be released on a certain date. This is the worst way to do it because it leads to untested, partially finished code being crammed in anyway because the marketing department promised the public it would be in the OS.

 

[baryon]

Apple is now all about quantity and not quality - iOS 8 and Yosemite both suck balls at the moment. What I don't get is that if they can't come up with something better than the previous version, why don't they just hold off until they can actually improve it instead of making it worse? That doesn't make sense, especially that they don't make extra money since their software is now free.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

Apple is now all about quantity and not quality - iOS 8 and Yosemite both suck balls at the moment. What I don't get is that if they can't come up with something better than the previous version, why don't they just hold off until they can actually improve it instead of making it worse? That doesn't make sense, especially that they don't make extra money since their software is now free.

That is my favorite post!

 

[omnisphere]

Please! contact Apple Product Feedback about this, it is the only way to prompt Apple.


http://www.apple.com/feedback/

I have done it now. Please do it! we have to stop this madness of releasing new OS X every year.

 

[n-evo]

No.

Last time I checked nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade. Except maybe that one time when you absolutely have to buy a new Mac the same month a new OS X version is released. In just about every other scenario you can just hold off downloading until the operating system hits v10.x.3 or whatever. I know people who are still perfectly happy running their Mac and iPhone on OS X Mountain Lion and iOS 6 respectively.

Is there hard evidence Mac OS X Leopard or OS X Lion, two OS X releases which weren't on a yearly cycle, had any less issues than - let's say - OS X Mavericks or OS X Yosemite? With "evidence" I mean real proof, not opinion or feelings.