Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) due in April?

[Evangelion]

However, if you count Windows 2000 (released in '99) as the beginning of the current family, you see a new OS every two years (2k, XP, 2003, Longhorn [originally supposed to be out by now]), as opposed to the three retail versions of OS X since 2000 (10.0, 10.2, 10.3).

Well, FWIW, you are comparing different things there. All version of OS X you listed ares OS'es meant for the end-user. On the Windows-side, W2K, XP and Longhorn are such OS'es, but 2003 is a server-OS. You could say that it's the server-version of XP. For users who run XP on their desktop/laptop, Windows 2003 is not really relevant at all. The people who would be interested in 2003, are the ones who run W2K-based (W2K had both client and server-version) server-system.

 

[dicklacara]

What are the advantages of archiving
And not just update

None, IMO. If you are allowed to do an Update, choose Update,

If you are not allowed to do an Update, choose Archive Install over Erase Install If you have sufficient HDD space.

 

[Montserrat]

Any of you pre-release people know if Tiger will let you access and upload to ftp?

 

[~loserman~]

Any of you pre-release people know if Tiger will let you access and upload to ftp?

Yes

 

[Montserrat]

Yes

Yes you know or yes it does?

 

[~loserman~]

Yes you know or yes it does?

Every version of OS X has allowed this.

 

[Montserrat]

Every version of OS X has allowed this.

OS X lets you view ftp, but you have to get a 3rd party app to upload to the ftp server. I've been using cyberduck, but if I could do the job through finder it would save me space on the dock. I was kinda hoping that would be introduced with Tiger. Not that its omission would stop me buying of course.

 

[lord_flash]

It costs more. Just admit it. Perhaps you get what you pay for.

However, if you count Windows 2000 (released in '99) as the beginning of the current family, you see a new OS every two years (2k, XP, 2003, Longhorn [originally supposed to be out by now])

I don't count 2003 since that's a server OS, which you'd never need at home. It's this sort of thing that irritates me because either you're deliberately misleading me, or you're misleading yourself.

As far as the value of the upgrades, full versions of OS X are $129, while full versions of Windows XP Pro are MSRP'd at $299.

Yes, but you get a copy with your computer, so only the upgrade price is relevant. For OS X, that's $129, against a $199 Win XP Pro, not the $299 you mention.

It's not the end of the Earth, I admit, and it's a much more elegant OS at times, but the upgrade costs are excessive for what you get, I think.

As to the point about not upgrading? Well, leaving aside that the discussion was about the cost of it, not whether I should or not, Apple force me into upgrading for basic features like RSS feeds, up-to-date video codecs, and the like, and leave other users out in the cold. Could you?

 

[emulator]

Yes, but you get a copy with your computer, so only the upgrade price is relevant. For OS X, that's $129, against a $199 Win XP Pro, not the $299 you mention.

You only get the Home Edition as your 'free' OS that is probably useful for playing solitaire. However if you want XP Pro, you'll pay the difference.

 

[lord_flash]

You only get the Home Edition as your 'free' OS that is probably useful for playing solitaire. However if you want XP Pro, you'll pay the difference.

By 'free' I mean included with the computer. Neither is 'free' if you're being pedantic – some of the cost of the machine goes on the OEM copy from Microsoft. You can choose which OS you get with the machine. Sure a Windows machine will cost more with XP Pro then Home because the OEM version costs more, but it is still supplied with the machine.

Clearly I didn't mention XP Home because it doesn't do a lot. Wow, imagine a full length debate about the relative features, value, and upgrade path of XP Home, OS X and XP Pro... (shudders in fear).

 

[aranhamo]

macosrumors

www.macosrumors.com about a week ago posted a blurb about how Apple was definitely going to miss its target of "first half 2005" for the release of Tiger. I noticed today that with the rumors of an April release, it appears that macosrumors has removed that story.

 

[matticus008]

By 'free' I mean included with the computer. Neither is 'free' if you're being pedantic – some of the cost of the machine goes on the OEM copy from Microsoft. You can choose which OS you get with the machine. Sure a Windows machine will cost more with XP Pro then Home because the OEM version costs more, but it is still supplied with the machine.

Clearly I didn't mention XP Home because it doesn't do a lot. Wow, imagine a full length debate about the relative features, value, and upgrade path of XP Home, OS X and XP Pro... (shudders in fear).

In either case, it's more expensive. And you can't compare the upgrade price of XP ($199) to the full price of OS X ($129). You have to compare full licenses, or YOU are the one misleading. And how are you not supplied with an OS on a Mac? The argument doesn't make any sense.

(And yes, 2003 is a server OS, but it also has a heavy following as a desktop OS and is employed as a workstation OS in many environments for various productivity enhancements. It has numerous new features and improvements over XP and is the base system for Longhorn. It's relevant.)

EDIT: Here's the thing. Windows 2003 offered new code, which was/is used in the development of Longhorn and XP x64. It also has a number of new capabilities and feature upgrades, many of which appeal to power users, and some of which moved over into SP2. OS X server doesn't really do this; instead, it seems to follow the desktop market. If you are truly uncomfortable with 2003-based products (based on a different kernel) being considered in their entirety, substitute Windows XP Professional x64 in its place, and then the number of releases are all "pertinent" to the desktop market.

 

[matticus008]

As to the point about not upgrading? Well, leaving aside that the discussion was about the cost of it, not whether I should or not, Apple force me into upgrading for basic features like RSS feeds, up-to-date video codecs, and the like, and leave other users out in the cold. Could you?

You don't have to pay for these things...unless you choose to use Apple-supllied versions that are packaged only with new OSes. RSS feeds, codecs, and other things are freely available on the internet (and I'm not even talking about pirated copies). Windows 95 didn't come with a DVD player--does that mean it was wrong of you to have to buy 98 or ME for that? Many of the codecs you buy for MacOS are also supposed to be licensed (paid for) by Windows users. If you're using the Microsoft codecs, then they're paying for them for you.

It's not as if MS supplies you with QuickTime or DivX or AC3 or Real codecs--you have to go to third parties for them, and you might have to pay. MS required users to upgrade from 2000 to XP (and again to Longhorn) for some features, too. So again I'm not seeing the complaint unless you're talking about QT7 (which is a separate product from the OS, even if it is highly integrated).

 

[~loserman~]

OS X lets you view ftp, but you have to get a 3rd party app to upload to the ftp server. I've been using cyberduck, but if I could do the job through finder it would save me space on the dock. I was kinda hoping that would be introduced with Tiger. Not that its omission would stop me buying of course.

Not true. I upload via ftp all the time. There is a little thing called a terminal. Try it it works great.

 

[chevyorange]

OS X lets you view ftp, but you have to get a 3rd party app to upload to the ftp server. I've been using cyberduck, but if I could do the job through finder it would save me space on the dock. I was kinda hoping that would be introduced with Tiger. Not that its omission would stop me buying of course.

I upload to my brother's FTP server from the Finder all the time.

 

[Sunrunner]

ugg

In either case, it's more expensive. And you can't compare the upgrade price of XP ($199) to the full price of OS X ($129). You have to compare full licenses, or YOU are the one misleading. And how are you not supplied with an OS on a Mac? The argument doesn't make any sense.

(And yes, 2003 is a server OS, but it also has a heavy following as a desktop OS and is employed as a workstation OS in many environments for various productivity enhancements. It has numerous new features and improvements over XP and is the base system for Longhorn. It's relevant.)

EDIT: Here's the thing. Windows 2003 offered new code, which was/is used in the development of Longhorn and XP x64. It also has a number of new capabilities and feature upgrades, many of which appeal to power users, and some of which moved over into SP2. OS X server doesn't really do this; instead, it seems to follow the desktop market. If you are truly uncomfortable with 2003-based products (based on a different kernel) being considered in their entirety, substitute Windows XP Professional x64 in its place, and then the number of releases are all "pertinent" to the desktop market.

Ok guys, this dicussion is a little off topic. This thread is, after all, supposed to be about the April release of Tiger... lets keep the Windows vs. OS X discussions to other threads shall we?

 

[stuBCN75]

I upload to my brother's FTP server from the Finder all the time.

sorry! a little of topic, but still related to Tiger i think

You can UPLOAD to an ftp server via the finder ? how ? I have never been able to do this and don't know anyone else who has.

Is your brother on a mac ? and you mean you can ftp files to his mac? I think the original question was more aimed at being able to upload to a web server for updating web-sites etc.

I would like to be able to ftp files to my web-server directly via a finder window. At the moment I can connect to my web-server with finder's "connect to server" but it does not allow me to upload. Yes, I know I can do it using the terminal or with an ftp client like Transmit ( which is what I use now ).

It would be great if apple fix this is Tiger, seems strange to me that this has not already been implemented. Am i missing something ? If anyone can upload to a ftp server using the finder please tell me how you do it.

 

[gopher]

sorry! a little of topic, but still related to Tiger i think

You can UPLOAD to an ftp server via the finder ? how ? I have never been able to do this and don't know anyone else who has.

Is your brother on a mac ? and you mean you can ftp files to his mac? I think the original question was more aimed at being able to upload to a web server for updating web-sites etc.

I would like to be able to ftp files to my web-server directly via a finder window. At the moment I can connect to my web-server with finder's "connect to server" but it does not allow me to upload. Yes, I know I can do it using the terminal or with an ftp client like Transmit ( which is what I use now ).

It would be great if apple fix this is Tiger, seems strange to me that this has not already been implemented. Am i missing something ? If anyone can upload to a ftp server using the finder please tell me how you do it.

Some FTP servers allow this. If you use your Mac OS X sharing System Preferences to setup an FTP server, another Mac OS X system will see it.

Unfortunately not all FTP servers support this function. Getting your FTP server to support webdav would be the ideal solution. The other is to host your own webserver on your own computer and forget about FTPing. If you want a domain on your machine and you have an dynamic IP, look at dyndns.org.

Mind you, you only want to do this on a machine that you can risk leaving on all the time.

 

[wdlove]

And now back on topic. Wonder why Think Secret hasn't stepped up on this subject. Unless the lawsuit by Apple is really working. So far not much on the leak front.

 

[Lacero]

You're better off using a dedicated program like Transmit to handle FTP uploads.