As always, I'm not going to agree.
Actually it is. It's usually a three year cycle though.
Please give me some examples of a major consumer software product on three year release cycles from a company outside Redmond, Washington. When you are trying to establish a product, you increment quickly. I can't think of any application in my applications folder which has not had at least one update within three years. Most have had more. Many have been updated this year.
Yes, we call the outputs of this 'free service packs', 'patches' and 'free updates'.
Who is we?
Also, Apple too releases these patches and updates for free. They also have major releases as well. Patches and point updates do not add features. The major releases do.
Possibly because it's a non-commercial , developmental platform? I use Ubuntu and like it but I sure as hell wouldn't pay for a new version every six months.
You miss the point.
It is precisely because it is non-commercial that it is a good example.
The Ubuntu team are free to do the best thing in relation to the release cycle rather than being motivated by business and commerical constraints.
And guess what? They choose increment quickly. All this does is validate Apple's decision to increment quickly.
Sure. That's why there are such huge differences between the variants of OSX 10 - with the exception of the jump from Tiger to Leopard which did take about three years and put in two major new features - and why they couldn't have been added in Service Packs.
Or not.
Um actually I think you underestimate the differences to be honest. If you gave OS 10.4 to someone running OS 10.2 and ask to compare they would find plenty of improvements. For developers the differences are even more pronounced.10.3 -> 10.4 saw huge changes at the Kernel level. Each version has added new frameworks all the bundled apps received updates and overhauls. We also got new bundled applications with each release as well.
I've used all releases, I notice differences that I feel I am justified in paying for. Many others agree. If you don't then you can choose to skip the updates.
Which is why MS use Windows Update to freely distribute amendments.
So do Apple. They use Apple Software Update to freely distribute amendments. Then when they have a new release, they ship it as a shrink-wrapped product.
Except, of course, XP was quite capable of dealing with any of the major advances in technology over the last seven years with one paid for release and free support.
Your first told me that you only need a new OS for major changes in technology and now you are telling me you don't need a new OS for major changes in technology because Windows XP can handle them all. Doesn't sound right to me.
Whilst others don't charge at all.
Apple also don't sell support contracts and per seat licences. Microsoft do. Both companies make their money in different ways, Apple is consumer focussed, Microsoft is business focussed. This comparison has little merit. Companies who sell Linux server solutions are selling the support contracts and not the software, because the software is free. They are different models.
If Microsoft could get away with charging for service packs then believe me, they would. But they can't justify because service packs don't add significant new features. And even if they did, businesses wouldn't pay for them anyway.
Which is where the gullible part comes in.
No, this is where the “take it or leave it” bit comes in. Plenty of Mac users are still on Tiger. Some have upgraded or brought new machines with Leopard. Some are happy running old machines with Panther or Jaguar.
Sure they do. Most take it because it's shiny and new.
Assuming all Mac users are gullible and have no grasp of technology.
Fact is we need to progress. Businesses don't like change in Software (for very good reasons) and like to stay conservative.
But in the consumer space people are open to good, new, innovative ideas and things that will make their lives easier.
Reading between the lines, all of the above seems like a lot of bluster to conceal two points:
[A] You don't see much value in good software.
You'd rather not pay at all, or at least not very often.
[C] You can't distinguish between the requirements of the consumer space and the business space.
That's all weel and good, that's where most average people stand (most of my friends as well). But you should be upfront about it.
. But firstly existing Mac code has similar speed-ups for Altivec, and secondly when coding new stuff you only add these optimisations in at the end where they are needed so you can just use the less efficient original code for PPC customers.
