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.
Mac OS X Updates Less Frequent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hector said:damn my inability to use anything but the latest osi will get 10.4 even if it just has a few cosmetic changes
The Mac OS X team has been working on 10.4 now for at least 7 months. I don't think cosmetic changes are the only achievement for some reason.
Stella said:
I'm not sure. Previous versions of Mac OS were branded strongly as Mac OS, with the numbers being for practical and operational use only. However, Apple has chosen to make 'OS X' a strong brand name. This might mean we'll see it for a while.
On the other hand, knowing Steve Jobs, Apple will probalby want to up it to 11 (or whatever it chooses) about a year before Longhorn comes out. That would put OS 11 coming out around 2038.
Seriously, that would mean we could see OS 11 next year or 2006, which would put you, Stella, right on target, with 10.4 being the last OS X revision.
In the jungle, the mighty jungle: the OS sleeps tonight.
I have no doubt that Tiger will support G3 computers -- this will simply following in Pather's footsteps as being a feature-fest for Mac users with some stability thrown into the mix. I think they're slowing down for several reasons:
1) Ideas that support this OS (& G3 technology) are getting more & more scarce. They pulled out a few great ideas last time with the improved finder, Expose, FileVault & Fast User Switching, but hitting a homerun time after time is going to take extra months and Apple is realizing this.
2) To support the current hardware (including G3), they're limited to what they can do technically. They have to wait some until G3s become even more History, which will be a bit tough considering it shipped with iBook for so long. I'm will to bet that OS 11 won't support G3s.
3) I woner how many people are running Panther... perhaps, financially, it makes more sense to wait. Releasing too frequently could be hurting sales with people deciding to skip a big release. I know plenty of people who are still running Jaguar. Maybe when "Lion" comes out, it'll be numbered 10.7 so people will think "My God! They're going from 10.4 to 10.7! I've got to get me some of this!"
4) They need to save some big tricks for OS 11. I truly believe they have quite a good idea about the feature-set for this (and probably are even working on it). Can't Wait!
Honestly, for some who spends thousands on Apple hardware every couple 2-3 years (and I'm not alone), I don't mind spend $129 every fall to have an even better Mac. To me, I wouldn't care if they continued the trend as long as the software was always full of great new innovation. If the updates just became boring on the features, I would probably get annoyed and only update when it got interesting again. However, since Jobs has been back, Apple has been anything but boring.
I have no doubt that Tiger will support G3 computers -- this will simply following in Pather's footsteps as being a feature-fest for Mac users with some stability thrown into the mix. I think they're slowing down for several reasons:
1) Ideas that support this OS (& G3 technology) are getting more & more scarce. They pulled out a few great ideas last time with the improved finder, Expose, FileVault & Fast User Switching, but hitting a homerun time after time is going to take extra months and Apple is realizing this.
2) To support the current hardware (including G3), they're limited to what they can do technically. They have to wait some until G3s become even more History, which will be a bit tough considering it shipped with iBook for so long. I'm will to bet that OS 11 won't support G3s.
3) I woner how many people are running Panther... perhaps, financially, it makes more sense to wait. Releasing too frequently could be hurting sales with people deciding to skip a big release. I know plenty of people who are still running Jaguar. Maybe when "Lion" comes out, it'll be numbered 10.7 so people will think "My God! They're going from 10.4 to 10.7! I've got to get me some of this!"
4) They need to save some big tricks for OS 11. I truly believe they have quite a good idea about the feature-set for this (and probably are even working on it). Can't Wait!
Honestly, for some who spends thousands on Apple hardware every couple 2-3 years (and I'm not alone), I don't mind spend $129 every fall to have an even better Mac. To me, I wouldn't care if they continued the trend as long as the software was always full of great new innovation. If the updates just became boring on the features, I would probably get annoyed and only update when it got interesting again. However, since Jobs has been back, Apple has been anything but boring.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
So let's seelast week a new iPod division was announced, and this article came out saying we'd be seeing OS updates less frequently. Are they maybe going to be spending less money developing OS X and more on the iPods?
autrefois said:
Dear god I hope that is not going to happen!
Steve may be a beatles fan but apple is a computer company at heart. I strongly think that the whole ipod+itunes thing is a gimmick. I think we will switch to imovie for a while for the regular comsumer.the end of 32bits
This slow down sounds like the end of Mac OS X...
Why slowing down if it's not to have time to developpe a new major OS version...
And they need time...
Time to push 32bits architecture away...
The support of G3, G4 and G5 is not so simple...
how is this ?
"if (G3) { ... } else if (G4) { ... } else if (G5) { ... } "
what about optimisation ?
So
1- iMax G5, PowerBook G5
2- Tiger => for G4 and G5 only
3- eMac et iBookG5 (sepember 2005)
4- 2006 the fight between OS XI and M$ LongHorn
the 64bits OS against the compatibility
This slow down sounds like the end of Mac OS X...
Why slowing down if it's not to have time to developpe a new major OS version...
And they need time...
Time to push 32bits architecture away...
The support of G3, G4 and G5 is not so simple...
how is this ?
"if (G3) { ... } else if (G4) { ... } else if (G5) { ... } "
what about optimisation ?
So
1- iMax G5, PowerBook G5
2- Tiger => for G4 and G5 only
3- eMac et iBookG5 (sepember 2005)
4- 2006 the fight between OS XI and M$ LongHorn
the 64bits OS against the compatibility
I'm more than willing to spend $129 (or worse still, 129) for a new version of OS X every year. It's simply a negligable sum to pay for such a great increase in functionality.
That said, OS X in its 10.3 incarnation is far from complete. It still has serious flaws. For example, the Finder is still awful. It is badly in need of being rewritten to stop crashing - it panicked my kernel a few days ago when moving a bunch of .jpg images with preview. It's also sluggish and terribly unresponsive. It needs to be made multithreaded.
They need to add the ability to control message-box buttons with the keyboard: I really wish being able to to "left-arrow, enter" to go from "OK" to "Cancel" on Windows. Forcing me to take my hands off the keyboard and fiddle with the trackpad is silly, IMHO.
And they need to recompile everything with IBM's XCC PowerPC-optimised compiler. Yeah I've said it before but nobody seems to listen. C'mon Steve, you reading this?
And I do not expect pure 64-bit OSX to be imminent. 4 years minimum. They're still tottering from the OS9 to OSX switch, forcing another one would drive developers and consumers mad. OSX retains NeXTStep's ability to handle "fat binaries" compiled and optimised for multiple architectures, so I expect we'll be seeing Apple and software vendors taking advantage of that instead, at least in the short-to-middle-term.
That said, OS X in its 10.3 incarnation is far from complete. It still has serious flaws. For example, the Finder is still awful. It is badly in need of being rewritten to stop crashing - it panicked my kernel a few days ago when moving a bunch of .jpg images with preview. It's also sluggish and terribly unresponsive. It needs to be made multithreaded.
They need to add the ability to control message-box buttons with the keyboard: I really wish being able to to "left-arrow, enter" to go from "OK" to "Cancel" on Windows. Forcing me to take my hands off the keyboard and fiddle with the trackpad is silly, IMHO.
And they need to recompile everything with IBM's XCC PowerPC-optimised compiler. Yeah I've said it before but nobody seems to listen. C'mon Steve, you reading this?
And I do not expect pure 64-bit OSX to be imminent. 4 years minimum. They're still tottering from the OS9 to OSX switch, forcing another one would drive developers and consumers mad. OSX retains NeXTStep's ability to handle "fat binaries" compiled and optimised for multiple architectures, so I expect we'll be seeing Apple and software vendors taking advantage of that instead, at least in the short-to-middle-term.
64 Bit Os WHEN?!? Hmm We have the 64 bit chip for a year now...
I would hope the 64bit os would be NOW, this summer, - really give people the incentive to upgrade the os to 64bit and their computers....
sun-ice said:
I would hope the 64bit os would be NOW, this summer, - really give people the incentive to upgrade the os to 64bit and their computers....
The real cost
People here seem to worry about software costs. For personal users yes that is about it. However if you are trying to support schools or businesses where time is money, there is more overhead in upgrading. The 129 bucks is only a small part of the real cost, where you have to make sure all the software and drivers you use in all your machines works with the new version. This can be much more than the cost of upgrading the XServe or, as is in the case of most institutions, going around with a CD and upgrading everyones box.
That being said, I love the fact that some parts of OS X are really unbundled from the OS. Safari, ICal, ITunes. They can be released on different time scales. So really, with the kernel reaching stability along with the graphics engine, the only lag in software that this lowering of the frequency of upgrades will be in how long it takes to get a new Finder. And other than more ways to clutter my desktop, I find Finder does all I need it to because Apple took the time to get it right.
People here seem to worry about software costs. For personal users yes that is about it. However if you are trying to support schools or businesses where time is money, there is more overhead in upgrading. The 129 bucks is only a small part of the real cost, where you have to make sure all the software and drivers you use in all your machines works with the new version. This can be much more than the cost of upgrading the XServe or, as is in the case of most institutions, going around with a CD and upgrading everyones box.
That being said, I love the fact that some parts of OS X are really unbundled from the OS. Safari, ICal, ITunes. They can be released on different time scales. So really, with the kernel reaching stability along with the graphics engine, the only lag in software that this lowering of the frequency of upgrades will be in how long it takes to get a new Finder. And other than more ways to clutter my desktop, I find Finder does all I need it to because Apple took the time to get it right.
no more migration
Why a new migration ?
G5 is G4 full compliant...
So, this is juste an optimisation of the OS to G5 and next...
all applications would be able to run under OS XI like under OS X...
but libs will be 64bits optimized... so this will be faster!!!
It could be juste 2 differents OS versions one for G4 / G5 and one rebuild espacialy for G5
When you change the version on your Kernel linux on a PC from 2.6.6-i386 to 2.6.6-i686-SSE2 you don't change all your applications... you juste use a faster kernel because he is made juste for U
Why coundn't we do the same with OS XI (or os 10.4 ) ?
Why a new migration ?
G5 is G4 full compliant...
So, this is juste an optimisation of the OS to G5 and next...
all applications would be able to run under OS XI like under OS X...
but libs will be 64bits optimized... so this will be faster!!!
It could be juste 2 differents OS versions one for G4 / G5 and one rebuild espacialy for G5
When you change the version on your Kernel linux on a PC from 2.6.6-i386 to 2.6.6-i686-SSE2 you don't change all your applications... you juste use a faster kernel because he is made juste for U
Why coundn't we do the same with OS XI (or os 10.4
) ?mklos said:
Microsoft has never tried to release an upgrade every year. One thing that kind of irks me about mac people on this board (not necessarily you, just in general) is complaining that microsoft charges $200 hell even $300 for the pro version every 3 or 4 years because $200-$300 is wayyyyyyyy to much but when you add it up for the same time frame your paying $520 for OS X. I'm not a microsoft fanboy, I use both platforms and I prefer OS X over windows. Fact of the matter is windows is cheaper to own and costs less to upgrade. And sure no one forces you to buy OS X but no one forces you to upgrade your copy of windows either, so thats all relative.
is this your first time reading forums?
pay attention. been to the apple.com site even? they are already talking tiger there as well.
gadg said:
pay attention. been to the apple.com site even? they are already talking tiger there as well.
yea.. makes sense
This makes sense.. I guess. Sure it was a brand new OS at one point.. and needed some quick updates.. new features etc.. but I agree with some here that have said.. all is good and well now.. my system is as stable as can be.. as far as the OS goes.. give me updates to iphoto, itunes, garageband and the like.. that would be fine with me.
This makes sense.. I guess. Sure it was a brand new OS at one point.. and needed some quick updates.. new features etc.. but I agree with some here that have said.. all is good and well now.. my system is as stable as can be.. as far as the OS goes.. give me updates to iphoto, itunes, garageband and the like.. that would be fine with me.
when i was working at Apple a few years ago & they were just showcasing OSX, jobs likened operating systems to a house. OS9 was like an old house that had had a garage, a new patio, a couple stories and some other crap all tacked on over the years. he said the house had gotten tall, wobbly & unstable. it was time to raze the house & start from a new foundation. i thought that was an excellent analogy (especially for us visual types).
to take that analogy a step further...when they released OSX, it was a nice new foundation, but the interior of the house still needed LOTS of fixes and holes patched in the walls. 10.1 brought a lot of those and it became a USABLE operating system (10.0 was nothing more than eyecandy for me). that's when they brought in a lot of new furniture and really organized the rooms. 10.2 seemed to straighten things up & it was a lot quicker to move around the house. 10.3 reorganized the furniture, changed the locks on the doors and added some nice things to the walls.
my point is, we've GOT the foundation, the house has been straightened up and the leaky roof has been patched, there just isn't the NEED for large yearly updates now like there has been for the past couple years. migrating everyone over to an all new OS was a long painful process, but i think we're over the hump. my company is just NOW switching the Mac users over to OSX. (i got an invite for an "OSX overview & training session" for next week. i've been using this for 3 years people!!).
now let's sit back & enjoy this fabulous operating system and see what new stuff Apple breaks out w/ Tiger that we didn't even know we needed...
to take that analogy a step further...when they released OSX, it was a nice new foundation, but the interior of the house still needed LOTS of fixes and holes patched in the walls. 10.1 brought a lot of those and it became a USABLE operating system (10.0 was nothing more than eyecandy for me). that's when they brought in a lot of new furniture and really organized the rooms. 10.2 seemed to straighten things up & it was a lot quicker to move around the house. 10.3 reorganized the furniture, changed the locks on the doors and added some nice things to the walls.
my point is, we've GOT the foundation, the house has been straightened up and the leaky roof has been patched, there just isn't the NEED for large yearly updates now like there has been for the past couple years. migrating everyone over to an all new OS was a long painful process, but i think we're over the hump. my company is just NOW switching the Mac users over to OSX. (i got an invite for an "OSX overview & training session" for next week. i've been using this for 3 years people!!).
now let's sit back & enjoy this fabulous operating system and see what new stuff Apple breaks out w/ Tiger that we didn't even know we needed...
No way I'm going to buy a G5 just to run in 64-bits...I bought an iMac G4 in January 2004 (received it February 2004) and intend to keep it as my primary Mac until AT LEAST 2007.DrGruv1 said:I would hope the 64bit os would be NOW, this summer, - really give people the incentive to upgrade the os to 64bit and their computers....
Oops - I just saw the rolleyes... Besides, Apple wouldn't do this to Mac users now - not until they have G5 or better processors in all products - including the iBook and eMac. Even then, they would have to allow some time for everyone to transition over to the new hardware; I'd expect this transition to be complete by 2010 (2007: the year that the Mac line goes completely G5; 2010: the year everyone who bought a Mac before 2007 would have upgraded).
The PowerPC architecture supports 32bit and 64bit native simultaneously. So an installation disc can contain both, if it detects a G3/G4 it will install the 32bit, if it is a G5 it will install the 64bit. One is just a compilation away
Would Apple be willing to compile, test, and maintain TWO "distributions" of Mac OS X plus a hardware detection script that determines which distribution to use? Apple will only do this if they think it would be worth the effort (both for them and their customers - the Mac users).iris_failsafe said:
OSX supports fat binaries, as did NeXTStep. This is a way of containing code compiled and optimised for different platforms within the same application container. This was originally intended to allow the same .app packages to run on both x86 and 680x0 hardware supported by NeXT, but the concept is equally valid for G4- and G5-optimised binaries and resources.wrldwzrd89 said:
The functionality is already there. XCode can actually handle this automatically.