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
AndrewMT said:
All that the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel does is launch InstallShield, which is what largely the Setup app on install discs does. What you primarilly need Add/Remove for is to undo the registry entries made when the app was installed. Of course, for the dull, uneducated and unsavvy masses who use Windows who after years of computer use still don't know how to drag a file from their HD to a CD or floppy, it also handles deleting the files and folders associated with the app.
It should be noted that this is not an entirely "clean" process, BTW.
In any event, Mac OS does not have a registry, and I would hope most Mac users are savvy enough to know how to drag icons around, etc., so the functionality would be superfluous for most Mac users.
I will, however, go along with your notion of having a program launch menu and a means of auto-updating it. However, if Apple or anyone else were to do this, I would emplore them not to use the same strategy that Microsoft uses, as the Start Menu -> All Programs listing gets needlessly long, does not even auto-alphabetize, and even when it is sorted manually, the sorting is still in eccentric sequence as some listings are for the app and others are for the author of the app. This is a helluva kludge.
edenwaith said:
Yah, it can definitely be frustrating. Not only are some people waiting for new updates to come out before they buy a new system (i.e. waiting for PowerMac revisions, waiting for G5 iMacs, etc. before they buy), but now another variable to add into the waiting equation seems to be OS - some people would be hesitant to buy a new system if they knew a new OS was around the corner. Wait a couple months, get it pre-installed for free - buy now, be prepared to shell out another $150 or whatever in 2 months. And this is assuming you want the new OS, but whether you do or don't, the principle is that if you're buying a brand new system (in this example at least) you would ideally like to get everything new, up-to-date and top of the line, so to speak, which includes the latest and greatest OS. I know it was a conscious decision on my part when I bought my system last December. I was essentially ready to buy in October, but knew Panther was coming, so I waited a couple more months to ensure it was out and shipping with new systems. If OS updates were less frequent, this would definitely alleviate this issue.
As an addition to my above post, for the record, I'm all for continuing OS updates but let's spread them out a little more and make them truly worth shelling out the cash for. I'm sure there are many advancements Apple can make as constant improvements in the form of version upgrades (a la 10.3.1, 10.3.2, etc.) without having to "overhaul" and release a completely new OS to take advantage of certain features, functionality and abilities.
So bring on Tiger, Lion, Puma, Ocelot, Cheetah and Norwegian Forest Cat, but perhaps not at quite the pace we've seen this past little while with 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4
So bring on Tiger, Lion, Puma, Ocelot, Cheetah and Norwegian Forest Cat, but perhaps not at quite the pace we've seen this past little while with 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4
It's hard to gauge the movement toward 64 bit computing in the PC world. If past trends are to be used as a model for the future, it will probably be years after Longhorn that any significant number of PC users will have it. It took forever for DOS users to switch to ANY version of Windows, and years (though not quite as many, perhaps) for Windows 3.1 users to switch to Windows 95, et al.
Given that most people buy brand name computers and none of them are selling consumer 64 bit systems, it is going to take a helluva lot of catch-up in the PC world to get where Apple will be with the next generation Mac OS (making the assumption that it is intrinsically 64 bit). This is NOT a call for Apple to sit on it's laurels, and I think it foolish to assume anyone at Apple would do that this day and age.
At the computer call center for which I work supporting users who foolishly use that "other OS", I can say with a high degree of confidence that most people, especially in the PC world, are too ignorant to do anything to take advantage of 64 bit technology until Microsoft puts a gun to their head over it. Given that we and everyone else have no reason to sell 64 bit systems until there is a version of Windows and apps, et al, to support them, it is also hard to say the blame lies at the feet of consumers exclusively. But, like many things, the real truth remains a mystery.
I have advocated on other forums on MacRumors and elsewhere and in person to people and to Apple employees that Apple is in a perfect position to benefit from 64 bit computing and all the accolades that go with it, and needs to make sure, like many of you have said, that they desperately need to BOTH beat Microsoft to the punch AND put out a product which shines in it's own light. One or the other but not both is just not an option.
Mike
Given that most people buy brand name computers and none of them are selling consumer 64 bit systems, it is going to take a helluva lot of catch-up in the PC world to get where Apple will be with the next generation Mac OS (making the assumption that it is intrinsically 64 bit). This is NOT a call for Apple to sit on it's laurels, and I think it foolish to assume anyone at Apple would do that this day and age.
At the computer call center for which I work supporting users who foolishly use that "other OS", I can say with a high degree of confidence that most people, especially in the PC world, are too ignorant to do anything to take advantage of 64 bit technology until Microsoft puts a gun to their head over it. Given that we and everyone else have no reason to sell 64 bit systems until there is a version of Windows and apps, et al, to support them, it is also hard to say the blame lies at the feet of consumers exclusively. But, like many things, the real truth remains a mystery.
I have advocated on other forums on MacRumors and elsewhere and in person to people and to Apple employees that Apple is in a perfect position to benefit from 64 bit computing and all the accolades that go with it, and needs to make sure, like many of you have said, that they desperately need to BOTH beat Microsoft to the punch AND put out a product which shines in it's own light. One or the other but not both is just not an option.
Mike
i say they can ease up a little bit on the os since its running great
maybe a few tweaks here and there
but someone get on the horn to update the hard ware!!!
maybe a few tweaks here and there
but someone get on the horn to update the hard ware!!!
macmunch said:
Newegg.com Windows XP Home $87
Newegg.com Windows XP Pro $138
Granted you have to purchase these with hardware, so tack on a $5 mouse, modem, keyboard, etc. and you're good to go. I'd rather spend ~$145 for Microsoft's pro level operating system ever few years than ~$100 every year from Apple.... that's why I buy a new Mac and sell my old one every 2 releases! I dont pay for software.
My 2 Cents...
They really should have an upgrade pricing structure, this $130 for 130 features is stupid. I think they would end up securing more money in the long haul, because people wouldn't hold off a release to update.
I feel bad for the people that don't have Panther because of updates like the newer version of Safari that can't be run on Jag, etc. Its going to increasingly become more and more like this where you need the latest OS to run the newest programs.... which is understandable to an extent... but not for basic browser and iLife type stuff.
They really should have an upgrade pricing structure, this $130 for 130 features is stupid. I think they would end up securing more money in the long haul, because people wouldn't hold off a release to update.
I feel bad for the people that don't have Panther because of updates like the newer version of Safari that can't be run on Jag, etc. Its going to increasingly become more and more like this where you need the latest OS to run the newest programs.... which is understandable to an extent... but not for basic browser and iLife type stuff.
I just hope this doesn't mean the beginning of the end for the Mac. Apple annoncing this in the same week as the new iPod devision makes me a little uneasy. Assigning your top hardware guy to the iPod shows where the emphasis on hardware design is. This could be the first step in reducing investment on the Mac. I guess the next year will show what direction Apple is headed in.
areyouwishing said:
Well, Microsoft charges more for "upgrades" than they do for "new" software. Is this the sort of "upgrade" pricing you're interested in?
Windows XP 64-bit is here already, no need to wait for Longhorn!
Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Itanium desktops has been selling for over a year (as well as Windows 64-bit server editions).
The 64-bit edition for AMD 64-bit chips (and the soon to arrive Xeon 64-bit systems) is available for free trial download from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp .
Compaq Presario 8000Z Athlon 64 desktop(http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do)
HP Pavilion a550e Athlon 64 desktop ($634.99) (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do)
HP ZX series Itanium workstations (http://www.hp.com/workstations/itanium/index.html)
HP DL145 (1U dual) and DL585 (4U quad) Opteron servers (http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/platforms/index-dl.html)
IBM IntelliStation A Pro workstation - Operton, 16 GiB RAM ( http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/IntelliStation_workstations.html )
IBM eServer 325 Opteron 1U dual (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/opteron/325/index.html)
Don't say none, there are name brand consumer desktops and entry servers with x86-64 systems.
Well, the version of Windows is already here - but the 64-bit desktop apps aren't available for either platform.
Obviously not for the Mac, since OSX doesn't support 64-bit memory.
Even though Windows supports 64-bit memory, and lets individual programs use more than 4 GiB - there is little demand for that capability from desktop apps. There are many 64-bit server apps, for example, but the strongest reason to get a 64-bit desktop today is for software development of 64-bit server apps - not for running 64-bit desktop apps.
Too late for the first one.
MikeTheC said:
Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Itanium desktops has been selling for over a year (as well as Windows 64-bit server editions).
The 64-bit edition for AMD 64-bit chips (and the soon to arrive Xeon 64-bit systems) is available for free trial download from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp .
MikeTheC said:
Compaq Presario 8000Z Athlon 64 desktop(http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do)
HP Pavilion a550e Athlon 64 desktop ($634.99) (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do)
HP ZX series Itanium workstations (http://www.hp.com/workstations/itanium/index.html)
HP DL145 (1U dual) and DL585 (4U quad) Opteron servers (http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/platforms/index-dl.html)
IBM IntelliStation A Pro workstation - Operton, 16 GiB RAM ( http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/IntelliStation_workstations.html )
IBM eServer 325 Opteron 1U dual (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/opteron/325/index.html)
Don't say none, there are name brand consumer desktops and entry servers with x86-64 systems.
MikeTheC said:
Well, the version of Windows is already here - but the 64-bit desktop apps aren't available for either platform.
Obviously not for the Mac, since OSX doesn't support 64-bit memory.
Even though Windows supports 64-bit memory, and lets individual programs use more than 4 GiB - there is little demand for that capability from desktop apps. There are many 64-bit server apps, for example, but the strongest reason to get a 64-bit desktop today is for software development of 64-bit server apps - not for running 64-bit desktop apps.
MikeTheC said:
Too late for the first one.
wordmunger said:
I assume that you are referring to the situation where list price for the software to upgrade an existing system is more than the discount price for the OEM version of the software for a new system.
And how does this differ from Apple? What's the price for OSX for a new Mac? Is it less or more than $129 needed to upgrade an existing Mac?
AidenShaw said:
it's a buyer's decision, really. if one values a powerbook as much as any dell laptop, then that buyer would be paying a thousand dollar for the operating system, thus not buying one - and if one values a powerbook as much as top-of-the-line ibm laptop, then that buyer would be getting the operating system for free.
i tend to think that osx is a free gift for someone who buys apple hardware. i don't mind paying for the upgrade, which i haven't ever done by the way. i have os9 license that i had as a gift with a G3 imac purchase, a jaguar license that i had with a tibook purchase, and a panther license that i had with an albook purchase. i might have to pay for the tiger, though; maybe a family license to put it into all of the three
JFreak said:
No argument - I was commenting on the other poster's attempt to compare upgrade vs. new prices for Microsoft.
That implied that Apple is better than MS as far as upgrade vs. new - when in fact we have no idea what Apple "charges" for a new OSX license. It could be $5, it could be $500, it could be 5% of the cost of the computer, it could even be free.
As far as the "family pack" goes, that's a great idea - something that Microsoft should offer as well....
AidenShaw said:
yah and like Apple came out with the first 64-bit CPU. NOT. They skirted the issue by proclaiming its the first 64-bit home computer.
Which for all intents and purposes IS true. 64-bit OS's have been around well before Windows decided to dip their toe in the pool.As for 64-bit Windows, which I was well aware of since we have a test platform here in my office with it installed, first off its not widespread. Secondly they are currently giving the OS away for free. Want to guess why? Third from what I understand you need 64bit drivers across the board. Every component needs to have 64-bit drivers from your DVD drive to your soundcard to your video card to your USB controller. This makes existing hardware hard as hell to run WinXP 64. Last any app that is run on this can't really benefit from it.
Apple, however, is in the position of being ready with all their iApps, Final Cut Pro/Express (Which is already somewhat tweaked for the G5) and all the other various apps they have ready to go out of the box when they go 64-bit. Its a potentially major advantage over MS since they also, for the most part, have a closed architecture. A Mac, again for the most part, is a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.
PS- Longhorn is NOT going to be 64-bit. There are rumors that there is parellel development but supposedly they are looking at going 64-bit post Longhorn. Possibly in the 2007-2008 timeframe with a Longhorn Second Edition or whatever they will call it.
Slowing down the rate probably allows them to add/improve the core (low level) features. Currently, the pace probably hasn't allowed for any big changes--there just hasn't been enough development time. The OS needs to be "working" in time to seed developers (maybe highly buggy, but still basicly working). The OS teams probably haven't had a breather to take a step back and just think/design--because the next release is so soon. They've been able to incorporate new technologies and make improvements on speed, but now's probably a good time for design work to improve pieces that effect the whole system (kernal, file systems, etc). Those kinds of changes take time to design AND "shake out"--time usually not available with a 1 year development cycle. You can make modest changes, but nothing large. Something like 64 bit computuing could take a while to do right--probably along the lines of it being on a per-app basis (allowing 64 and 32 bit apps running side-by-side).Macrumors said:
~Shard~ said:
This won't be too much of an issue for me. When "Tiger" is sold, will need to purchase the family pack. Will need it for my wife's PowerBook and a backup iBook. I would like to get my G5 with "Tiger" already installed, but not a must because of the "Apple Pro Card."
SiliconAddict said:
Completely ludicrous.
Those are all 32-bit apps - they run in 32-bit mode on 32-bit OSX today, and they'll run in 32-bit mode on 64-bit OSX unless they're re-written to use 64-bit addressing.
Those "G5 tweaks" are performance-oriented - the compiler generates code that runs faster on the G5. It does not generate code that uses 64-bit memory addressing.
Apple will be in the same state as Windows XP 64-Bit Extended - you'll be able to run 32-bit apps at full speed on your 64-bit system. You won't get true 64-bit (that is, the ability for a single process to use more than 2 or 4 GiB of RAM) until the application is re-written to use 64-bit memory pointers.
As far as Longhorn goes, you're wrong.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;829967
Unless stated otherwise, all information included here applies to Microsoft Windows Code-Named "Longhorn," Microsoft Windows Code-Named "Longhorn" for Itanium-based systems, and Microsoft Windows Code-Named "Longhorn" for 64-bit extended systems.
Longhorn is a single codebase that's compiled for 3 target systems - x86 32-bit, x86 64-bit, and IA64.
AS-
I think what SiliconAddict is saying is that Apple will most likely have their 32-bit apps rewritten for 64-bit when they release 64-bit OS X - it's a logical expectation. That's what "ready to go" means.
I think what SiliconAddict is saying is that Apple will most likely have their 32-bit apps rewritten for 64-bit when they release 64-bit OS X - it's a logical expectation. That's what "ready to go" means.
nmk said:
I seriously don't think this is the end of Apple Computers. After all they have spent over $1 Billion on the beta version of Mac OS X and they have spent hundreds of millions to further develop OS X to what it is today. Also, they are spends hundreds of millions of dollars for Apple Retail Stores around the world. I don't think Apple is building retail stores for the iPod! The end of Apple as a company will be the day they stop selling computers. Even though they sell more iPods than computers, they still made about 75% of their profit off computer sales. Apple cannot survive off the iPod, or anything of its other hardware/software things besides it computers.
Keep in mind that they did this a few years ago when they shifted their main software personel to a seperate Applications team and because of that we've seen some awesome OS X apps come out. Keynote, iLife '04, FCE, Motion, etc. are all examples of cool new apps that havce come out of this split.
I think this is great for Apple. It splits specific things into specific groups so that team can focus on one specific thing. Putting John Rubenstein in charge of the iPod operations could of been a bad move, but I'm sure his replacement is fully qualified and if he isn't then I'd like to think that Steve Jobs will take care of that.
Apple is running strong, has 4.5 Billion in cash, and is STILL consistantly making a profit. They aren't going away for quite sometime unless they screw up big time like Gateway did.