heh, you'd think. in 2008 when i bought a lenovo i had them install XP on it instead of vista.
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.
OS X Mavericks Adoption Pushing Toward 50%
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
heh, you'd think. in 2008 when i bought a lenovo i had them install XP on it instead of vista.
now 50 percent
if this report is a good source, then usage is now over 50 percent of all macs, that is amazing news for app developers and esp. users of new macs alike
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247788/Free_OS_X_Mavericks_now_powers_half_of_all_Macs
if this report is a good source, then usage is now over 50 percent of all macs, that is amazing news for app developers and esp. users of new macs alike
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247788/Free_OS_X_Mavericks_now_powers_half_of_all_Macs
Yep, was just about to post that myself!
It'd be nice if you'd acknowledge that your earlier statement that it wasn't connected with Mavericks was erroneous!
As the story explains...
"When iOS 7 and Mavericks were introduced back in September, Apple removed local syncing in favor of cloud syncing, allowing users to sync calendars, contacts, bookmarks, and notes only via iCloud. Many users were unhappy with the feature removal and their inability to sync information to their iOS devices using their Macs. "
Clearly, as my case indicated, the latest version of iTunes works perfectly fine under Mountain Lion!
In any event, just glad that Apple got the message!
You are still misinterpreting what I originally said. I didn't say that it wasn't connected to Mavericks.
You said that "Mavericks eliminates USB synching of iOS devices and forces users to use Wi-Fi." That is not true. What was removed with the version of iTunes on Mavericks was the ability to sync contact, calendars, and bookmarks via USB or iTunes Wifi sync. You could still sync media via both theses methods.
We're talking past each (common on the Internet 
), but just so long as others understand this:
You cannot, for now, sync your contacts and calendar via USB connection when using Mavericks.
That's *not* a result of using the latest version of iTunes per se--the latest version does NOT prevent USB sync of contacts and calendar when you are on Mountain Lion. It's only when you are on Mavericks that you have to Wi-Fi sync them.
For most people, that means i-Cloud, and for many people, the idea of passing along their address book and events to Apple is unnerving.
In any event, getting back to the original topic--this is a good reason for not upgrading to Mavericks!
), but just so long as others understand this:You cannot, for now, sync your contacts and calendar via USB connection when using Mavericks.
That's *not* a result of using the latest version of iTunes per se--the latest version does NOT prevent USB sync of contacts and calendar when you are on Mountain Lion. It's only when you are on Mavericks that you have to Wi-Fi sync them.
For most people, that means i-Cloud, and for many people, the idea of passing along their address book and events to Apple is unnerving.
In any event, getting back to the original topic--this is a good reason for not upgrading to Mavericks!
Why would they want to support 15 year old computers?
----------
How the hell did you get a G4 running Lion???
Tiger or Leopard I can understand.
----------
Why should they? They want you to pay for new hardware. A machine from 2006 makes them no money!
----------
I wouldn't want to run Mavericks on anything less than 4GB of RAM.
If it's fine on a different version of OS X then there are likely NO hardware errors.
----------
It isn't though. I had so many memory leaks with snow. It was very bad at freeing up memory when applications closed, and would page out when I had one app running. Frequent reboots were the only cure for me.
Leopard and Tiger were better in that respect.
It earns them a reputation! You wouldn't believe how many people looking to replace their 3-year-old PC get astonished by a 2004 Mac still running fine.
SL is still the most ergonomic, beautiful and compatible OS X there was. All the newer feel inferior in that regard.
We're going to have to disagree on that.
I personally hated what SL did to Exposé, the layout of it on both Leopard and Tiger was better.
Tiger was a faster OS and to me had less issues. I was affected by the bug with SL when it came out to do with having the guest account enabled. I lost my home folder completely and had to restore it from my SuperDuper backup.
Leopard was as good as SL and had the advantage of being able to run on PPC hardware.
Speaking of old PCs I have an old Toshiba laptop from '07 that is just fine. It now has Windows 7 on it and works just as good as it did with XP.
I can't say for previous versions of OS X since I haven't used them. But your Toshiba surely outlived most of its PC counterparts. How much was it worth at the time of purchase?
It was an expensive laptop, however easily £300-400 less than a MB of the time.
However it is not that unusual for PCs to last that long. Many businesses have PCs that are pushing 7 years old. And going by experience, a business desktop is not an expensive computer at all.
I can count consumer level PCs lasting that long on the fingers of one hand. Business-level PCs are a different beast, with a much better construction (akin to MacBook 's), and come with a noticeable premium over their consumer counterparts. But a desktop machine surely doesn't get beaten as badly as a laptop. My father still has a 2001 desktop machine running, only two owners, few movings. And I used a 2004 Thinkpad, clearly a business machine, that failed irreparably in 2006, 6 or 7 users.
Admittedly this is completely anecdotal, but I've know a number of people-- store owners, students, relatives, etc.-- who have gone through 2, 3 or more desktop or laptop Windows PCs in a very short spell. Every couple of months, another acquaintance seems to have a problem (several times it's been Dell, but the Ns are too small to conclude anything about brands).
Very few of the Mac folks I know have had such replacement experiences--they may have had an issue here or there (typically taken care of under Apple Care or at an Apple Store), but they have not had to completely replace their Macs or buy a couple of replacement computers in just a couple of years.
We sit here with a 10-year-old iBook G4 that still runs like a charm (although it requires turning off Flash and, occasionally, one wishes the Internet were faster). We also have a 6-year-old MacBook Pro that, with Snow Leopard, runs fantastically well--no complaints there save the obvious ones of hot laptop, noisy fan, and battery now expiring (but user-replaceable).
Very few of the Mac folks I know have had such replacement experiences--they may have had an issue here or there (typically taken care of under Apple Care or at an Apple Store), but they have not had to completely replace their Macs or buy a couple of replacement computers in just a couple of years.
We sit here with a 10-year-old iBook G4 that still runs like a charm (although it requires turning off Flash and, occasionally, one wishes the Internet were faster). We also have a 6-year-old MacBook Pro that, with Snow Leopard, runs fantastically well--no complaints there save the obvious ones of hot laptop, noisy fan, and battery now expiring (but user-replaceable).
I wonder if, of the numbers of individuals replacing their PCs that frequently, would not have done so if there were a comparable service for them similar to Apple's Genius Bar. In fact, when I purchased a new laptop this year, I went with Apple only because of the service you get with the Genius Bar.
I know that they can upgrade. But Snow Leopard is a harden group of Mac users that will not upgrade past Snow Leopard because certain features were eliminated and features people thought were too much like iOS were added. Lion and Mountain Lion have no diehard fans like Snow Leopard.
I thought Microsoft wanted to launch "premium PC" brick-and-mortar stores copied from Apple's design. Have they done so?
Non-Mac laptops are usually much less expensive thanks to razor-thin margins, tons of trial versions of crapware, and of course, few support.
While one can't conclude anything about particular brands, there's surely a relationship with machine price.
Looking at the GoSquared numbers for the last 24 hours...
https://www.gosquared.com/mavericks/#day
...10.9 is running at ~55%, 10.7 and 10.8 both around 13-14%, and 10.6 at about 17-18%.
If you compare this to the Chitika figures it looks as though the 10.6 figures are stable, but there's been a fair number of 10.7>10.9 and even more 10.8>10.9 upgrades.
Of course both GoSquared and Chikita's statistics are simply measuring web traffic and therefore tell us bugger all about adoption rates.
A more significant measure would be "how many Macs capable of running [version] are actually running [that version]?".
