I am not the only one that OS X become unstable than ever before. Crashing, freezing, and etc. El Capitan was suppose to be the most stable OS X so they said. I really don't like annual update. This is very tiring stuffs for both developers and customers. 1 year is not enough. Any thoughts?
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.
Will they stop making a new OS X annually?
- Thread starter mavericks7913
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Free upgrade but not reversible. Some what forcing. If you want latest updates, then I have to update OS X especially for Adobe programs. That's not good.
Doubtful, I don't mind the annual updates, but make them a bit more solid. The trend in the industry has moved on to at least annual updates. Microsoft is prepping its Redstone update, which will coincide with the anniversary of windows 10 in July. Many flavors of Linux update every 6 or 12 months.
It seems people's attention span went from every few years to expecting something major every year.
It seems people's attention span went from every few years to expecting something major every year.
Apple struck gold with the free annual updates. It would be suicide to move away from this model. It's brilliant. Microsoft is dying to find a way to get users to update to the latest version.
Fast? Still slow. The stability had been decreased every years... El Capitan was meant for better stability but it didn't. Apple still didn't fix any issues from OS X. A lot of programs require to update for new OS X.
But this isn't the first update to Windows 10. There have been a few big ones already.
A lot of software projects release more often and focus on the version number less. Look at Chrome and Firefox. The yearly update makes us wait for new features longer, or they rush something to get it done in time. Releasing regularly and when its ready should be much more stable.
Annual release schedule isn't the cause of the problems lately. It's the marketing-lead development cycle that's causing the issues. Instead of releasing features when they're ready to go, they're rushing and pushing everything to be ready in time for the WWDC event.
iOS 9.3 type of update is what Apple needs to do more often, a small update with a few new features every once in a while.
Even Safari is getting better because of what they're doing with Safari Technology Preview.
iOS 9.3 type of update is what Apple needs to do more often, a small update with a few new features every once in a while.
Even Safari is getting better because of what they're doing with Safari Technology Preview.
New OS's is a misnomer... Its all software. They can create new features and integrate them when they are ready.. They probably have some good ones ready to show us at this years WWDC. I bet some of the software changes they will show have been in the works for years!
[doublepost=1465834191][/doublepost]Also, I think annual releases keep macOS relevant and thats what they need more than anything else. If the Mac dies so does their perfect ecosystem.
[doublepost=1465834191][/doublepost]Also, I think annual releases keep macOS relevant and thats what they need more than anything else. If the Mac dies so does their perfect ecosystem.
To me, an 18-24 month release cycle is somewhat sensible.
Up until 10.2, Apple was on a 6 month cycle but mostly to fix early problems. I'm working on memory and am too lazy to look it up, but Tiger was where OS X really hit a sweet spot for a lot of people and lasted for somewhere around 27 months. Leopard and Snow Leopard went back to roughly 18 months. Lion came out in Mid-2011, Mountain Lion in mid-2012, and Mavericks in the fall of '13. We've been at almost exactly 12 months since then.
Up until 10.2, Apple was on a 6 month cycle but mostly to fix early problems. I'm working on memory and am too lazy to look it up, but Tiger was where OS X really hit a sweet spot for a lot of people and lasted for somewhere around 27 months. Leopard and Snow Leopard went back to roughly 18 months. Lion came out in Mid-2011, Mountain Lion in mid-2012, and Mavericks in the fall of '13. We've been at almost exactly 12 months since then.
I have it on good authority that OS X will no longer see annual updates. On the other hand, macOS will be updated twice a year.
Most people I know hate it "I have to upgrade again??" is a common cry I hear when telling clients about a new update.
In a way, Yes, Apple will stop releasing new OS X version every year. The reason is probably not what you were hoping for. They have revert back the the MacOS brand name, from the says of releases such as MacOS 8 to MacOS 9. ("MacOS 7 and earlier were called "System Software 7, etc..)
For that reason, they will no longer release OS X, but will probably have an annual release of MacOS (insert random California landmark here) for the next ten or so years, until they create a naming scheme. I think they basically ran out of big cat names, so they had to make a change. There are plenty of other options availiable for CA landmarks. I suspect that the next one will be not too far from El Capitan mountain in Yosemite, which is part of the Sierra Mountain range. The next one could be a tribute to Fresno, CA, "MacOS Cesspool."
You can do alternating years as el cap will be supported until it's not. No need to upgrade with the unwashed masses.
[doublepost=1466346427][/doublepost]
Probably due to iPhone upgrade cycle.
[doublepost=1466346782][/doublepost]
This is just marketing branding nonsense. OS X was new so needed to break free of how terrible old legacy Mac OS was. Now 15 years later the expectation is most will have forgotten how terrible the original Mac OS was. But to some of us it'll always be OS X as we won't forget legacy Mac OS was awful compared to Windows 95.
Annual upgrades have become an integral part of Apple’s planned obsolescence strategy. A sales and marketing company first, Apple relies on selling it's customers more and more to keep corporate revenue in the stratosphere.
Yet no new MacPro, an iPad that clearly has us looking towards the Surface or a single version of an iMac using a limited color display. Sorry no matter how much Apple want to claim they are a software company they are hardware company - Adobe is a software company. Always having to dismiss update prompts because I need to stay on a stable level or having to circumnavigate the bloatware such as Photos is not a fun way to work.
Honestly I can't even name a single feature that OS 10.11 brought over 10.10 The feature I need is stability for all the software I want to run not just a new version of Photos. So yes I do hope the OS updates move to a 2 year cycle and the MacPro gets updated more often.
Honestly I can't even name a single feature that OS 10.11 brought over 10.10 The feature I need is stability for all the software I want to run not just a new version of Photos. So yes I do hope the OS updates move to a 2 year cycle and the MacPro gets updated more often.
I don't think Apple claims to be a software company. If they are a software company, they would offer their software on the majority of systems. Apple is and always has been a hardware company. The software that they currently offer is for use on the hardware that they sell. Up until a few years ago, they were referred to as "Apple Computer," the "Computer" part was dropped, as it was already clear that they sold computers, and was not necessary. It also made sense to drop it, as they also offer phones, media players and tablets. They maintain the App Store, to ensure usability of their hardware devices.
I think the idea behind a yearly cycle is so that things change slowly, and there is not big shock like in the windows world. Think of the whole, "where the #*&@ is my start menu?" That came with Windows 8. A yearly cycle with slight slow changes (for free) makes it less frustrating for the normal end user. Most of here, on a forum, are likely not the "normal end user," so we here, may see things differently.
As far as bloatware goes, Photos is not really bloatware. Bloatware is the junk that manufacturers add, in order to get you to buy. (Think of the old days, when you would get a game included on your new computer, but you could only play the first three levels then you have to pay. Think about those "free AOL" Cds if you are old enough, or the Encyclopedia disks, that required you to buy a serial number to actually use.) That is bloatware. There is no need to "circumnavigate" Photos, if you don't like it, don't use it. If you really hate it, just drop it in the trash.
Bloatware is not software that gets you to buy a computer. It's the opposite. Bloatware is **** you don't want and would never use and is usually varied from manufacturers. If anything, it's stuff that will get you to NOT buy the computer.
Bloatware in the older days would often be limited trials to get you buy the software products, and would be pre-installed on your new computer purchase. It also includes junk that companies like Dell, HP, Compaq would install on your computer, like the HP help center. Or the HP Software update.
You are correct in that bloatware does not normally cause someone to buy a computer.