Mac OS forum

General discussion

Constant Upgrades

by sideburnz / November 5, 2007 3:01 AM PST

Does anyone else think that good ol' Steve Jobs and his crew of miscreants are shooting themselves in the foot by constantly force feeding a ?NEW? operating system to all of us Mac users?

I use a Mac, and I know that upgrades are available, but to debut as ?NEW? system everytime is kind of a joke. It was new when OS X was released, I mean unleashed whatever, but now it has been a barrage of NEW this or that to make it seem like we constantly need to buy the new version.

I guess my question boils down to would they not be better off to keep the older versions on the shelf, let users pickup widgets to do what they want and release a ?NEW? version that actually has a pack to it every few years and is not just a tweak of the current version every 4-6 months?

I think it would save them money, and I know it would certainly save me and some friends some money ( I gave up on upgrading after jaguar, cost too much for too little). And to boot most software out there for OS X runs fine on a version or two back, so why buy the new one?

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Constant Upgrades
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Constant Upgrades
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Free choice.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / November 5, 2007 3:07 AM PST
In reply to: Constant Upgrades

I think the latest issue is amazing. Some don't like new features but that time machine will save a lot of hiney.


Collapse -
Time Machine
by sideburnz / November 5, 2007 3:15 AM PST
In reply to: Free choice.

It is nice, but would have not been better to have sold it as a widget or seperate program, and held off on the whole release of a new OS?

I think it goes back to the old saying of "There are only so many ways to skin a cat before you need to go after something else."

Collapse -
Your free choice.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / November 5, 2007 3:37 AM PST
In reply to: Time Machine

Sorry, I really like what Apple is doing. Every aspect is working quite well in every product. I think those that don't like it should skip it.


Collapse -
Your call indeed ,sideburnz. I've been in it since OS 8.5.
by NM_Bill / November 9, 2007 10:12 AM PST
In reply to: Your free choice.

For a long time it was my favorite. Then Apple felt they had to start abandoning the traditional look & feel in order to sort of copy a few features of windows. Gads I hated that. I guess what will be, will be. Apparently now permanent that the two majors will copy each others features rather than have the fortitude to go your own way.

Yes, I've felt abused more than once to once again pay for another Mac OS each time around. But we must remember we do benefit from the better OS. Because the dark side just had to spend billions to cobble together the OS that tries to be generic (with all its resulting compatibility problems) some are saying there will never be another MS DOS as they will switch to them being the bearer of the software which those who dial into it will pay periodic fees for the use thereof.

Anyway, Jaguar is a major change if less than earth shattering in your view. Your call, neighbor.

Collapse -
It's what business is about.
by Me, Myself and You / November 7, 2007 2:25 AM PST
In reply to: Time Machine

Apple can get away with what they do, and charging what I percieve to be ludicrous prices for their packages, because we, the people, buy into it.

Apple or Microsoft or whoever is not at fault; they're just doing their job. It's us who faulter ourselves. Although I do stand by the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" argument. I've only just settled with Panther on my iBook and I don't even feel the need for Tiger.

But yes, I do agree that it is a bit steep to have to pay 80 or so British Pounds just to up your revision number by one. The only differences that matter to me between OS 10.2 and 10.3 are Expose and Fast User Switching, and the fact that I can run most modern day apps. But I wouldn't pay 80 British Pounds every single time that happens, which is why a Mac will never be my mainstream computing but rather a "side serving".

Windows has much bigger revision bumps. I read a post below when someone mentioned that XP was mainly just a spiffed up 2000. You could say that, but then you could say that 2000 was just a spiffed up NT, etc etc etc. Many people look at an OS and think that the GUI is all there is to it - this is not so. XP has many more improvements over Windows 2000, namely IE 6, a registry editor with permissions settings on individual keys and forks of data, Direct X 8 (or was it 9?) and a hugely improved GUI and underlings to that. While I find 2000 faster and generally more fault tolerant, XP fixed many of 2000's annoying bugs that occurred regularly. It also introduced mainstream use of NT to the home as well as the office.

And there is more, too.

Collapse -
My comparison and comment was just a turn of phrase.
by tleMega / November 7, 2007 9:09 AM PST

Of course each OS improvement is going to add something new to it. I said what I said just to point out that each OS is just a revision with improved capabilities, and new ones, from the former version. XP would have to use 2000 as a base for itself, and so on, to set standards and to go beyond them. I wasn't just referring to the UI.

Apple and MS can do what they want because they know that some people will embrace the upgrades. The differences between their methods is one that always pops up when Apple business is discussed. Update releases and times. Apple churns out more products in a few months than most do in a year. They may release more, "less significant" updates to OS X every once and awhile, but paying $130-$200 for just one system is better for me than paying $100-$400 or $500 for multiple versions of Windows. But in the end, you can wind up paying the same price for either. MS does release stuff on a slower basis like Me, Myself said, but you can point a problem with that. Isn't the first SP for Vista not coming until 08? Right now, it doesn't seem like "too" long, but when it was a big topic for discussion, that was a long time. Apple releases system updates regularly, or should I say, more regularly.
Your revision bumps are traveled both by OS X and Windows, but I think going steady with smaller bumps on a regular basis is better than making large leaps less often. Easier to adapt that way if you get my meaning.

Anyway... no one HAS to upgrade to anything. Most people are comfortable with their current stuff.
Enough said.

I'm starting to wonder where this thread is going |-O.

Collapse -
Tiger was a big jump from Panther
by grimgraphix / November 5, 2007 4:53 AM PST
In reply to: Constant Upgrades

Leopard does not peak my interest as much since it doesn't appear to enhance my older equipment's performance. However, if apple keeps enhancing both equipment and performance in their newer products, I have no big problem with the 2 year... or in this case, almost 3 year... cycle of OS upgrades that apple has so far practiced.


Collapse -
And MS hasn't done similar things?
by tleMega / November 6, 2007 7:20 AM PST

Look at 2000 and XP. To me (my opinions may differ with yours), XP was just an improved continuation of 2000 with a sleeker desktop and UI. Is OS X not like that? Vista could be said that of XP with notable differences. MS uses different names while Apple uses names and numbers, which you have been referring to. You can't accuse Apple of this and say they are alone. Windows has released their SPs which are like that of Apple's Updates.

Leopard has unleashed my Intel machines performance, but has not done too much for my PPC G4. But how's this a problem? Apple is going to always replace the older systems and will expect you to keep upgrading with them if your machine can handle it. Why need older systems on the shelf? When you need a new machine, why not go for the latest and greatest? Your budget counts, but downgrading isn't much of a way to go when you lose functionality and features. What's the point here?

Collapse -
by grimgraphix / November 6, 2007 8:02 AM PST
Collapse -
I meant to state that to the original post.
by tleMega / November 6, 2007 8:13 AM PST
In reply to: Constant Upgrades

Hope you didn't think I was talking to you. Sorry for the confusion grim. I just threw out my random opinions a bit there.

Collapse -
not a problem.
by grimgraphix / November 6, 2007 8:30 AM PST

I usually use the tree view option to look at the forum threads. It's easier to keep track of who I'm posting to, that way.


Collapse -
Oh, well I just use whatever is the usual thing.
by tleMega / November 6, 2007 11:35 AM PST
In reply to: not a problem.

I don't care much about the view. I'm not picky :-).

Collapse -
I disagree there.
by Me, Myself and You / November 7, 2007 2:31 AM PST

If you downgrade like I did to Windows 2000, and lose features XYZ, it doesn't matter if you only use features A and B. I'm between XP and 2000, but I'm still hanging onto 2000 for a while yet because it does what I need and want without the extra fuss. I am thinking of making the jump to Vista mainly for security reasons, but it's a decision I am constantly changing my mind to.

Look at wireless technology. We worked fine for hundreds of years without wires, and now we can do it again. Is technology really improving or is it just going around in circles?

Collapse -
Isn't it always going around in circles?
by tleMega / November 7, 2007 8:56 AM PST
In reply to: I disagree there.

Just with something better each time it completes a circuit? That's how technology is, always looking back to go forward, or so it was like that. This isn't a car forum or anything, but if you look at the new Mustangs or the upcoming (and reborn) Dodge Charger, they all borrow features and styles from the old.

But yeah, I see what you're saying.

Collapse -
Leopard wiped out Adm PW
by pcm888usa / November 9, 2007 8:15 AM PST

I upgraded to Leopard from Tiger on my PowerBook G4. After the install, it wiped out my User Name and PW as well as Adm Name and PW. Apple Forum had an instruction of how to delete and rebuild the user PW but nothing about ADM PW. Does anyone have any ideas of how to resolve that. I am blocked out of making any changes on my Powerbook.

Collapse -
If you're willing to erase the entire HD,
by tleMega / November 9, 2007 11:02 AM PST

just do a clean install on the PowerBook. I'm betting that you'd want to recover files that you had before, so backup the HD to an external while running the OS X disc but before installing. You can run Disk Utility and etc. Check out all of your options with the Leopard disc, which may help you some.

Too bad you can't use Guest Account mode since that's controlled from the Admin, and I don't think you would have put that on, so what to do... I think you should just backup like I just said and boot from the disc. Then screw around with it and see what you can find.

Yeah, I'm not much of a help here, but I'm still learning the ways of Leopard, Daniel-san.
Try the disc.

Collapse -
64 bit
by robertmro / November 9, 2007 1:01 PM PST
In reply to: Constant Upgrades

Don't you get it, 64 bit.

Collapse -
Re: 64-bit
by 3rdalbum / November 9, 2007 6:01 PM PST
In reply to: 64 bit

Is that true? Because then Mac OS X would be the last major operating system to go 64-bit; completely thrashed to the finish line by Windows, Linux, and the BSDs. I have difficulty believing this.

Collapse -
Why worry?
by gmm421 / November 11, 2007 8:09 AM PST
In reply to: Constant Upgrades

Whose forcing anyone? I have a system that works fine on 10.3.9; and, another has 10.4.10. No one has to buy the upgrade, and software developers make add ons to mimic what is found in the newer systems. Don't worry about Steve Jobs, he'll not lose any sleep if you don't upgrade. I have a PC that uses "old" Windows XP, and I'll never upgrade it to use Vista. Actually, I use an old Mac SE/30 that has been using System 7.5.5, and a MacPlus using 6.0.8. They all run fine and do what I want with the operating system installed on them.

No worries. No need to keep up with the Jones or the Jobs. But, I'm glad they are making something new and better when I decide to turn over my precious earnings to buy one.


Collapse -
Exactly. Why people fail to value their current things
by tleMega / November 11, 2007 10:14 AM PST
In reply to: Why worry?

is somewhat related to their marketing though. Apple says it's the latest and greatest thing, people always crave the latest and greatest, and they just have to have it. Of course, this is completely false, and you only need what you need, not what Apple says you need. You WANT it, but you don't always NEED it; running a newer system may not make anything better. You can run Tiger on your older G4 or G5 and it may work better through that than Leopard or vice versa. My Intel machine runs just as well with Leopard as with Tiger, since Leopard can be seen as based on Intel architecture. I don't use Vista either, since I already have a good copy of XP.
Like the previous poster, you could use an old Mac or PC running an "ancient system" from the old ROM world and still do what you need to do on a computer (word processing, etc.). So why would you allow yourself to be pressured into buying something you may not need? I bought Leopard and I'm glad I did since it has unleashed some of the power in MBP. I USE it because I partially needed it. The upgrades fixed a few things and allowed others to be easier.

Steve still gets his dollar everyday no matter if you buy into the marketing or not. He still has all of the cool unreleased stuff to play with.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?