3 ms·

I would question Apple's fast and furious update schedule. Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. Th

I would question Apple's fast and furious update schedule. Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. It begins to appear like the software philosophy pioneered by Adobe: buy the same software every 2 years. But Apple upped that game to every stinking year. Why? What is the benefit to the user? Wouldn't it have been far better to not place so much attention on a constant, never ending stream of so many new features so few use, and instead focus on the necessary features everyone uses, as well as security, and fixing the bugs. I also don't understand Apple's philosophy of abandoning compatibility. Was 32-bit compatibility really all that crippling to Apple's 64-bit endeavors? Or is it just an easy way to break production software to force purchase of new software? Imagine if the automobile industry changed fuels every 10 years starting in the 1940's, such that every decade that passes, any car older than 10 years would no longer function for lack of access to fuel. I don't think we would have let that stand. And yet we eat what Apple puts on our plate. I like macOS, but this "new OS every year!" sucks, has no benefit to the user, and it is, fundamentally, a lie.

mthoms 5y ago
>Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) and at least one complete file system rewrite. But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change.
- Maursault 5y ago
  > Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) The exercise proves that hardware is irrelevant to an operating system > and at least one complete file system rewrite. Which filesystem was completely rewritten, and why? Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. > But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change. Pretty sure not a whole lot has changed for the experienced expert, either. What has incrementally changed (but not so much it's unrecognizable) is the graphical user interface. A GUI is not an operating system.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    >Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. You know what I meant and the distinction is irrelevant in this case, so don't be that guy. The point is, a lot of impressive engineering resources have gone in to the OS over the years. In particular the seamless transition (due to Rosetta x 2) from Motorola -> Intel -> Apple Silicon (among other things) so the statement that MacOS 10 -> 12 has little fundamental difference is a bit hyperbolic. Anyways, I'm not sure why you're trying to start an argument but I'm not interested. You sound way more uhhh... passionate about this topic than I care to be.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. NeXTSTEP was compiled to run on 68k, x86, RS6000, and Spark, it didn't change the version number. Tiger and Leopard ran on PowerPC and Intel. Snow Leopard ran both 32-bit and 64-bit with distinct kernels. Big Sur and Monterey run on Intel and ARM. In each instance, these are the same OS at the same version running on different platforms. But in each instance, it is still the same operating system, regardless of any differences in the code on any particular platform. The hardware is irrelevant. There are technologies introduced and some simultaneously deprecated at each increase of a macOS version number. Most of this has to do with the user interface, but there are some changes to the OS having little to do with the user interface. These changes, however, are incremental point increases, at best, not version whole number advances, which Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? Ignoring platform, shown irrelevant above, they merely appear very different, along with a few inconsequential new or removed features, but they are more alike than they are different. So I think Apple has employed version numbering as marketing rather than marking milestones of significant advancement. Microsoft has done this too, in spades. Sure, Vista and Windows 8 are unrecognizable, but they are both still fundamentally NT, and not distinct operating systems.
      - mthoms 5y ago
        >It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. No, but tone does. As does uncharitably interpreting comments. And I never said hardware itself mattered, I said the level of software engineering in seamlessly transitioning MacOS across different architectures was impressive and resource consuming. Rosetta (executed flawlessly twice) in particular is an incredible feat. As were Time Machine (effortless backups), full disk encryption (seamless and transparent) at the time they were released. Not world changing, sure - but what OS feature in the past 20 years is? >Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? You've moved the goal posts. The comment I replied to was: >Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. Anyways, I'm no Mac fanboy so it feels weird trying to hype MacOS up. My only point was that the above statement comes across as more than a little hyperbolic. I'm not entirely sure how to counter your argument since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. You've only said it hasn't changed enough. That's a bit vague. What OS meets your criteria? What obvious feature is MacOS lacking? What's your gold-standard benchmark for what an OS should be? To be clear, I agree with you that many (most) MacOS changes are marketing-driven fluff. But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs.

mthoms 5y ago

>Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. The operating system itself has probably seen very little changes since NeXTSTEP's first release in 1989, it only appears different, and the vast majority of changes are in the graphical interface. Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) and at least one complete file system rewrite. But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change.

Maursault 5y ago
> Well, that range covers three different CPU architectures(!) The exercise proves that hardware is irrelevant to an operating system > and at least one complete file system rewrite. Which filesystem was completely rewritten, and why? Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. > But your point is fair - to the layperson there hasn't been much change. Pretty sure not a whole lot has changed for the experienced expert, either. What has incrementally changed (but not so much it's unrecognizable) is the graphical user interface. A GUI is not an operating system.
- mthoms 5y ago
  >Unless you're referring to AFS... which wasn't rewritten, but developed. You know what I meant and the distinction is irrelevant in this case, so don't be that guy. The point is, a lot of impressive engineering resources have gone in to the OS over the years. In particular the seamless transition (due to Rosetta x 2) from Motorola -> Intel -> Apple Silicon (among other things) so the statement that MacOS 10 -> 12 has little fundamental difference is a bit hyperbolic. Anyways, I'm not sure why you're trying to start an argument but I'm not interested. You sound way more uhhh... passionate about this topic than I care to be.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. NeXTSTEP was compiled to run on 68k, x86, RS6000, and Spark, it didn't change the version number. Tiger and Leopard ran on PowerPC and Intel. Snow Leopard ran both 32-bit and 64-bit with distinct kernels. Big Sur and Monterey run on Intel and ARM. In each instance, these are the same OS at the same version running on different platforms. But in each instance, it is still the same operating system, regardless of any differences in the code on any particular platform. The hardware is irrelevant. There are technologies introduced and some simultaneously deprecated at each increase of a macOS version number. Most of this has to do with the user interface, but there are some changes to the OS having little to do with the user interface. These changes, however, are incremental point increases, at best, not version whole number advances, which Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? Ignoring platform, shown irrelevant above, they merely appear very different, along with a few inconsequential new or removed features, but they are more alike than they are different. So I think Apple has employed version numbering as marketing rather than marking milestones of significant advancement. Microsoft has done this too, in spades. Sure, Vista and Windows 8 are unrecognizable, but they are both still fundamentally NT, and not distinct operating systems.
    - mthoms 5y ago
      >It's really ok if someone disagrees with you. It doesn't make them argumentative. No, but tone does. As does uncharitably interpreting comments. And I never said hardware itself mattered, I said the level of software engineering in seamlessly transitioning MacOS across different architectures was impressive and resource consuming. Rosetta (executed flawlessly twice) in particular is an incredible feat. As were Time Machine (effortless backups), full disk encryption (seamless and transparent) at the time they were released. Not world changing, sure - but what OS feature in the past 20 years is? >Apple has inexplicably ticked forward every year since 2012. What are the differences between Monterey and Mountain Lion that warrants their distinction? You've moved the goal posts. The comment I replied to was: >Fundamentally there is very little difference between Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah and macOS 12 Monterey. Anyways, I'm no Mac fanboy so it feels weird trying to hype MacOS up. My only point was that the above statement comes across as more than a little hyperbolic. I'm not entirely sure how to counter your argument since you've provided no criteria for how much the OS should have changed over the years. You've only said it hasn't changed enough. That's a bit vague. What OS meets your criteria? What obvious feature is MacOS lacking? What's your gold-standard benchmark for what an OS should be? To be clear, I agree with you that many (most) MacOS changes are marketing-driven fluff. But I also fail to see any significant advancements in other OS's that MacOS sorely needs.