8 ms·

Apple's incessant need to obsolete their old operating systems is surprising to me. I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long

by dos1 14y ago

Apple's incessant need to obsolete their old operating systems is surprising to me. I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. I for one will never run OSX again due to the constant need for upgrades. I have one of the original Intel MacBooks (with the Core Duo) and after upgrading to 10.6 my wireless card quit working. Rolling back to 10.5 fixed it. Although, with their popularity skyrocketing, maybe I'm the only one who has issues with new OSX versions.

ionforce 14y ago
Yes. You got it. You are the only one. Next. Maybe Apple's "incessant need to obsolete" is part of their secret sauce. They're doing pretty well for themselves these days. Look at Microsoft, Captain "Never Break Anything". How are they doing?
- RegEx 14y ago
  You're not clever, you're just rude.
alanh 14y ago
I love updating my Mac. Each new version makes it better, and problems seem to be minor and rare. It’s worlds different from the Windows upgrade <del>rat-race</del> <ins>process</ins>. That said, yes, the hardware seems to have a shorter shelf-life than would be ideal. Your computer is, what, 2005 vintage? Seven years is too short, but still an old age in the world of technology, and longer than most competitors’ hardware lasts.
- pkamb 14y ago
  > Each new version makes it better Since 10.6 that has definitely not been true.
  - alanh 14y ago
    Thanks for the objective fact, dear sir. While that may be true w.r.t. stability, the functionality, graphics, and polish have only gotten better. Security, too: consider FileVault 2. That’s what I like.
  - sbuk 14y ago
    Depends on your POV. Personally, I like it. Anecdotally my cousin, independently of me I might add, has just bought an 13" MBA and he seems to think it's like a breath of fresh air. Horses for courses. But, yes, whatever you are using is the best.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - masklinn 14y ago
    Do you mean 10.7? Because 10.6 was everything 10.5 was, except better on pretty much every front.
    - pkamb 14y ago
      Right, Snow Leopard was a great upgrade[1]. Lion was a major downgrade. [1] Except for the abysmal changes to Exposé. Luckily there was a hack to get the Leopard version back: http://superuser.com/questions/118424/old-leopard-expose-on-snow-leopard-for-mac http://superuser.com/questions/118424/old-leopard-expose-on-...
- danieldk 14y ago
  I love updating my Mac. Each new version makes it better, and problems seem to be minor and rare. It’s worlds different from the Windows upgrade rat-race. Huh? I am hoping that my sarcasm radar didn't pick this up. But, most software still runs perfectly fine on Windows XP. In fact, all of our university's Windows computers still run Windows XP (with up to date Creative Suite, Office, SPSS, etc. versions). Since Windows XP was released in 2001 (!), that's eleven years and counting. What rat race?
  - alanh 14y ago
    I mis-spoke. I didn’t mean “rat race.” I meant process. I am not saying there are too many Windows updates; I am saying you are far more likely to have problems after upgrading Windows than you are a Mac. For example, I literally cannot install Windows 7 on a laptop I acquired that shipped with Windows Vista. HP simply does not make the required drivers. It even seems the optical drive will not function correctly during a Win 7 installation attempt. It’s mind-blowingly sucktastic. There are Macs too old for the latest OS X, yes, but they are pretty old, and were able to keep up-to-date for years.
    - samspot 14y ago
      I bought an ibook in 2002 and each time an upgrade was announced I chose not to purchase the upgrade (none of the advertised features appealed to me). Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for. In my view Apple is charging users for service packs.
      - sbuk 14y ago
        And what is wrong with that? Seriously. Who is to say that one business model is better than another? Jaguar to Tiger was a big leap, as was Panther to Leopard; certainly as big a leap as XP to Vista.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        > Eventually I was not able to run safari Of course you were, you were not able to update Safari anymore. And why would you be? > In my view Apple is charging users for service packs. Right, 10.0 to 10.8 is exactly the same OS, just 8 service packs, exactly... (you're joking right?)
jonknee 14y ago
> I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. If by constantly you mean one time during the last five years, then yea that would be pretty annoying. The vast majority of people have moved onto a new computer or done at least one upgrade. Updates used to be more of a pain, now you just hit purchase and wait for a little bit. If you haven't upgraded your computer in five years, you should be able to live with a browser than won't be upgraded anymore either. Apple requires 10.7.4 for Safari so you were abandoned by the Mother Ship a long time ago.
- dos1 14y ago
  Well, the last time I used OSX for daily use, it was constantly pestering me to upgrade to various point releases. Those were usually massive downloads that required a reboot. Maybe things have changed? Along that same vein, it seemed like every time I'd boot in to OSX - iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto et all would need 100+ MB updates to stay current. I guess my experience on the upgrade treadmill (even staying on a major version of OSX) was very unpleasant.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    Apple is pretty bad at pushing binary updates, the file sizes for updates are as you mention, gigantic. But the update process is smooth, reboots are not required unless it's the system (iPhoto 9.4 came out today and there was no reboot, ditto for the latest Xcode from earlier in the week). Most of the point upgrades for the system are security fixes. Every OS has a lot of them. Java has gotten a few security related updates this year too.
  - ryannielsen 14y ago
    Out of curiosity, what OS did you switch to that doesn't require regular, and often large, updates? I can't think of an OS I've ever used – various Linux distros, Windows, OS X, various BSDs, Solaris, and a smattering of random other unix variants – that didn't require some form of regular update that often required (or at least strongly suggested) a reboot. (Or the near equivalent of punting active users and relaunching a bunch of userland processes.) Oh man, I remember my Gentoo days, where upgrading a single package would sometimes require new base libraries which in turn required a large chunk of the system to be rebuilt… definitely don't miss that process.
JackC 14y ago
I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. Apple's willingness to obsolete their old tech has been the plan for a long time, and works fine for them and the higher-spending niche they're targeting. Basically the pitch (to oversimplify) is: we will make technical decisions based only on supporting the last two or three years of customers. If you keep up with us, things will work great for you, because we won't be slowing things down to maintain compatibility. If you have hardware or software older than that, good luck, but it's not our problem if our new stuff doesn't work for you. The only promise is that we won't compromise the product in order to save you money.[1] This works for Apple (and the customers who keep upgrading) because it's nice to live in an ecosystem where you can assume modern hardware and software -- for example, where developers can reasonably target multitouch trackpads or webcams or motion-graphic APIs or whatever within a year or two after they're released, and cruft can be thrown out of the OS when it's no longer needed. As it happens, I'm one of those customers -- I spend more than half my waking life on computers, and I don't mind spending a little more to work with modern hardware, and to have an OS that assumes I have modern hardware. I'm not trying to glorify or demonize that -- it's just a business model targeted at a certain part of the market that likes it that way, or at least accepts the downsides in exchange for the upsides. [1] Please don't feel compelled on my account to recite all the ways Apple doesn't live up to this pitch. Believe me, I know. (Quicktime 7?) I still think it's a decent approximation.
batista 14y ago
>Apple's incessant need to obsolete their old operating systems is surprising to me. I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. No, it helps getting technology ahead. Instead of, you know, having hundreds of millions of people still using Windows XP, as they do. Plus, what "fallout"? Each release has some issues for some people in some use cases, but that is irrespective of some 5 year older release getting deprecated or not. And the issues --which don't affect all, usually just a small minority, e.g the Vagrant users as of late-- get ironed out eventually with point releases.

by dos1 14y ago

ionforce 14y ago

Yes. You got it. You are the only one. Next. Maybe Apple's "incessant need to obsolete" is part of their secret sauce. They're doing pretty well for themselves these days. Look at Microsoft, Captain "Never Break Anything". How are they doing?

RegEx 14y ago
You're not clever, you're just rude.

alanh 14y ago

I love updating my Mac. Each new version makes it better, and problems seem to be minor and rare. It’s worlds different from the Windows upgrade <del>rat-race</del> <ins>process</ins>. That said, yes, the hardware seems to have a shorter shelf-life than would be ideal. Your computer is, what, 2005 vintage? Seven years is too short, but still an old age in the world of technology, and longer than most competitors’ hardware lasts.

pkamb 14y ago
> Each new version makes it better Since 10.6 that has definitely not been true.
- alanh 14y ago
  Thanks for the objective fact, dear sir. While that may be true w.r.t. stability, the functionality, graphics, and polish have only gotten better. Security, too: consider FileVault 2. That’s what I like.
- sbuk 14y ago
  Depends on your POV. Personally, I like it. Anecdotally my cousin, independently of me I might add, has just bought an 13" MBA and he seems to think it's like a breath of fresh air. Horses for courses. But, yes, whatever you are using is the best.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- masklinn 14y ago
  Do you mean 10.7? Because 10.6 was everything 10.5 was, except better on pretty much every front.
  - pkamb 14y ago
    Right, Snow Leopard was a great upgrade[1]. Lion was a major downgrade. [1] Except for the abysmal changes to Exposé. Luckily there was a hack to get the Leopard version back: http://superuser.com/questions/118424/old-leopard-expose-on-snow-leopard-for-mac http://superuser.com/questions/118424/old-leopard-expose-on-...
danieldk 14y ago
I love updating my Mac. Each new version makes it better, and problems seem to be minor and rare. It’s worlds different from the Windows upgrade rat-race. Huh? I am hoping that my sarcasm radar didn't pick this up. But, most software still runs perfectly fine on Windows XP. In fact, all of our university's Windows computers still run Windows XP (with up to date Creative Suite, Office, SPSS, etc. versions). Since Windows XP was released in 2001 (!), that's eleven years and counting. What rat race?
- alanh 14y ago
  I mis-spoke. I didn’t mean “rat race.” I meant process. I am not saying there are too many Windows updates; I am saying you are far more likely to have problems after upgrading Windows than you are a Mac. For example, I literally cannot install Windows 7 on a laptop I acquired that shipped with Windows Vista. HP simply does not make the required drivers. It even seems the optical drive will not function correctly during a Win 7 installation attempt. It’s mind-blowingly sucktastic. There are Macs too old for the latest OS X, yes, but they are pretty old, and were able to keep up-to-date for years.
  - samspot 14y ago
    I bought an ibook in 2002 and each time an upgrade was announced I chose not to purchase the upgrade (none of the advertised features appealed to me). Eventually I was not able to run safari anymore which I have never forgiven them for. In my view Apple is charging users for service packs.
    - sbuk 14y ago
      And what is wrong with that? Seriously. Who is to say that one business model is better than another? Jaguar to Tiger was a big leap, as was Panther to Leopard; certainly as big a leap as XP to Vista.
    - masklinn 14y ago
      > Eventually I was not able to run safari Of course you were, you were not able to update Safari anymore. And why would you be? > In my view Apple is charging users for service packs. Right, 10.0 to 10.8 is exactly the same OS, just 8 service packs, exactly... (you're joking right?)

jonknee 14y ago

> I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. If by constantly you mean one time during the last five years, then yea that would be pretty annoying. The vast majority of people have moved onto a new computer or done at least one upgrade. Updates used to be more of a pain, now you just hit purchase and wait for a little bit. If you haven't upgraded your computer in five years, you should be able to live with a browser than won't be upgraded anymore either. Apple requires 10.7.4 for Safari so you were abandoned by the Mother Ship a long time ago.

dos1 14y ago
Well, the last time I used OSX for daily use, it was constantly pestering me to upgrade to various point releases. Those were usually massive downloads that required a reboot. Maybe things have changed? Along that same vein, it seemed like every time I'd boot in to OSX - iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto et all would need 100+ MB updates to stay current. I guess my experience on the upgrade treadmill (even staying on a major version of OSX) was very unpleasant.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Apple is pretty bad at pushing binary updates, the file sizes for updates are as you mention, gigantic. But the update process is smooth, reboots are not required unless it's the system (iPhoto 9.4 came out today and there was no reboot, ditto for the latest Xcode from earlier in the week). Most of the point upgrades for the system are security fixes. Every OS has a lot of them. Java has gotten a few security related updates this year too.
- ryannielsen 14y ago
  Out of curiosity, what OS did you switch to that doesn't require regular, and often large, updates? I can't think of an OS I've ever used – various Linux distros, Windows, OS X, various BSDs, Solaris, and a smattering of random other unix variants – that didn't require some form of regular update that often required (or at least strongly suggested) a reboot. (Or the near equivalent of punting active users and relaunching a bunch of userland processes.) Oh man, I remember my Gentoo days, where upgrading a single package would sometimes require new base libraries which in turn required a large chunk of the system to be rebuilt… definitely don't miss that process.

JackC 14y ago

I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. Apple's willingness to obsolete their old tech has been the plan for a long time, and works fine for them and the higher-spending niche they're targeting. Basically the pitch (to oversimplify) is: we will make technical decisions based only on supporting the last two or three years of customers. If you keep up with us, things will work great for you, because we won't be slowing things down to maintain compatibility. If you have hardware or software older than that, good luck, but it's not our problem if our new stuff doesn't work for you. The only promise is that we won't compromise the product in order to save you money.[1] This works for Apple (and the customers who keep upgrading) because it's nice to live in an ecosystem where you can assume modern hardware and software -- for example, where developers can reasonably target multitouch trackpads or webcams or motion-graphic APIs or whatever within a year or two after they're released, and cruft can be thrown out of the OS when it's no longer needed. As it happens, I'm one of those customers -- I spend more than half my waking life on computers, and I don't mind spending a little more to work with modern hardware, and to have an OS that assumes I have modern hardware. I'm not trying to glorify or demonize that -- it's just a business model targeted at a certain part of the market that likes it that way, or at least accepts the downsides in exchange for the upsides. [1] Please don't feel compelled on my account to recite all the ways Apple doesn't live up to this pitch. Believe me, I know. (Quicktime 7?) I still think it's a decent approximation.

batista 14y ago

>Apple's incessant need to obsolete their old operating systems is surprising to me. I would think this would hurt their overall adoption rates (especially long term) as people get sick of constantly upgrading their OS and dealing with any fallout that results. No, it helps getting technology ahead. Instead of, you know, having hundreds of millions of people still using Windows XP, as they do. Plus, what "fallout"? Each release has some issues for some people in some use cases, but that is irrespective of some 5 year older release getting deprecated or not. And the issues --which don't affect all, usually just a small minority, e.g the Vagrant users as of late-- get ironed out eventually with point releases.