Apple Offers Cheap Jaguar Server Upgrade for XServe

MaxVlast writes "Macintouch is reporting that Apple is extending the Mac OS X Up-to-Date and Mac OS X Server Up-to-Date programs to include Jaguar Server upgrades for just $19.95 in response to intense criticism. This is good news to people who just bought an expensive XServe with expensive Mac OS X Server who don't very much want to pay the full upgrade price." Apple also added that people who bought Mac OS X 10.1 retail, by itself, can get an upgrade if purchased July 17 or later.

Comments

Not up to snuff

[John Harrison]

This is still not what Mac users have come to expect. Maybe they should have numbered this one 10.5 if they want to charge nearly everyone full price for it. Then it would be consistent. Will every even-point upgrade be full price from now on? I think Apple customers are used to getting their bug fixes for free.

Re:Not up to snuff

[pi radians]

I think Apple customers are used to getting their bug fixes for free.

They are getting them for free. Jaguar isn't a bug fix.

Re:Not up to snuff

[Gropo]

Well, in defense of Apple (yeesh, why do I keep doing this?) I think this is figuratively a X.5 update, they just don't want to push the point release numbers up at as rapid a rate as they previously had, most likely in a move to not move to the less minimalistic "OS XI" brand name. Marketing people, blahblah.

It's also far more than a "bug fix," Quartz Extreme is worth $129 alone in my book.

Re:Not up to snuff

[foobar104]

It's important to distinguish between "OS X" and "10.n." The name of the operating system is "Mac OS X," pronounced "Mac oh-ess ten." That's the name, just "Solaris" is the name of the operating system.

The version number is (currently) 10.1.5. So it's Mac OS X 10.1.5. In a month, it'll be Mac OS X 10.2. A year from now, it may (but probably won't, by then) be Mac OS X 11.0. There will never be a Mac OS XI, unless Apple decides to change the name of the OS.

Sorry to be so pedantic about this, but I'm just tired of seeing references to "OS X.1.5" and "OS X.2" and "OS XI."

Re:Not up to snuff

[jeffehobbs]

I hope there is a MacOS XI just for the obligatory "Spinal Tap" derived ad campaign:

(full page ad, close up on Marshall stack head unit with chrome "MacOS" logo and volume knob)

Tagline: "This one goes to eleven."

~jeff

Re:Not up to snuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? TROLL? This guy posts an informed comment about how OS X version numbering works, and it gets moderated as a Troll?

We need meta-moderation on demand, dammit.

Re:Not up to snuff

[Paradise Pete]

So it's Mac OS X 10.1.5. In a month, it'll be Mac OS X 10.2. A year from now, it may (but probably won't, by then) be Mac OS X 11.0.

If that's the case, then why isn't it version 1.2 instead of 10.2?

Re:Not up to snuff

[foobar104]

If that's the case, then why isn't it version 1.2 instead of 10.2?

Because there was never a version 1.0 of Mac OS X. The first version of Mac OS X was version 10.0. That's easy to understand: the previous version of Mac OS (actually an entirely different product) was 9.0, so the next version (a new product) was called 10.0.

The branding ("Mac OS X") is separate from the version number ("10.2").

Re:Not up to snuff

[coolgeek]

I think that past practice was just part of the plan to inflate the version number to X, and now that they have X, they don't want to toss it right away.

Re:Not up to snuff

[jmontana66]

If that's the case, then why isn't it version 1.2 instead of 10.2?

Because all hell would break lose with any application that required, say, version 9.0 of the OS. It would see 1.2, and it would fail to launch.

Re:Not up to snuff

[John Harrison]

That's the name, just "Solaris" is the name of the operating system.

I would say that their numbering system has more in common with "Java 2" than anything else on the market. Now if I want to be Java 2 compliant what JDK do I need again?

I think that what bothers people is that there was no Mac OS X v1.0. Since the went right to v10 and X=10 they created something that was initially cute, but seems to be becoming more and more complex.

Re:Not up to snuff

[foobar104]

What's so complicated? The name of the product includes a number. The number in the name of the product was initially the same as the version number of the product, but isn't any more. Now the version number of the product is different from the name of the product.

Is that really so complicated? I don't understand why this is a source of cognitive dissonance for so many people. It's "Mac OS X version 10.2." It's not that hard.

Re:Not up to snuff

[GutBomb]

Up intil 7.5 i believe MacOS was known as System. They changed the name to MacOS. Now they have changed the name again to Mac OS X. Now i think it is a bit confusing thet steve says the X means 10, so when you say it aloud you are using Mac OS Ten Ten point Two, but oh well. I still refer to it as X (the letter) because i rarely speak it, and type it most of the time anyway. But anyway, as the above poster says, they simply changed the name of MacOS (was known as System) to Mac OS X

Re:Not up to snuff

[SIGFPE]

Jaguar isn't a bug fix

Well the thing that's most unlike a bug fix is Quartz Extreme and that's practically a bug fix - a fix for the super slow student project quality 2D engine they wrote for MacOS before 10.2. Well...maybe Rendezvous is cool.

Re:Not up to snuff

[gozar]

If that's the case, then why isn't it version 1.2 instead of 10.2?

Because there was never a version 1.0 of Mac OS X. The first version of Mac OS X was version 10.0. That's easy to understand: the previous version of Mac OS (actually an entirely different product) was 9.0, so the next version (a new product) was called 10.0.

Actually, there was 1.0,1.1, and 1.2 of Mac OS X Server. Released back in '98-'99. Nothing at all like the current OS X 10.0 series though (still uses Postscript for display, classic emulation is only full screen, no aqua).

Re:Not up to snuff

[foobar104]

Okay, you caught me. You don't get a no-prize, though, because in addition to pointing out my mistakes, you're also supposed to come up with implausible and complex explanations for why I was right all along. ;-)

Wasn't Mac OS X Server 1.0 basically NextStep with the classic Mac GUI? As distinct from the current combination of Darwin, Quartz, and so on that is Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server. Or am I just nuts?

Re:Not up to snuff

[EvlG]

The name of the operating system is "Mac OS X," pronounced "Mac oh-ess ten." ...which makes it even stupider, because now the OS has a number in it (for no reason) and it won't match the version number once 11.0 comes out.

Why didn't Apple just call it OS X (as in, ecks)?? Then they could sensibly have any version numbers they want, AND not have to correct everyone that calls it that anyways.

Re:Not up to snuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't Apple just call it OS X (as in, ecks)??

Cause that would be an incredibly stupid name. Not as stupid as "EvlG," mind, but stupid nonetheless.

Re:Not up to snuff

[pi radians]

Quartz Extreme is doing something no other major OS vendor has done. It is a brand new feature. How does that make it "practically a bug fix"?

a fix for the super slow student project quality 2D engine

"student project quality"? Are you talking about the GUI that NO other company has been able to repeat? Seriously, I understand that your bitter about something here, but Aqua is FAR from a student project.

Re:Not up to snuff

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not nuts. OS X Server 1.x was Rhapsody with some minor tweaks, based on the Mach 2.5 kernel. Mac OS X, from the DP1 days onward, has been based on Darwin and Mach 3.0.

Re:Not up to snuff

[gozar]

Okay, you caught me. You don't get a no-prize, though, because in addition to pointing out my mistakes, you're also supposed to come up with implausible and complex explanations for why I was right all along. ;-)

I could come up with a witty response, but no one else would understand.

Wasn't Mac OS X Server 1.0 basically NextStep with the classic Mac GUI?

No, you're not nuts, actually right on the mark. :-) I used it as a file server for 2 years... Everything worked pretty well except that a corrupt desktop database would consume all the CPU cycles and bring the machine to a crawl.

Re:Not up to snuff

[Gropo]

Yeah, I am fully aware of the argument. I vascillate between the two logical trains of thought on the matter continuously...

Mac OS "Ten" "Eleven-point-oh" seems dissarrayed while Mac OS "Eleven" "Eleven-point-oh" seems more logical...

Damn you Apple marketing!

My previous point can be stated two ways (I lazily only presented one example):

1) Apple has dubbed Jag-wire "10.2" to slow the progression towards "Mac OS XI"

2) Apple has dubbed Jag-wire "10.2" to slow the progression towards "Mac OS TEN, Eleven-point-oh"

Both should be avoided IMHO... Perhaps Apple is going to adopt Oracle's versioning scheme: Mac OS Xi

Who knows? Do we really care?

Save $50 on Jaguar

[rgraham]

It's through Amazom but hey, $50 is $50. Look here.

(no I'm not associated with them in anyway)

Re:Save $50 on Jaguar

[Paradise Pete]

It's through Amazom but hey, $50 is $50.

"I've got principles...hang on, what's that? $50? Sold!"

Re:Save $50 on Jaguar

[Anonymous Coward]

Ferengi principle: One for you, and one two three four five six seven for me. One for you, and one two three four five six seven for me.

Very Minor Changes

[tbmaddux]

For regular MacOS X, all that has changed is the $19.95 (which is "free" in Apple terms) upgrade to 10.2 for people who purchase retail copies of MacOS X 10.1.x between the MWNY keynote and when Jaguar comes out. This makes sense, since otherwise nobody would bother to purchase existing on-shelf copies of MacOS X between then and now.

It's the same for MacOS X Server, with the notable exception that all owners of XServe machines can get the "free" upgrade, no matter when they bought their machine.

For everyone else, the full pricetag applies. Before MacOS X, Apple used to provide upgrade rebates of $20 or $30. You sent in one of those "software coupons" and got a check in the mail. Those days appear to be gone since the advent of MacOS X.

Re:Very Minor Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to offer free upgrades to ALL users of 10.1 server is very short sighted. I suspect the Xserve exception was forced by the propect of 100% unit returns from A-LIST customers who think Apple is pulling a fast one.

The 10.2 server pricing will sour anyone who bought 10.1 server.

Re:Very Minor Changes

[foobar104]

Since you're posting as an AC, I have no idea who you are or what your background is. So I'll assume that you're just ignorant, and not stupid.

Free or super-cheap software upgrades are kind of a myth. For example, Microsoft offers upgrades to Windows XP for owners of '98, ME, NT4, and 2000 only, and that price is $199. If you're still running '95, you can only upgrade to XP by buying the full $299 retail package, or by buying a new computer.

At the high end, you typically only get upgrades on operating systems if you buy a support contract. I don't know about Sun or HP or IBM, specifically, but with SGI you have to pay $500 for each point release of the OS, unless you stay under a support contract. (Until recently, it was $2,000 per release.) So to go from 6.5.15f to 6.5.16f, it's $500, and from 6.5.16f to 6.5.17f, it's another $500. And these are minor feature releases, sent out every quarter. They're tiny in comparison to Apple's mostly-annual major feature releases. (SGI has two OS branches: feature [f] and maintenance [m]. You get bug fixes for free within the same major release, but you have to pay for new features. The maintenance releases have replaced the old patch system, where each bug fix was packaged separately and could be downloaded individually.)

So the idea that you should get OS X 10.2 for free or almost for free is out of line with the way the industry works. Bug fixes are free: 10.0.[1-4] and 10.1.[1-5] were free downloads to all users, whether they were under AppleCare or not. Hell, Apple didn't even check to see if you had a pirated copy of OS X; the OS has no serial number mechanism in it at all, so everybody gets bug fixes for free, even if they didn't buy the OS.

And as new feature releases goes, $129 is the lowest price in the industry, as far as I know.

So no, you're wrong. Pricing 10.2 as a for-sale upgrade only (except for specific price-protection situations) won't "sour anyone who bought 10.1 server." Unless they're pretty unreasonable and unrealistic people with no knowledge of how this sort of thing usually works, they won't be "soured" at all.

Re:Very Minor Changes

[kalidasa]

For example, Microsoft offers upgrades to Windows XP for owners of '98, ME, NT4, and 2000 only, and that price is $199. If you're still running '95, you can only upgrade to XP by buying the full $299 retail package, or by buying a new computer.

Read all the above as "Professional." For "Home," decrease all prices by $100. Mind you, OS X is more comparable to Windows XP Professional than to any other MS operating system . . .

With SGI you have to pay $500 for each point release of the OS, unless you stay under a support contract.

While this is a far comparandum for Mac OS X Server, it is not reasonable to compare SGI to a consumer home computer operating system like OS X standard.

So the idea that you should get OS X 10.2 for free or almost for free is out of line with the way the industry works. Bug fixes are free: 10.0.[1-4] and 10.1.[1-5] were free downloads to all users, whether they were under AppleCare or not.

Basically, one comparing to Windows or the old MacOS - the only relevant OSes here, as they are the only true home consumer OSes for desktop and laptop machines - would expect all three kinds of upgrade: bug fixes (10.1.5 is a bugfix), for free; minor upgrades (10.1 and e.g. Windows 98 Second Edition) which are basically stable versions of an operating system that still needed work when it came out, for a relatively low upgrade price (say $30), and major upgrades (Windows 98 relative to Windows 95, or OS X 10.2 relative to OS X 10.[0-1]) for a steeper price, but still cheaper than buying the OS separately (around $100 or so). Also, one would expect from MS's pricing policy that a fresh install disk would cost about $100 more than a major upgrade; but Apple don't play that game.

And as new feature releases goes, $129 is the lowest price in the industry, as far as I know.

Well, I don't know; Linuxes are cheaper (e.g., RedHat 7.3 is cheaper), but we all know that the model is completely different for OSOSen.

The thing is, it never really sank inthat Apple was going to an odd-number-minor-upgrade / even-number-major-upgrade release number system until now. Once you think of OS X 10.2 as the Windows 98 to OS X's Windows 95, the pricing makes a lot more sense. (And after all, Windows 98 was just Windows 4.1, and Windows 95 was Windows 4.0).

So no, you're wrong. Pricing 10.2 as a for-sale upgrade only (except for specific price-protection situations) won't "sour anyone who bought 10.1 server." Unless they're pretty unreasonable and unrealistic people with no knowledge of how this sort of thing usually works, they won't be "soured" at all.

Re:Very Minor Changes

[kalidasa]

So no, you're wrong. Pricing 10.2 as a for-sale upgrade only (except for specific price-protection situations) won't "sour anyone who bought 10.1 server." Unless they're pretty unreasonable and unrealistic people with no knowledge of how this sort of thing usually works, they won't be "soured" at all.

Whoops, that paragraph should have been deleted, or at least emphasized as a quote of the parent, in the above posting. The proper conclusion should have been something agreeing with the thrust of the parent article, if disagreeing with some of the details.

Re:Very Minor Changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I will assume your ignorant as well. Since 9.0 was a pay update but 9.1 and 9.2 was free.

Re:Very Minor Changes

[foobar104]

I will assume your ignorant as well. Since 9.0 was a pay update but 9.1 and 9.2 was free.

Don't get caught up in version numbers. Compare the feature list for 9.1 and 9.2 to the list of features added in 10.2. There's no comparison.

50 bucks off.

[iomud]

Amazon is offering a $50 mail in rebate for jaguar as part of a back to school promotion. Looks legit to me *shrug*

Re:50 bucks off.

[Matty_]

Dammit! I just bought my copy of Jaguar from the Apple Store. I knew I should have shopped around for it.

Re:50 bucks off, still less for students

[johnpaul191]

the news of this was around a few days ago, though it takes effect today. i would think a $50 rebate has Apple's hand in it, right? if that's true, i wonder if we will be seeing more 10.2 rebates pop up. i guess right now i'll buy from amazon. might be a good excuse to pick up some DVDs and books since it'll hit the free shipping price break.
though the student price is still the best if you are associated with a university, they can get it for $69 through the edu store at Apple.com or i guess through their campus bookstore.

Question:

[TQBrady]

What's to stop me from purchasing Mac OS X(10.1.3) today, sending in my order form and receipt for the "free" upgrade, and returning Mac OS X(10.1.3) tomorrow? While I would feel like a cheap-skate, I would feel vindicated at this outrageous racketeering - $129 for an OS update. I thought only Microsoft (Win98 SE) pulled crap like that.

Re:Question:

[foobar104]

While I would feel like a cheap-skate, I would feel vindicated at this outrageous racketeering - $129 for an OS update. I thought only Microsoft (Win98 SE) pulled crap like that.

Read this post. Microsoft and every other OS vendor in the industry charge for feature releases. And all of them charge more for their feature releases than Apple is charging for Jaguar.

The fact that you bought the OS once doesn't mean you're entitled to a free copy of every release of the OS forever. That's a nice idea on its face and all, but it's not in line with industry practices.

Re:Question:

[PastorOfMuppets]

I suppose nothing is stopping you from doing that, but why don't you just A) order it through Amazon for the $50 mail in rebate, or B) buy it through Apples educational store for $69 (pretend your a student). AFAIK they don't require any proof of enrollment, they just restrict the number of puchases you can make per academic year.

Re:Question:

[TQBrady]

Well, because if I do it my way, I have a legitimate license. A student license would not be a legitimate license for commercial use, and if it ever became an issue I would be screwed. I may be cheap, but I'm not stupid.
My way I get what I want without actually breaking any rules.
The $50 rebate IS tempting, but I am still offended. I would NEVER have paid for Win 98 SE(except that it came with the PC I bought that year - this was before I had enough faith in myself to roll my own), and I don't like paying for 10.2. If there were enough new features for Apple to feel comfortable calling this 11.0 I wouldn't mind paying, but when they call it 10.2 and I already have 10.1.5 I don't feel it's worth $129.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

pretend your a student

Pretend my a student? I don't get it.

Re:Question:

[coolgeek]

Comparing 10.2 to Win98SE is an insult at best. Win98SE was purely bug fixes. They tried to toss some of the "Plus" crap in there with it but whoTF uses that anyway? 10.2 actually has a variety of new features, and it is _more_ than a year since the last "paid upgrade" release of 10.0. Win98 barely filled in the channel before Win98SE.

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about?

If you owned Windows 3.1x you could buy Windows 95 at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

If you owned Windows NT 3.x you could buy Windows NT 4.0 at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

If you owned Windows 3.1x, or 95 you could buy Windows 98 at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

If you owned Windows 98, you could order a free (postage and handling) upgrade CD to get 98SE (just like OS X 10.0->10.1).

If you owned Windows NT 4.0 you could buy Windows 2000 at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

If you owned Windows 95, 98, or 98SE you could buy Windows Ne at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

If you owned Windows 2000 you could buy Windows XP Professional at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

If you owned Windows 98, 98SE, or Me you could buy Windows XP Hope at an upgrade price. If you didn't, it was full price.

That is what it annoying people. No one is saying that Jaguar should be free; we're saying it should have an upgrade price just like Microsoft offers for Windows. In theory, you could still be paying upgrade pricing on Windows in a chain that started at Windows 3.x. A bit better then Apple, huh?

Upgrade pricing. That is what Jaguar doesn't have. Someone that bought 10.0 is being charged the same price to upgrade to Jaguar as someone that hasn't paid for a Mac OS since 9.0 (or hell, even 8). We don't want to pay the same amount as someone that hasn't already bought it!

People don't want Jaguar to be free. People that have already paid full price for a copy of OS X want a fair upgrade price.

Re:Question:

[DiscoOnTheSide]

There is NO difference between the $129 commercial edition and the $69 dollar educational version. Both are the same with the same licences etc. It's just Apples way of saying "Have some more money for beer you poor poor enlightened college student" :)

Expensive?

[h0tblack]

"This is good news to people who just bought an expensive XServe with expensive Mac OS X Server "

OS X 10.2 is quite an expensive upgrade and the server version even moreso, especially when extras which bring out the most of 10.2 like QuicktimePro and .mac are included. That said, saying that the Xserve and OS X Server are expensive is ridiculous. The Xserve is an extremely well priced server for what it does, especially compared to competing servers. Also the version of OS X server included with the Xserve gives you unlimited clients, unlike say Windows 2k. If you don't believe Appl'es comments on this, there's always LinuxWorld's take on the subject: http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0724.m acx.html
It's great news that Apple are taking note of criticism and opening up the up-to-date program, but don't confuse this argument by saying that the initial products themselves are expensive.

Re:Expensive?

[rbanzai]

Although it is often a little late Apple does seem to respond to criticism more so than other companies in their field. When they had that trouble providing faster G4s and had to rejigger their offering and cancel orders after the screaming they did the right thing by the people who had already ordered. My issue would be that frequently they flop on both accounts: 1. They don't seem to think about the strength of the negative reactions before they do something boneheaded 2. After the bonehead move they react too slowly to get any real goodwill in return for their "corrections."

Re:Expensive?

[Anonymous Coward]

how much good will has M$ earned from correcting its Bone head maneuvers? At least apple usually does try to do the right thing, which is more than i can say for M$ or any other company of apples size.

btw i am someone who is pissed at 1o.2 & .mac pricing, i wrote apple saying so. im sure many others did. Now there is a $50 rebate on amazon.com, something new for apple to do. Im satisfied with this action for most part. Its been 2 weeks since they announced the $129 price

Re:Expensive?

[Buskaatt]

Compare $19.95 to a free operating system (scroll down to "Another one bites the dust").

If you can hold off a few weeks you'll have a free operating system on this incredible hardware (which is infinitely cheaper).

And according to the link above, preliminary benchmarks show Linux to be much faster in some operations.

Re:Expensive?

[h0tblack]

This isn't really the issue. I've been using various *nix derivatives on Apple hardware for years, most recently OS's like LinuxPPC - the precursor to penguinppc - and YDL (Yellow Dog Linux). Apple have had a hand in these efforts to some degree as well as creating A/UX some years back. But OS X in any of it's incarnations is not about competing directly with Linux, although this is one of it's effects. It's about bringing a friendly Mac OS to Mac users, hiding most of the sexy underpinnings from the users - although leaving them accessible to those of us who like playing :) Apple engineers themselves are giving a huge amount back to the community in the form of submitting code changes to the main trees oif many open projects, just look at the work done on gcc3.
It's great that you can run Linux on Apple hardware, it's great that it performs extremely well, but it's not what everyone wants. What is good is that people have the choice.
I suspect most people who bought Xserve's want an easily setup and administered friendly OS to use, else it's likely they would have gone for a purer Linux server, if cost was the only factor. The update for OS X Server may not be free, but for an unlimited user license, it still compares well to non-Linux solutions. That said, I do think Apple should be more loyal to those early adopters of hardware like the Xserve, it does seem people are being penalised for buying them ASAP. NOt a good PR move and no way to increase or hold on to loyal Mac heads.

It looks like the .1 and .2 are major versions

[TurboDog99]

It appears to me that Apple wants to retain the OS X name for quite awhile, so they're using the .1, .2, .x as major version numbers. The 10 is just the name. From what I saw of the new features, it does look like a major OS upgrade. The fact that they include minor version numbers after the 10.1 or 10.2 seems to verify this. I still think making the major upgrades look like minor version numbers was a bad PR move.

Darwin sync'ing?

[raddan]

Being a BSD'er, I'm used to being able to do the OS updates for free. Since development continues on Darwin, does anyone know if it is possible to update Darwin under 10.2 without breaking it?

Ack, I've already bought software for 10.2. Anyone know if 10.2 software will be forward-compatible with future "MacOS X"'s?

IMHO, it seems a bit abrupt to be charging for an upgrade already- the developer community seems to have just gotten rolling...

Re:Darwin sync'ing?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a piece on oreillynet that thought Apple should offer 10.2 as a cheap/free upgrade. The argument was that if it wanted developers to write apps for the new things in 10.2 - ink, rendezvous, qe. then it would have to entice the 10.1 user over.
dot mac would also be an easier sell to a 10.2 user as some of dot mac features require it.

Not complicated yet.

[John Harrison]

But it might be short sighted. So when Mac OS x v11 comes out will you be able to see why some people think the naming scheme is silly?

And, yes I do understand that the version number is in no way related to the fact that there is a number in the product name.

I don't understand why this is a source of cognitive dissonance for so many people.

I don't understand why you can't see why so many people think the way they have choosen to name the new OS is a little silly. Maybe you just "Think Different" than the rest of us. 8)

In the future will Mac OS X v11 be able to run X11? Will that cause confusion?

Re:Not complicated yet.

[foobar104]

It's not a "naming scheme." It's just a name. "Mac OS X." That's the name. "What operating system are you using?" "I'm using Mac OS X." It's a single product, with a single name.

Version numbers are absolutely arbitrary. The only thing about them that's consistent across all uses is that they increase over time; one may reasonably expect that version n came before version n + m.

Microsoft has stopped using version numbers publicly altogether. It's Windows 2000, with or without various patches. Or it's Windows XP. Does anyone care-- or even know-- that Windows 2000 was referred to internally as Windows NT 5.0, and that Windows XP was Windows NT 5.1?

And you've gotta be kidding with your OS X v. 11/X11 thing. The only people who could possibly be confused by those names are those who have no idea what's being talked about. People who are uninformed will be wrong whether the names are similar or not.

Re:Not complicated yet.

[John Harrison]

And you've gotta be kidding with your OS X v. 11/X11

I was joking about that.

I agree that Microsoft does things in a nonsense way.

I still insist that somebody at Apple thought they were being clever by giving the OS a name that reflected what the version number would be when released. It seems to me that they could have dropped the "X" completely and continued the old convention.

And yes I know that you don't agree with me and you think I am being childish. That is fine.

Re:Not complicated yet.

[foobar104]

No, I don't think you're being childish. I just think the thing you're choosing to complain about (while "complain" may not be the best word, it's the closet one I can think of to describe what you're doing) is rather silly. Apple obviously didn't call it "Mac OS 10," as in "Mac OS version 10," because it's not Mac OS. It's something new. But on the other hand, the tradition of referring to major releases of the Mac operating system goes back a long way. Remember what a big deal "System 6" was? Or the even bigger deal, "System 7?" They changed the branding a little bit with "Mac OS 8," and continued that pattern with "Mac OS 9." It's clear that Apple wanted to continue the tradition while still separating the old Mac OS from the new operating system. So, "Mac OS X, version 10.0," and "Mac OS X 10.2," and so on.

Whatever your opinion, you have to admit it's better than "Mac OS 2000." ;-)

Re:Not complicated yet.

[John Harrison]

Whatever your opinion, you have to admit it's better than "Mac OS 2000." ;-)

Yes, I admit that. I don't think that software names should have anything to do with dates.

to lazy to read

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay I am to lazy to read all the comments. BUT apple has always stated if you bought 10.1(.5) the day MacWorld started till 10.2 was in the store the update cost would be the standard "free" (19.95 for s/h). If you bought 10.1 before then you to pull out your wallet, drop your pants... pay 129 to apple and begg them to rape your @$$. But it seems amazon.com has a $50 rebate for 10.2 so its not as bad as it once was.

Still not enough

[EvlG]

The problem with this is it STILL punishes the people that bought 10.0, the early adopters that worked to grow the platform.

Sure, lots of people rushed and bought 10.1, because it was the first version that was really usable. And all of those people got to take advantage of the apps written by the early adopters.

Apple should cough it up and let people that paid for 10.0 retail box get a $20 upgrade this time around. Return the favor!

Re:Still not enough

[Anonymous Freak]

Hey, I bought 10.1 BEFORE July 17, so I still don't qualify. And my friend bought a New iMac a couple months ago, and his OS X Up-To-Date vouchers are still worthless. (If you read the Apple page, only purchases of Macs or boxed OS X BOUGHT AFTER JULY 17 COUNT!!)

Re:Question

[Aqua_Geek]

What's to stop you? How about the reciept? You have to send in the original DATED reciept to Apple.

Question to you: how to you expect to return it without a reciept?

Quit whining...