Slashdot Mirror


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.

64 comments

  1. FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Suck it.

  2. Not up to snuff by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Not up to snuff by pi+radians · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    2. Re:Not up to snuff by Gropo · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    3. Re:Not up to snuff by foobar104 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."

    4. Re:Not up to snuff by jeffehobbs · · Score: 2


      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

    5. Re:Not up to snuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    6. Re:Not up to snuff by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      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?

    7. Re:Not up to snuff by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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").

    8. Re:Not up to snuff by coolgeek · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    9. Re:Not up to snuff by jmontana66 · · Score: 1
      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.

    10. Re:Not up to snuff by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
      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.

    11. Re:Not up to snuff by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      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.

    12. Re:Not up to snuff by GutBomb · · Score: 2

      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

    13. Re:Not up to snuff by SIGFPE · · Score: 2
      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.
      --
      -- SIGFPE
    14. Re:Not up to snuff by gozar · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      What, me worry?
    15. Re:Not up to snuff by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      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?

    16. Re:Not up to snuff by EvlG · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:Not up to snuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    18. Re:Not up to snuff by pi+radians · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    19. Re:Not up to snuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    20. Re:Not up to snuff by gozar · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      What, me worry?
    21. Re:Not up to snuff by Gropo · · Score: 0

      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?

      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
  3. cowboy by diaper_tales · · Score: -1

    m i thord!???? welllk, one more to go.............hi

  4. diaper_tales! by diaper_tales · · Score: -1

    After a few weeks had passed I was just totally being a baby and
    stuff. my mother woke me up and got me changed and dressed.
    "Where are we going?", I asked. "Don't you remember honey, we are
    going on our vacation, to go see our family in Pennsylvania." she
    said while dressing me. "Oh yeah, I forgot we going there, but
    mommy they don't know I a baby now." "Well honey they'll find out
    soon enough. Besides they love you anyway they won't make fun of
    you. You'll have fun with all your cousins." She held me and
    comforted me. We loaded up the car and headed out. It was a two
    day drive.

    I sat in the backseat with Tammy and mom and dad were in the
    front, Dad was driving. We stopped at a rest stop about an hour
    into the trip to change me because I was wet, and everyone else
    had to go potty too. Then we stopped somewhere in a town up the
    road for lunch. I ate the kids meal and it was yummy. We left
    there and we drove for what seemed like an eternity. I laid down
    in the backseat and laid my head in Tammy's lap and she ran her
    hands through my hair and I dozed off.

    Tammy shook me awake a while later. "Honey your diapers loaded,
    you did poopoo while you were sleeping. We're at a rest stop so
    lets get you changed, ok honey?" She carried me out of the car
    and then helped me walk part of the way up to the rest stop
    building. As we got inside to the restrooms another family was
    changing one of their babies diapers. The mother said to Tammy,
    "Wow, isn't she a little old to be doing poopy diapers?" "Um
    well, she's a baby, I mean she's 8 years old, but she likes being
    babied and diapered." "Oh well I guess everyone's different...
    She's quite cute though. Hi little baby girl." she said to me as
    she carried her child out of the room. I just blushed and kind of
    felt silly. "Ok honey, now I have to go potty.", Tammy said as
    she carried me into owe of the stalls. She told me to stand there
    as she pulled her pants down and sat on the potty. A moment later
    she wiped herself and then opened the door and washed her hands.
    "Ok Tiffy, let's get going."

    We got back in the car and drove down the road and later that
    night we found a hotel and checked in. Since I was used to
    sleeping in a crib they put me in the bed up against the wall and
    with Tammy on my other side. I snuggled in her arms because I was
    a bit uncomfortable being in a strange place. She just held me
    close and kept me warm. I did a little bit of tinkles in my
    diapers and then I fell asleep.

    The next morning we awoke early to get a bite to eat and hit the
    road again. Mom didn't change me right when I got up. She waited
    until after breakfast so that I'd have a dry diaper for when we
    got going again. I sat in the backseat and colored in my coloring
    book and Tammy was listening to her walk-man. Mom was looking out
    the window and dad was driving. After a while I wet my diaper but
    it wasn't too wet yet. By the time we were looking for a place to
    pull in for lunch I was soaking wet and squirming around trying
    to get comfy. Tammy noticed and she said, "Hey baby did you go
    peepee in your dipees." I blushed and looked at her. "Yes, me
    went peepee." Mom said she would change me in the bathroom of the
    restaurant while dad and Tammy got us a seat.

    After mom and I returned from the restroom we sat down and the
    waiter took our order and then Tammy and dad went to go use the
    restroom. Finally our food came and we ate and then left. I was
    tired after lunch so I laid down in the backseat with my head in
    Tammy's lap again. I fell right to sleep. When I woke up later on
    I looked out the window and saw some familiar scenery. I knew by
    this that we were about 10 minutes from my grandpa's house and
    from where we were going to be visiting our family on my Uncle's
    farm.

    A few minutes later we pulled up to my grandpa's house. It was an
    old 1940's style house with 2 stories. I was always afraid of the
    stares though so when we were going up to our rooms, Tammy
    carried me up the stares. About this time I needed a diaper
    change so she laid me on the bed and got me all nice and dry. But
    now I was put into a cloth diaper and rubber pants instead of the
    disposables I had worn on the car trip. Now that we were here
    they could do wash now so I was back in cloth dipees. This made
    me happy because I didn't like disposables as much.

    We were all sitting in the living room when my aunt and uncle
    came over to visit and have supper. They noticed right away that
    I was in big thick diapers because when I hugged them they patted
    my bottom and they felt the crinkly rubber pants under my shorts.
    "Oh you wear diapers now huh?", my aunt asked me. I just nodded.
    My mother explained to them how I had wanted to become a baby for
    so long. "Well you will have fun with Cindy and all your other
    cousins." My uncle said. Cindy was one of my cousins who was
    retarded and had to wear diapers, and she couldn't talk. She and
    I always got along though. She liked me allot.

    At dinner I had to go number two so I just leaned over to Tammy
    and told her. She picked me up and carried me upstairs. I hadn't
    actually gone poo in my diapers yet but I didn't want to do it at
    the dinner table. So Tammy sat on the bed in front of me and
    watched me as I squirmed around and filled my diaper. She then
    smiled at me when she smelled my loaded diaper. Your poopy aren't
    you, little girl. " she said teasingly. I smiled and said, "yeah
    can you change me, I'm all yucky now." She slid my shorts off and
    also my rubber pants and then undid the diaper. "Oh my gosh, your
    a messy little baby. I'm glad you didn't do that at the table.
    Ewww yucky." She wiped my hiney clean and then powdered me and
    put another diaper on me. After we were done she carried me back
    down stares and I finished eating and then we all set around in
    the living room talking for a while and I was on the floor
    playing with my toys. Everyone thought I was so cute now that I
    was a baby again. I really enjoyed all the attention too.

    The days passed slowly because I was kind of board. I hadn't seen
    any of my cousins, but we were going to have a picnic at my
    Uncle's farm on Saturday and everyone was going to be there.
    Finally Saturday got here and I was so glad. We pulled up at my
    Uncle's house at about 10:45am. We got out of the car. Some of
    the kids were already swimming in the pond and some were just
    sitting on the dock talking. As I waddled over to them they were
    all saying hi. Then they noticed my diapers. "Um why are you in
    diapers Tiffany?", my cousin Anna asked. "Um well, I kinda like
    it now, I'm a baby too, my mommy let me get back in diapers
    because she found out that I wanted to be a baby because of
    something I wrote in my diary and stuff and well... now here I am."
    I explained the whole situation to all the kids. "Cool we can
    play house then and baby you." "YAY! I'd like that. I missed you
    all, I always love to come up here and see you." "You wanna go
    swimming?" my cousin Sharon asked. "Um well I don't know if I can,
    I mean I'm in a diaper." "Well its ok, Cindy goes in the water
    with her diapers on. I mean they get all puffy and soaking wet
    but you can still go in the water if you want, go ask your mom."
    "Ok I will." I walked over to where my mother was talking to some
    of the adults. "Mommy can I go swimming? Pweez?" I asked in my
    baby voice. "Yes honey but you'll need a diaper change when you
    get out because your diapees will be soaked." I said ok and then
    ran back to the dock where my cousins were sitting. Then I went
    to the edge of the dock and then slipped off my shorts since I
    was in a diaper. I jumped in with my diaper plastic pants and my
    t-shirt on. It was quite hard to swim in wet diapers though.
    "Help... Help me!", I cried out to one of my cousins. I could
    barely stay afloat because the diapers were so thick and heavy
    and restricted my movement. They pulled me over to the shallow
    end and I sat next to Cindy and Anna and Sharon. We were in
    about 2 feet of water and just talked to them. They asked me
    allot of questions about what it was like to be a baby again, and
    what it was like being in diapers.

    After a while they called us up for lunch. When I got out of the
    water I realized how soaked and soggy my diaper was. My cousin
    Anna wanted to change me. She was used to changing diapers for
    her sister Cindy. So she took me over to her dad's truck and
    opened the tailgate and laid me there and changed me and put me
    in another diaper. Sharon and one other girl watched. Finally we
    got over to the picnic tables and ate. We had hamburgers and all
    kinds of yummy stuff.

    After a while we were all just sitting on chairs talking. Anna
    got up and started to walk toward the outhouse. Sharon called out
    to her and said, "Hey Anna, do you gotta go 1 or 2?" Anna just
    turned around and stuck up 2 fingers which meant she had to go
    poo. "I bet she wishes she had a diaper on and could just load
    her baby pants like I do." I smiled at Sharon. "Ewww! That's yucky
    though, isn't it?", Sharon asked. "Well yeah if you stay in it a
    long time, or for the person who is changing you it can be kinda
    yucky, but when your doing it in your diaper and when you first
    sit in a loaded diaper it feels wonderful!" A big smile formed on
    my face as I thought about how good messy diapers felt. "Wow
    cool, maybe I'll use one of Cindy's diapers when I stay over at
    Anna's house sometime." She seemed quite excited about the idea
    of being in diapers now.

    A while later Anna came back and sat down. "Feel better
    Anna?" I asked. She nodded. We continued to talk a while and
    then Sharon said she had to go pee. Instead of walking to the
    outhouse, she just ran and jumped in the pond. She turned toward
    us with her head above water and she was smiling at us. We could
    tell she was doing tinkles in her clothes underwater by the look
    on her face. When she finished peeing her pants, she got out of
    the water and came back over and sat down. "Wow, now your clothes
    are soaked. But anyway, that's a cool way to do tinkles in your
    pants and get away with it." I remarked. I then became still and
    started blushing. Anna knew what I was doing too. "Well looks
    like you're doing your tinkles in your diaper like the cute
    little baby that you are." I just smiled at them. It felt so good
    to be in a wet diaper with a cool breeze blowing and just being
    outside and being with my family.

    Later for dinner we had leftovers from lunch and then we were
    inside watching TV and playing some games. I loaded my diaper and
    my mommy changed me. Cindy had also done number two in her
    diapers, so her mom changed her too. We then returned to the
    living room and played a while longer. I fell asleep on the floor
    later on and dad carried me out to the car as we drove back to my
    grandpa's house for the night. I was sad to leave, but I knew
    that the time I had had there I would remember for a long time to
    come. As I cuddled into bed with Tammy I told her I loved her and
    that I was going to miss everyone up here. She comforted me and I
    fell asleep in her arms.

    A few days later we got ready to go back home. I called Anna on
    the phone to say goodbye and we said we would write each other.
    Once the car was packed up we headed out down the road on our way
    back home. I fell asleep in the car and we drove till late that
    night and then pulled over at a rest stop and slept in the car
    and then left that morning early. We only stopped two times to
    get something to eat. Tammy changed me in the backseat when I
    needed to be changed. She had on one of my disposable diapers and
    had gone pee in it and changed herself. Mom and dad both were in
    adult diapers the whole way home and only pulled over to quickly
    change each other. We made it back allot quicker this way. We had
    to do it this way because dad had to be back by Monday so he
    could get back to work. If it wasn't for this we would have took
    our time going back down. I thought it was cute that everyone
    decided to wet their diapers. At least no one else had to go
    number two accept for Tammy and I. Mom had to crawl in the
    backseat one time to help Tammy clean up. I don't think Tammy
    liked dirty diapers like I did though. We arrived home late
    Sunday night and we all just went inside and through our
    suitcases down and got our showers. Tammy and I in one bathroom
    and mommy and daddy in the other. Then we got our jammies on,
    Tammy changed me and we all went to bed and slept very well
    because we were all tired. I had a dream that night about the
    wonderful times I had on that vacation.

  5. Save $50 on Jaguar by rgraham · · Score: 1

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

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

    1. Re:Save $50 on Jaguar by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's through Amazom but hey, $50 is $50.

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

    2. Re:Save $50 on Jaguar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      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.

  6. Very Minor Changes by tbmaddux · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    1. Re:Very Minor Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Very Minor Changes by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Very Minor Changes by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:Very Minor Changes by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Very Minor Changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    6. Re:Very Minor Changes by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. 50 bucks off. by iomud · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    1. Re:50 bucks off. by Matty_ · · Score: 1

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

  8. Re:50 bucks off, still less for students by johnpaul191 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  9. Question: by TQBrady · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Question: by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Question: by PastorOfMuppets · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.
    3. Re:Question: by TQBrady · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      pretend your a student

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

    5. Re:Question: by coolgeek · · Score: 2

      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.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    6. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Question: by DiscoOnTheSide · · Score: 2

      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" :)

      --
      Viva La Revolucion! Buy a Mac!
  10. Expensive? by h0tblack · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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.

    1. Re:Expensive? by rbanzai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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."

    2. Re:Expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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

    3. Re:Expensive? by Buskaatt · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Expensive? by h0tblack · · Score: 1

      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.

  11. It looks like the .1 and .2 are major versions by TurboDog99 · · Score: 0

    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.

  12. Why don't you just get a REAL operating system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    ...instead of screwing around begging Apple not to charge you an arm and a leg for bug fixes?

    Bug fixes for Windows have always been free!!!

  13. Darwin sync'ing? by raddan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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...

    1. Re:Darwin sync'ing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

  14. Not complicated yet. by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
    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?

    1. Re:Not complicated yet. by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Not complicated yet. by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
      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.

    3. Re:Not complicated yet. by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      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." ;-)

    4. Re:Not complicated yet. by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
      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.

  15. to lazy to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  16. Still not enough by EvlG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Still not enough by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      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!!)

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
  17. Re:Question by Aqua_Geek · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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...

    --
    Disclaimer: This comment was generated by a Flock of Trained Microsoft Programmers for Aqua_Geek.