Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" Reviews Pour In

Posted by pudge on from the the-verdict-is-spotty dept.

hype7 writes "The reviews on Apple's new Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" are starting to come through. The New York Times (free reg required) heaps on the praise: 'Mac OS X 10.2 is the best-looking, least-intrusive and most thoughtfully designed operating system walking the earth today.' MacCentral is positive: 'From what I've seen Jaguar is leaps and bounds ahead of Mac OS X 10.1 in both speed and functionality.' MacWorld has also chimed in: 'for most users, there are a lot of important improvements in this upgrade: performance boosts, improved printing, and interface enhancements will be immediate benefits. And over time, Mac OS X 10.2's new technologies (including Quartz Extreme and Rendezvous) will make the update even more valuable.'"

9 of 834 comments (clear)

  1. I see... by BilldaCat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So NYT, which requires reg, is ok to post links to.

    Washington Post, which just started asking for birth year, zip code and gender -- not ok to post links to.

    Hypocrites.

    --
    BilldaCat
    1. Re:I see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I saw that last night, too, and thought it was kinda funny. I visit Washington Post often (it's my home paper), and while they did ask for some info on my zipcode and such, it didn't seem anywhere near as invasive as NYTime's. I didn't need to setup a user id or password.

    2. Re:I see... by gclef · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      Awww...c'mon...you don't have fun w/the registrations?

      To the Post, I'm a 101-year-old woman, living in the 20001 zip code who reads lots of tech articles and the Boondocks. Who knew that demographic liked the Boondocks?

    3. Re:I see... by garcia · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      this is NOT "offtopic". It is "redundant" as we see this shit everyday. The editors choose links from sites that require you to enter information which is private.

      So interesting that we are SO privacy oriented until it comes to getting information from a site that we link to...

      Editors, listen to the SUBSCRIBERS and do what we ask. Find an alternate source of information that does NOT require us to sell our souls to the devil for access.

    4. Re:I see... by Flakeloaf · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Bob Barker and Rod Roddy eteched 90036 into my brain. I'm now Ernest Borgnine of 226 West 13th Street, Hollywood CA ;)

      --

      Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

  2. Jaguar? by Mantorp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    thought it was Jaguire?

  3. Re:blah blah by BitHive · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Yes! Let the modding of the parent up commence!

    ...

    What did I just say?

  4. Re:Unfortunately, they got one thing wrong. by Masem · · Score: 2, Offtopic
    Or, at least, fix version numbering.

    Thanks to the one-up-manship that the software industry has been doing since the days of Netscape/IE betas, proper version numbering has gone down the tubes. My understanding was that for version "x.y.z", x was a major version, y minor, and z 'patchlevel'. Changes in z usually implied bugfixes and security fixes. Changes in y usually meant small additional features, but no major changes in terms of formats, operation, or the like. Changes in x were big; those were ones where backwards-compatibility was not guarenteed, nor the ability to run on the same hardward requirements as previous versions, and so forth. I'd expect that when 'x' changed on a piece of commercial software, I'd be required to pay a good chunk of change for the update (ie full price minus a rebate for being an owner of a previous version). I'd never expect a charge to get to 'z'. Changes in 'y', on the other hand, are iffy. I'd certain not expect to pay close to full price nor always expect that offered for free.

    However, this all went to heck as Netscape and IE battled, along with MS's change from this numbering scheme to 95, 98, etc. Apple, notably, still tried to stick with it, but that was during the clone years, and I remember that there were significant differences in System 7.6.1 and 7.6.3 and other weird stuff like that. Then when Adobe, Macromedia, and others started to push version numbers up quickly, usually going from x.0 to x.5, then to (x+1).0, they also started attaching large price tags to the minor version updates. Are these version systems consistent with the original methods? Maybe, in some cases, but version numbers are a big market ploy; version (x+1).0 of a product is automatically better than x.0, by most customers impressions, and those impressions lead to larger sales for version updates.

    So is Apple really right in calling this 10.2, and then charging a lot for it? I'd argue that Apple should have called the 10.1 update (which basically made 10.0 usable) 10.0.1, and then Jag would be 10.1, at which point an upgrade cost would not be as unreasonable if they truly followed version numbers. Since Jag adds new features, but does not create incompatibilities with older systems, it's not a major release, and thus is simply minor.

    --
    "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
    "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
  5. Why is it...? by ColGraff · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Why is it that whenever I read about OSX, I get such a powerful urge to dust off my copy of Beos PE and play with it? Am I some sort of recidivist, counter-revolutionary x86 using pervert?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.