Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" Preview at WWDC
hype7 writes "Apple just announced that it will kick off WWDC 2004 with a preview of the next iteration of Apple's operating system, Mac OS X, in a Steve Jobs keynote. This version of Mac OS X, 10.4, has been code named 'Tiger.' As usual, Apple is being incredibly tight lipped about what's going to be added; there hasn't even been that much speculation of new features on the rumor sites. WWDC is scheduled to begin on the 28th of June."
Apple is on a roll! From Cnet:
g =n efd.top
http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5205185.html?ta
If Tiger goes on sale this year, it would mark the company's fifth version of Mac OS X in five years. In the same period, Microsoft has released one major version of Windows--XP--along with various updates. Longhorn, the next major release of Windows, is not expected until the middle of 2006, at the earliest.
The reason that people aren't pissed is because each new version of OSX is a lot better than the previous version. It just keeps getting better and better.
As long as the new versions are faster and offer new and innovative features I doubt that MacOS users will care too much.
Bear in mind that nobody outside of Apple even knew about Expose until WWDC 2003. If Steve can pull another rabbit like that out of his hat, 10.4 might turn out to be worth it after all.
Apple is very kind. When I brought in my iBook for repair because of that nasty Logic Board problem, Apple serviced and delivered my computer free of charge for me. On top of that, they sent me a copy of Panther when the repairs were over. Apple must be selling their operating systems not based solely on a profit basis. I would assume that the reason Apple is charging the $130 for each "upgrade" of their operating systems (they are not upgrades but full versions only) is because they assume that the only people buying them are not upgrading, but buying from scratch. It would be interesting for Apple to set up a "n-year upgrade program" where you get every release of your particular OS for those n years. They are already doing that for their server operating systems.
Standard Mac Reply(tm).
"But you get more with a new version of OS/x than you do a windows service pack."
And as a relatively new mac user coming from a windows/linux background, it's true. You get the same updates as you do via windows update for security fixes, etc etc. Most windows service packs however (with the exception of the upcoming xpsp2 that is) are essencially the previous bug fixes all rolled into one.
Contrasting this, the incremental updates for MacOS (10.2, 10.3) are more than hotfixes but less than a completely new os. Generally they contain new apps, improvements in existing apps (not just performance or bug fixes either) such as the new 'find as you type', expose, ichat, etc.
That said, I'd love to see the *real* next gen apple offerings, ie: OS 11, as the "new" OSs that have come out in the os 10 line have really been evolutionary, not revolutionary, as longhorn promises to be. Of course, redmond is making a lot of promises about longhorn, and it's a "I'll believe it when I see it" situation for me.
Do I *WANT* to pay for an upgrade every year? No.
Do I *HAVE* to pay for an upgrade every year? No.
However, who on earth can blame Apple for launching new releases on a regular basis and charging for them. If they don't have enough features to justify *YOU* paying for them (it is, after all, completely subjective), then don't get it. Wait until enough releases go by that you feel justified. On the flip side, Apple is trying to make money and apparently there are enough people willing to pay for these annual releases to encourage Apple to keep doing it.
I'm not sure how many they sell each year, but if they waited every 2-3 years, that's a TON of money being left on the table that a TON of consumers are apparently more than willing to part with.
Enjoy,
Andy
Panther was such a radical step from Jaguar it was well worth plonking money down for. It was a vast improvement, much more dramatic than, say, the Windows 95 to 98 step, which nobody complained about paying for.
And FWIW, yes, software can be added to an existing computer and is cheaper than a car. That's why a car costs around $10,000-40,000, and a copy of OS X costs $129. I'm sure you'll agree that the cost of OS X isn't even in the same ballpark as that of a car.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Clearly, you're not a Mac user. Every upgrade to OS X has made my four year old machine perform better. I can still use a 400MHz machine to do web design and graphics: You can't say that about a 1GHz PC running XP! I'd much rather have to shell out $120 each year for a speed bump than $600 for a new PC.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
I won't buy this one.
Um, ok, that's great. Good for you. Have a cookie.
Why are these articles filled with people saying, "I won't buy it"? Who gives a crap? Don't buy it!
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Well, if we wanted to get all analytical about it, there could be any number of reasons.
The fact that cats are often viewed as sleek and graceful animals while still powerful.
Or the fact that they've been viewed as both gods and devils, a description which could fit both Jobs and Apple quite well.
But more likely than not, it's because he's keeping with a theme.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Everyone bitches about shelling out money for an upgrade every year. If you don't like it, don't upgrade. The difference between MS and Apple updates is Apple updates actually have new features. MS's are bugfixes, that's why they are free. Older versions of Apple's OS are still supported. If you want the new features, you would have to pay for them, just like the upgrade from win2k to XP to 2003.
In any case, if you want to save yourself the money, just do what I do and buy a new machine everytime they come out with an OS upgrade. It's just like getting $130 off the price of the machine because it comes with the new OS, and then sell your old box on ebay. As long as you do it every year, you lose almost nothing.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
And the only major improvements in 10.3 were iChat AV, FileVault, Expose, and a prettier GUI.
And, of course, about a 20 percent bump in speed.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
If you're paying an annual fee for something on an 18-month update cycle, you're going to have years where you pay the full subscription price for an an idle year.
Or, the vendor is going to feel compelled to deliver something that approximates the value, and bend the development schedule out of shape to force a release, usually at the cost of quality. (Been there, done that, still have the t-shirt.)
So far, I think Apple has done a pretty good job of adding value to each release.
Apple spends loads of money paying an army of developers, designs, testers, managers, artists, support staff, etc. to develop these new releases. It costs money to run a business. Most businesses like to have income to offset the costs, and if they can, reap a profit which they can reinvest in their products. It's not like they're taking your $130 and buying golden toilet paper to wipe their asses with.
I paid $20 or 30 for the Public Beta, I got a kickass new OS to play with. I paid I don't remember how much for 10.0 and got a mediocre (but still better) version of the OS. I got the 10.1 upgrade for free at the Apple Store (score!) and finally had a truly usable version of Mac OS X. I paid $130 for 10.2 and got a kick-ass version of Mac OS X. I paid $130 for 10.3 and I've been totally wowed by it. 10.3 breathed new life into old hardware. Each time my money went towards making the next release even better.
Apple has every right to charge for their OS. Whether you agree with $130 being worth it is irrelevent. Just because you can get Free Software for free, does NOT mean ALL software should be free. Yes, it'd be nice if they had an upgrade version, but the last time they did that it was poorly devised and you could rip the CD, remove a single file from the image, and re-burn a full installer CD, which obviously cost them money.
If you want an upgrade version, make your voice heard. Go to http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback and let them know what you think.
Gabriel Ricard
You know what? I'll snap this thing up right away. It's worth the cost, just as 10.2 and 10.3 were worth the cost. (Though I suspect I'll be buying a new Powerbook about the time 10.4 is released.)
I'm of the same school as a lot of posters here -- Redhat, Windows, and Mac OS X are part of my daily life. Redhat runs my webserver/small biz, Windows is the ball-and-chain of my day job, and Mac OS X does everything else.
My development work (PHP/MySQL, Ruby, Perl, etc., all of which are part of the OS X distribution), all done on OS X before deploying to the server. My design work? Fire up Photoshop on the iBook. My writing? I just installed PHPWiki a few days ago and have been using it to organize and build the notes for the sci-fi trilogy I've had rolling around in my head for years. Family? I just custom-rolled a photo book for my father-in-law that had restored copies of all his photos (gracias, Photoshop) and it arrived in hardcover (gracias, iPhoto). Road trip? Burning off CDs like mad from iTunes, including the ones I purchased from iTMS.
I'm a Mac OS X user for life. Period. I don't have to fuck around with all the annoying shit that amounts to day-to-day life on Windows/Linux.
Like an earlier poster, I used to bitch about the price of Macs. Then I got an OS X machine. The price is worthwhile -- it's no different than a car, a house, or any other consumer purchase -- you get what you pay for. And I'll happily shell out $129 for 10.4, or a few grand for a new Powerbook with 10.4. Because I have a computer that I use to work, not a computer that I have to spend hours or days trying to keep working.
blog |
Each year we seem to buy machines in May (just in time to miss the free upgrade for the OS), get OS on a developer machine, update our in-house applications, roll out across our small office.
Yeah, it costs money, but we've gotten functionality and improvements that have made our in-house applications faster and more reliable, so I'm happy.
Also, there is no obligation to buy the upgrades, we were going to skip Panther, but then Expose was so incredible, we upgraded all our developers. Instead of building on Panther to deploy on Jaguar, we just bought a bunch of Jaguar updates.
The Jaguar Server -> Panther Server was an INCREDIBLE change, and I look forward to Tiger Server for more polish.
So it's a GOOD thing. Customers get the option of getting new features/more productive, and Apple Shareholders get to increase earnings by selling more to the same (or slightly shrinking) market.
So rather then fighting for marketshare, Apple is selling more/customer.
So all around, it's a good thing.
When I upgrade Microsoft, I feel like I'm simply getting patches and ugly window dressing. When I upgrade Apple, I feel like I'm getting tons of new features and capabilities. Bottom line, Apple is providing significant value -- I'm willing to put hard money behind that kind of corporate behavior. The complaint I have toward Microsoft is that I don't get $200 worth of value, productivity, interest, or entertainment for the price tag. In fact, the XP "experience, the licensing, and lack of new features has turned me off from using Microsoft until I absolutely have to. Apple, who seems to trust their users not to pirate, gladly gets my repeat business. And will continue to do so.