Is OS X upgrading too quickly?

[Hughmac]

Yes

We went from Snow Leopard to Lion, then missed Mountain Lion to go to Mavericks.
With no valid reason to upgrade again, we'll just wait and see what the next OS X after Yosemite comes up with.
Mavericks is fine, working well and still looks good.

As pointed out above a few times, nobody is actually forced to upgrade then complain.

Cheers

Hugh

 

[omnisphere]

n-evo!

Do you use Yosemite? if you bought a new computer now your only choice is Yosemite and it is has many bugs that cripple your Mac.

Slow start and shut down, WiFi connection problems, Safari slow, computer slow, there you have it, Yosemite is not good enough right now.

That could have been ok if you could install older OS X on new Macs, but it is not safe to do that because apple is forcing you to use the OS that came with the computer.

If Apple releases new OS once third year, I think that stability would be much better.

That is what Microsoft is doing right now, so who is Apple competing against to release new OS X once a year?

Yes I know that it is possible to install older OS but it is not optimal.

http://www.apple.com/feedback/

 

[sracer]

No.

Last time I checked nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade. Except maybe that one time when you absolutely have to buy a new Mac the same month a new OS X version is released. In just about every other scenario you can just hold off downloading until the operating system hits v10.x.3 or whatever. I know people who are still perfectly happy running their Mac and iPhone on OS X Mountain Lion and iOS 6 respectively.

You seem to be forgetting that some software updates require the latest version of OSX. Sometimes the requirement is legitimate in that it uses functionality unique to that version of OSX, other times it is laziness on the part of developers, and in still other cases, it is a cynical money-grab by requiring customers to pay for an upgrade.

These annual OSX updates seem to always break compatibility with some hardware accessories.

Desktop operating systems serve different purposes than mobile OSes. Stability and longevity are often required for desktops.

That is in the general case... but you can find exceptions.

Is there hard evidence Mac OS X Leopard or OS X Lion, two OS X releases which weren't on a yearly cycle, had any less issues than - let's say - OS X Mavericks or OS X Yosemite? With "evidence" I mean real proof, not opinion or feelings.

Unless the problem is universally evident across all users, you will end up dismissing those issues as "isolated incidents", opinion, or feeling.

Certain use-cases will encounter certain issues. They're not all the same issues, though there is some overlap. But by releasing a new version every year, Apple avoids the responsibility of having to address bugs in the previous version.

If someone is experiencing issues with Mavericks now, their response is... "upgrade to Yosemite". (and with that, no guarantee that the issue being experienced is fixed in Yosemite) Each subsequent update to OSX requires more resources than the previous version which moves that computer closer to obsolescence and the need to purchase new hardware.

 

[Fishrrman]

Just a thought, but...

....could the reason for the frequent Mac OS updates be that Apple now considers the Mac OS to be "secondary to" the iOS?

In other words, could the need for frequent OS X updates be Apple's intention that they "keep current" with the iOS?
(In that an "UN-updated" Mac OS wouldn't work properly with iOS revisions and new iPhone/iPad releases)

 

[Ulenspiegel]

Just a thought, but...

....could the reason for the frequent Mac OS updates be that Apple now considers the Mac OS to be "secondary to" the iOS?

In other words, could the need for frequent OS X updates be Apple's intention that they "keep current" with the iOS?
(In that an "UN-updated" Mac OS wouldn't work properly with iOS revisions and new iPhone/iPad releases)

That is an interesting thought.
What concerns updates. Yes, they are free. Would they be not, maybe we would face less problems. And a note: there is a contradiction between releasing new OS updates on yearly basis and not solving the bugs that exist for years (weather widget misplacement after reboot, Finder window size not kept, pointer disappearence in some cases etc.)

 

[bigpoppamac31]

Just a thought, but...

....could the reason for the frequent Mac OS updates be that Apple now considers the Mac OS to be "secondary to" the iOS?

In other words, could the need for frequent OS X updates be Apple's intention that they "keep current" with the iOS?
(In that an "UN-updated" Mac OS wouldn't work properly with iOS revisions and new iPhone/iPad releases)

They could just add those feature to the Mac OS without making it a "major OS release".

 

[zedsdead]

The greatest thing to hear at WWDC this year would be no new features, and that the next release was focused on stability, bug fixes and improvements....like Snow Leopard was.

This philosophy is desperately needed with iOS more than Mac OSX.

 

[simonsi]

next release was focused on stability, bug fixes and improvements....

Have cake and eat it?

Stability = no improvements, that is a fact of software life.

If you want to compare to an earlier version then lets see where the functions involving the outside (to the OS), were? No iCloud? No talking to iPhones/iPads or other devices?

Pretty easy to focus on OS stability when not adding any such new functions and having very little in the outside world to talk to.

 

[Alphabetize]

Where I work, we have big problems with each and every release of OS X. We're staying on Mavericks until we determine that Yosemite is stable enough.

 

[grahamperrin]

Stability

The greatest thing to hear at WWDC this year would be no new features, and that the next release was focused on stability, bug fixes and improvements. …

… Stability = no improvements, that is a fact of software life. …

I should not take the word 'stability' so literally in that context.

Instead, something like 'increased reliability'; loosely speaking, less tendency for things to unexpectedly fail.

In Apple's words, for example:

… The OS X Yosemite 10.10.1 update is recommended for all Yosemite users. It improves the stability and compatibility of your Mac. …

 

[Partron22]

Stability = no improvements, that is a fact of software life.

Stability is an improvement.

 

[SusanK]

Just a thought, but...

....could the reason for the frequent Mac OS updates be that Apple now considers the Mac OS to be "secondary to" the iOS?

In other words, could the need for frequent OS X updates be Apple's intention that they "keep current" with the iOS?
(In that an "UN-updated" Mac OS wouldn't work properly with iOS revisions and new iPhone/iPad releases)

No question about it. Apple is a handset company, unfortunately.

 

[XboxEvolved]

While I think it is nice that the upgrades seem to support a decent range of hardware, they seem to purposely gimp older hardware from features that it could otherwise do. The other thing is, is I use up crap loads of ram all the time. At any given time I'm using 4-6 GB of ram at the very least and that's insane. The thing is, we can complain all we want but it's still free.

 

[boast]

They should cut it down to 6 months.

 

[snorkelman]

They should cut it down to 6 months.

pffft!! make it weekly, then I can run 53 versions behind

 

[cynics]

How else would they work the Mac into planned obsolescence?

 

[grahamperrin]

Why six months?

They should cut it down to 6 months.

Please explain.

Would you like to see relatively frequent addition of relatively few enhancements?

(Is waiting, say, a year – for a greater bundle of enhancements – simply less attractive? Is it the wait that bothers you?)

I'm curious.

 

[n-evo]

But by releasing a new version every year, Apple avoids the responsibility of having to address bugs in the previous version.

If someone is experiencing issues with Mavericks now, their response is... "upgrade to Yosemite". (and with that, no guarantee that the issue being experienced is fixed in Yosemite) Each subsequent update to OSX requires more resources than the previous version which moves that computer closer to obsolescence and the need to purchase new hardware.

Were the things you're mentioning any different those years Mac OS X wasn't on a yearly cycle? I don't think so. Not one. That's why I seriously doubt slowing down OS X' development cycle will change things.

OS X Yosemite runs on the exact same hardware as the two versions before it and performance is on par with OS X Mavericks. As of yet I don't see anything support your theory Macs are becoming obsolete more quickly than before. It will be interesting to see whether OS X Yosemite's successor will still have the same hardware support. Only time will tell though.

Just to be clear: I'm not disputing the points you're making in themselves, I'm doubting things will become (much) different once Apple adopts a slower release cycle. The past shows things were pretty much the same.

 

[simonsi]

Stability is an improvement.

You can't have stable code and have the product improved, that is a catch 22.

 

[n-evo]

You seem to be forgetting that some software updates require the latest version of OSX.

I ignored it because those apps that immediately require the latest and greatest OS X version are mostly the smaller non-crucial ones. Major app suites people truly rely on like Final Cut Pro (plus additional apps), Aperture, Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite hardly ever require the latest OS X version.

The requirement to be forced to run the latest version of a third-party app tends not to happen over night. The older version you've been using before will continue working just fine. Just like that older OS X version you've been running them on. By the time you absolutely have to update whatever app, the latest OS X version has received its fair share of updates.

Of course there are exceptions.

 

[n-evo]

n-evo!

Do you use Yosemite? if you bought a new computer now your only choice is Yosemite and it is has many bugs that cripple your Mac.

omnisphere! Did you read my reply all the way through? Because I covered the new-Mac-scenario as one of the very few exceptions where you're actually forced to upgrade. And yes, I use OS X Yosemite. I experience none of those crippling bugs on my iMac (27-inch, Late 2013). OS X Yosemite works just as fine as OS X Mavericks did so far and I'm really enjoying the new features.

 

[Isamilis]

Apple is forced us to upgrade basically. New computer come with the latest OS. For old ones, only selected items are available for updates (i.e. security issues). Stay in SL is also difficult because many programs have compatibility minimum 10.9 or 10.8.

We went from Snow Leopard to Lion, then missed Mountain Lion to go to Mavericks.
With no valid reason to upgrade again, we'll just wait and see what the next OS X after Yosemite comes up with.
Mavericks is fine, working well and still looks good.

As pointed out above a few times, nobody is actually forced to upgrade then complain.

Cheers

Hugh

 

[AustinIllini]

Apple is forced us to upgrade basically. New computer come with the latest OS. For old ones, only selected items are available for updates (i.e. security issues). Stay in SL is also difficult because many programs have compatibility minimum 10.9 or 10.8.

I still contend most users do NOT need to upgrade and are not "Forced" to do so.

 

[simonsi]

No-one is forced to upgrade, no-one is forced to buy a new Mac. New Mac's come with the same return period so if anyone doesn't like it they can return.

Although a new Mac will come shipped with Yosemite is there anything preventing a USB-boot-blow-away-and-install-Mavericks if required? No hardware has changed with the Yosemite release AFAIK so there can't (yet) be any Yosemite-only support that would prevent it, again AFAIK.

But I'm fairly sure new machines with a fresh install will probably have the lowest rate of issues, its the easiest environment for them to control and should be the most predictable/repeatable.

 

[n-evo]

Although a new Mac will come shipped with Yosemite is there anything preventing a USB-boot-blow-away-and-install-Mavericks if required? No hardware has changed with the Yosemite release AFAIK so there can't (yet) be any Yosemite-only support that would prevent it, again AFAIK..

Depends. If it's a new Mac with new hardware which never shipped with OS X Mavericks, you'll get a Kernel Panic when trying to boot due to lacking drivers. If the hardware already existed before OS X Yosemite, installing OS X Mavericks will be possible. The Retina 5K iMac never shipped with OS X Mavericks as far as I know, so that would be an example of a forced upgrade. If your old Mac broke down and you absolutely need a new one of course.