Is OS X upgrading too quickly?

[Horizon Man]

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.

Maybe not forced, but imo Apple is pushing people to upgrade. Then there's this new iCloud that once you sign up for you can't revert back.

Trusting that Yosemite was going to run smoothly I foolishly signed up and am now stuck, as I had no choice but revert back.

Personally I hoped on the Apple bandwagon, about 6 years back, when I started my own small company and just didn't have time for computer problems. My first iMac worked perfectly with harry a problem. Saddly I guess I hopped on at OSX's Zenith of reliability as I've steadily had more and more issues with each new generation of OSX, thankfully Mavericks was another solid build for me, but now that I've lost my iCloud, and can't update iWork, I'm pretty disappointed with Apple.

Yes, it has affected my 'loyalty' I was ready to jump all over iPhone 6 now, I'm just going to milk as much life as I can out of my 4 and see what happens.

Sadly it seems Apple has just become the lesser of two evils rather than 'you pay more but get more'

 

[InuNacho]

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.

That may very well be the point of the upgrades. We've reached the point where our hardware could last for many many years because theres no real need to update them anymore. What better way to urge people to buy new computers than to convince them that their computers are too slow.

 

[boast]

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.

The longer new features and code changes build up before a release, the harder it is to debug and fix.

Actually, unless it is some big framework/API change, I dont see the need of bundling everything into one big release except for marketing reasons.

But the concept of "Long Term Releases" like Ubuntu where there are no updates except for bug fixes would be ideal for those which require ultimate stabiltity (I think it would make people feel better than simplying telling them not to upgrade until theyre ready)

 

[sracer]

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.

People who rely on Parallels wouldn't consider it small and non-crucial.

 

[Abba1]

Releasing Yosemite didnt break Mavericks, if you feel it is too frequent/quick then dont update. Simple as.

Agreed. The beauty of the updates is that they bring the latest technology, even if that technology needs some further development, to the end user. But, for those who are happy with older technology, there is no reason to update as long as Apple provides security updates for your OS.

 

[Abba1]

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/

I did a clean install on my Mac, and my WiFi is better than it has been in years, I boot and shut down quickly, and Safari as well as all apps are really fast.

Even though you're on a new Mac, why don't you try a clean install. But, first, try the usual methods of fixing problems. Go into the Recovery Disk and repair permissions. Reset your NVRAM and your SMC. And see if your logs give you any information regarding what is happening.

Also, if you used Migration Assistant, have you brought anything to your new Mac that is causing you problems?

 

[Abba1]

That may very well be the point of the upgrades. We've reached the point where our hardware could last for many many years because theres no real need to update them anymore. What better way to urge people to buy new computers than to convince them that their computers are too slow.

Some cars from the 50's and 60's have lasted and are collectors' items. But, although beautiful, they don't have the speed, comfort, ease of driving, or modern technology that makes driving a pleasure. The same can be said of computers!

When I compare my latest Mac to my first one, the difference is notable. When I compare my first Mac to my first PC, the difference is extraordinary. And, when I compare my first PC to the Mag card, which was a big step up from my Memory typewriter which itself was a step up from my electric typewriter which was a step up from my manual typewriter, the difference blows my mind. In any case, nobody forces anyone to buy a new computer!

 

[simonsi]

...TO THE Mag card, which was a big step up from my Memory typewriter which itself was a step up from my electric typewriter...

Oooh! Selectric anyone?

 

[snorkelman]

People who rely on Parallels wouldn't consider it small and non-crucial.

Thats more an OS update that forces you to update the app, not an app update that forces you to update the OS

There's no pressing reason to upgrade to latest version of Parrallels unless you're hell bent on running the latest OS

 

[sracer]

Thats more an OS update that forces you to update the app, not an app update that forces you to update the OS

There's no pressing reason to upgrade to latest version of Parrallels unless you're hell bent on running the latest OS

That's true... and a good point.

 

[Partron22]

Agreed. The beauty of the updates is that they bring the latest technology, even if that technology needs some further development...

Piling half-baked on top of half-baked year after year is a recipe for failure. Keep it up, and OS 10.X will go the way of System 7.5; unmaintainable.
Of course this time, there's no NextStep waiting in the wings.

 

[grahamperrin]

The longer new features and code changes build up before a release, the harder it is to debug and fix.

Actually, unless it is some big framework/API change, I dont see the need of bundling everything into one big release except for marketing reasons.

Marketing aside … If I prepare help on how to use a piece of software, it'll be nice if the appearance of that software remains the same for a reasonable period. Excessively frequent changes in appearance (more than once a year would certainly be excessive) would cause annoyance.

But the concept of "Long Term Releases" like Ubuntu where there are no updates except for bug fixes would be ideal for those which require ultimate stabiltity (I think it would make people feel better than simplying telling them not to upgrade until theyre ready)

… for those who are happy with older technology, there is no reason to update as long as Apple provides security updates for your OS.

Related:

Mavericks Support - EOL When? – Observations on support for Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger and greater

 

[n-evo]

People who rely on Parallels wouldn't consider it small and non-crucial.

Nor does the latest version of Parallels require OS X Yosemite (see screen shot). Thanks for further proving my point. And even if it did, I'm pretty sure Parallels 9 didn't stop working on OS X Mavericks machines once version 10 was released.

http://www.parallels.com/eu/products/desktop/resources/

 

[XboxEvolved]

That may very well be the point of the upgrades. We've reached the point where our hardware could last for many many years because theres no real need to update them anymore. What better way to urge people to buy new computers than to convince them that their computers are too slow.

I just don't like this planned obsolete crap. I remember there being a study a few years back during the days of G4-G5 where it said that Apple customers typically keep their computers longer than PC customers do. I think a lot of that wasn't just the build quality was always overall better, but, the prices were also typically higher on a Mac. That might also be another reason why Mac users tend to keep their computers longer.

Microsoft on the other hand, despite controlling the desktop OS market seems to try and make sure that as many computers as possible can run their OS. So when you couple a computer that for most of us starts out at at least $1500 with a plan from Apple to make it obsolete within 3 years, I dunno what my point is. I just wish they would go back to the whole 18 months thing.

I remember when I first got into Mac was right around when Jaguar was shown. I was amazed. Then I saw Panther (my first OS X) and I couldn't believe my eyes. I couldn't think how it could get any better. Then Tiger came around which to me, was probably their biggest leap overall. Leopard to Lion was great and had some cool features and then well, it all became expected, it all became them tidying up and getting rid of the skeumorphisms and aqua interface. It basically came down to them making it look like an Apple version of Windows 8.

 

[grahamperrin]

Perceptions of obsolescence

How else would they work the Mac into planned obsolescence?

I doubt that's Apple plan. Or rather, the company takes a fair approach to obsolescence.

I think it's fair that I can (in theory) enjoy some of the benefits of the latest operating system on a Mac that's more than five years old. And I guess that I'll receive security updates for 10.9.x until the initial release of 10.13.

Related: Mavericks Support - EOL When?

Some customers are happy to download or purchase something new simply because of the novelty of that thing.

 

[bmac89]

No.

Last time I checked nobody is forcing anyone to upgrade.

It would be nice if Apple updated apps so that people who don't wish to update OSX so frequently can continue to use a perfectly adequate and stable OSX with the latest Safari or Mail app for example. It is things like the lack of an up-to-date internet browser or being locked out of newer software which should be able to be run on the system but is supposedly unsupported by OS which forces many to upgrade. Once they upgrade they are then forced to upgrade expensive software despite not needing the latest and 'greatest'.

Some people can't update due to old apps and workflow or simply prefer something stable like Snow Leopard or Mavericks.

 

[bigchief]

Yes

 

[Wild-Bill]

I doubt that's Apple plan. Or rather, the company takes a fair approach to obsolescence.
.

Apple is most certainly going for planned obsolescence. The 2014 Mac Mini is a perfect example. A computer that was specifically-engineered for easy RAM upgradability via the screw-off bottom now uses non-standard Torx screws in order to keep the end user OUT. ifixit.com had to engineer a tool just to open the damn thing. The fact that the 2012 Mini refurbs never last more than a few minutes on Apple's refurb site clearly show that, at least for a computer destined as a desktop, people want the ability to upgrade the RAM themselves, and have a quad-core option.

 

[grahamperrin]

OT: planned obsolescence of hardware

With respect, I think we may be going somewhat off-topic …

Apple is most certainly going for planned obsolescence. The 2014 Mac Mini is a perfect example. …

With attention to the subject line (the opening post): I thought of obsolescence of the operating system.

The Mac Mini is a good example of something quite different (I expect it that hardware and firmware to work with OS X Yosemite, with security updates for that OS, for years to come) …

 

[Ethosik]

Apple is most certainly going for planned obsolescence. The 2014 Mac Mini is a perfect example. A computer that was specifically-engineered for easy RAM upgradability via the screw-off bottom now uses non-standard Torx screws in order to keep the end user OUT. ifixit.com had to engineer a tool just to open the damn thing. The fact that the 2012 Mini refurbs never last more than a few minutes on Apple's refurb site clearly show that, at least for a computer destined as a desktop, people want the ability to upgrade the RAM themselves, and have a quad-core option.

The Mac Mini was never.....NEVER stated as an upgradable machine. It was stated and advertised as people switching from Windows PCs with a cheap option to do so. It was never marketed as "Easy expansion". You are thinking of the Mac Pro that had several graphics and guides on how to expand.

Was it possible to upgrade the Mac Mini? Yes. But it was never....NEVER designed for upgradeability in mind. People need to stop with this "OMG I can't upgrade my RAM now!!!!".

The current Mac Pro still has the same level of upgradability as the old Mac Pro. Even the CPU can be upgradable according to iFixIt.

And you clearly are over stating things. I am a tech geek, yet I would never upgrade a Mac Mini. I would rather get a new one next year if and when I need more power. Why? Better GPU, newer thunderbolt and 4K/5K support. We have computers at work that have 2GB of ram and are using Photoshop JUST FINE. All this talk about 4-8GB of ram is NOT ENOUGH is false. It depends on your workflow. You get what you need.

Back on topic
I upgraded to Yosemite the night it came out on two of my systems (I wait a few hours mostly because I am at work when it is released). I have NEVER had an issue yet. I have had weird iTunes problems, but those are not issues but me getting used to the new views.

Mavericks still works. And if your Mac comes with Yosemite you will just have to deal with it or find a way to downgrade without support. When we recently got a Lenovo with Windows 8, we wanted to downgrade to Windows 7. They stated that they would not offer software support if we downgraded, and we would have to perform the factory reset to get back to Windows 8 to help diagnose an issue.

 

[roadbloc]

That may very well be the point of the upgrades. We've reached the point where our hardware could last for many many years because theres no real need to update them anymore. What better way to urge people to buy new computers than to convince them that their computers are too slow.

+1.

My PowerPC Macs, thanks to an awesome community of developers still developing software for them, can handle everything I throw at them. Modern office tasks, web browsing and YouTube are all still possible on them, but no thanks to Apple. They ditched PowerPC support far too soon. They always ditch all their software far too soon. The fact that Windows XP outlived eight full releases of OS X in terms of support just goes to show how terrible Apple's legacy software support is. Its atrocious.

 

[xgman]

It goes something like this:

Put out new OS.
Fix Bugs.
Fix more bugs but create new ones.
Give up on that OS and start working on a new one.
Put out new OS.
Create new bugs that worked fine in the prior OS.
Fix bugs.
Fix more bugs that create new bugs.
Give up on that OS and start working on yet another one.
Whole slew of new bugs and things that no longer work right.
wooops...
Fix bugs.
Fix more bugs.
Start over again.

Let's see now. What was the ole definition of insanity again?

 

[n-evo]

It would be nice if Apple updated apps so that people who don't wish to update OSX so frequently can continue to use a perfectly adequate and stable OSX with the latest Safari or Mail app for example. It is things like the lack of an up-to-date internet browser or being locked out of newer software which should be able to be run on the system but is supposedly unsupported by OS which forces many to upgrade. Once they upgrade they are then forced to upgrade expensive software despite not needing the latest and 'greatest'.

Safari and Mail aren't stand-alone apps, they rely heavily on system-wide frameworks shared by many other apps that have to be updated in their turn as well. So if the entire backend has to be updated on OS X Mavericks you're probably half-way through an OS X Yosemite upgrade.

----------

It goes something like this:

Put out new OS.
Fix Bugs.
Fix more bugs but create new ones.
Give up on that OS and start working on a new one.
Put out new OS.
Create new bugs that worked fine in the prior OS.
Fix bugs.
Fix more bugs that create new bugs.
Give up on that OS and start working on yet another one.
Whole slew of new bugs and things that no longer work right.
wooops...
Fix bugs.
Fix more bugs.
Start over again.

Let's see now. What was the ole definition of insanity again?

I totally agree with this one. With Apple it's a perpetual cycle of things being broken, being fixed, only to end up broken once again. That said it really wasn't any different when OS X was on a slower release cycle. Something that was fixed in OS X v10.x.2 could be broken again in v10.x.3.

Per example: I have added Mail to my login items and checked the "Hide" box. Mac OS X Tiger suddenly introduced a bug where Mail's main window would ignore that preference. It wasn't until Mac OS X Snow Leopard until it got fixed. It stayed that way until OS X Yosemite DP3 or something, but the bug has since been reintroduced.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Please! contact Apple Product Feedback about this, it is the only way to prompt Apple.


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

I have done it now. Please do it! we have to stop this madness of releasing new OS X every year.

How about stopping the madness of installing an update you don't want? That seems like the logical thing to do if you cannot tolerate the risk of new bugs and new features not fully baked.

I do think Apple should be more transparent about the readiness of these updates. They should run as beta for a bit longer. But you still have people installing betas and whining about stuff that is broken. It's all over this forum.

 

[simonsi]

How about stopping the madness of installing an update you don't want?

This. I want annual updates with new functions, if they work as well as Yosemite then I'm quite happy. I always have the option of:

a) Don't upgrade
b) Upgrade with a backout plan

I want to retain Aperture until I am certain what features Photos contains so I am being very cautious about have a backout plan on OSX updates.

TBH on that front I may retain a self-contained bootable external with Yosemite and Aperture on it, together with my legacy library that will be a permanent operational system long after I have upgraded past Aperture support.