Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is OS X upgrading too quickly?
- Thread starter InuNacho
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I mean regular Joes signing up for the beta program and downloading actual beta software. OS X betas are never preinstalled on new computers.
I was thinking, hey Apple could run the beta versions a bit longer. But I'm not sure it would help with the ire here for the aforementioned reason.
It seems this will be the first OSX I've not upgraded to within 3 months of release since OS 7. If they don't sort the bugs and in particular the external monitor issue then it will be a skip.
I wonder how to protect and backup Mavericks install , as don't the block re downloading the old version of OSX after awhile? I don't want to be forced to upgrade.
This new OSx seems rushed and bug ridden. Maybe Yosemite will get the snow leopard treatment but for not no upgrade is necessary.
I wonder how to protect and backup Mavericks install , as don't the block re downloading the old version of OSX after awhile? I don't want to be forced to upgrade.
This new OSx seems rushed and bug ridden. Maybe Yosemite will get the snow leopard treatment but for not no upgrade is necessary.
Have you actually tried it? Mine is fine in everyday use, be wary of having your whole opinion based on comment here, thats a bit like assessing the health of humanity by observing one ER.
Just copy the Mavericks installation app (temporarily stored in application folder) onto an external hard drive or burn to DVD.
Not only this particular Forum, but the whole Internet is full of Yosemite bugs, problems.
I am more than sure that there are occasions when you yourself read reviews and comments before making a decision to buy a certain software or device. So, it is more of a practical nature than "assessing the health of humanity by observing one ER".
Yes and that same internet is full of bugs with any other piece of software that is known to mankind. So your point is?
The entire point is that people should, for once, start using that grey mass between their ears and think. Also, people might want to start diving into how to get something solved instead of on how many forums they can complain about it. I rather read about solutions to problems or the details of a problem than user x has a problem (yes, so? everybody else on the planet has problems too!). Solutions and details help me, complaints don't.
The entire point is that people should, for once, start using that grey mass between their ears and think. Also, people might want to start diving into how to get something solved instead of on how many forums they can complain about it. I rather read about solutions to problems or the details of a problem than user x has a problem (yes, so? everybody else on the planet has problems too!). Solutions and details help me, complaints don't.
What did you not understand about "that same internet is full of bugs with any other piece of software that is known to mankind"?
If OS X is a rolling release there will be bugs, if they do it every 6 weeks there will be bugs, if they do it monthly there will be bugs, if they do it every 6 months there will be bugs, if they do it every year there will be bugs, if they do it every 2 years there will be bugs and if they do it whenever they like there will be bugs.
There will be bugs no matter the timeframe. Why? Because even Apple has billions of software combinations and hardware combinations. And then I'm not even counting things like wifi that are already very complex and not easy to troubleshoot due to enormous amounts of things that influence it.
Bugs are not a good argument. Having to upgrade the OS because the applications you use require it is. That's the most annoying thing and it is not something Apple can help. It's how the OS X world seems to work and it can be very annoying at times. It's not OS X that is moving fast, it's the apps. They are causing the fact that you can't easily skip an OS X upgrade. Bugs have nothing to do with it, they'll always be there, big and small.
Now that's thinking for ya. Stop being so darn naive.
But is is self-evident that the millions of fault-free install don't generate comments on forums in the same way that healthy people don't go to ER's to be counted, so by looking at "issues on forums" you don't geta full picture, forums DO over-state issues, that is a known and accepted fact of internet life.
Forums are not reviews.
Forums sometimes are more than reviews. A review reflects one standpoint.
Users visit Forums for many reasons, amongst others to get an impression, help, to exchange views and experiences on certain questions.
"by looking at "issues on forums" you get a versatile picture and in many cases you find a solution to your problem.
If you degrade the role of Forums, why are you here?
Forums are great for all the reasons you mention, they just don't present a balanced view of the prevalence of issues in a given user-base as they don't contain a valid cross-section of the user-base.
Any proper review of anything should attempt to determine what the rate of an issue is with a product, a forum can tell you what the relative occurrence of an issue is relative to other issues with the same product, but it cannot give you any indication of how common those issues are in the user-base.
It's just a matter of you can't install 10.XX.0. I should have been happy to let everyone else find the problems with Yosemite. The handoff features and new look were just too tempting. Next year I will know better and wait until people seem to be happy with it.
Remember there wasn't all that much user-facing changes going from Lion to Mountain Lion, and from ML to Mavericks (although Ars Technica managed to write 20-some pages about each of them). Yes, I know there were tons of things fixed in the underbelly, but it's not a coincidence that new user-facing changes broke things they employ. Handoff relies on Bluetooth and wifi, and guess what everyone had problems with right out of the gate? Wifi. In retrospect it seems easy. I should have figured it out.
Remember there wasn't all that much user-facing changes going from Lion to Mountain Lion, and from ML to Mavericks (although Ars Technica managed to write 20-some pages about each of them). Yes, I know there were tons of things fixed in the underbelly, but it's not a coincidence that new user-facing changes broke things they employ. Handoff relies on Bluetooth and wifi, and guess what everyone had problems with right out of the gate? Wifi. In retrospect it seems easy. I should have figured it out.
That thought is going to be limited to the group of people who's Mac just broke down and absolutely have to buy a Retina 5K 27-inch iMac. Short of that particular model OS X Mavericks can still be installed on every other machine.
Aqua and more during the periods 1997-2002 and 20142015
Spun off from Yosemite is Beautiful and Yosemite looks terrible! …
For the looks of the operating system, the introduction of Aqua was:
Consider, compare …
Consider the speed of that 2014 dash from (a) to (b) – with no prerelease human interface guidelines for Yosemite at any time during those five months, at a time when concerns about the interfaces were openly expressed within various communities.
Compare that rushed approach to OS X with the more orderly approach to development of iOS for Apple Watch:
insisting upon release of 10.10 before the end of 2014.
Why that insistence, why that disorderly rush? I can't make an educated guess, so I'll lazily go with a commonly expressed concern:
Spun off from Yosemite is Beautiful and Yosemite looks terrible! …
For the looks of the operating system, the introduction of Aqua was:
- probably less controversial than the prerelease of Yosemite
- less rushed.
- 1997-09-23: Apple Confidential - Steve Jobs on "Think Different" - Internal Meeting … – "… can we make Apple really great again? Thank you for your time."
- 1998-05-11: Steve Jobs reveals OS X Strategy - WWDC … – "5 days after introducing the iMac, Steve attempts to convince developers that the OS X transition won't hurt much. …"
- 1998-05-11: Steve Jobs and WWDC 1998 – "… The draft specification for OSX is available now, and the Beta is due Q1/99, with a release version out Q3/99. … a vision, a strategy, and a coherent plan for executing that strategy. …"
- 1999-05-10: Steve Jobs Kicks Off Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference – "… the first in-depth look at Mac® OS X, Apple’s next-generation operating system. …"
- 1999-05-10: Steve Jobs previews OS X & OS 9 - WWDC … "… extensive demos of OS 9 and showing an early version of OS X. …"
- 2000-05-01: Apple - Press Info - Apple Unveils Mac OS X
- 2000-05-01: Steve Jobs introduces the Aqua interface & iTools - Macworld SF …
- 2000-05-01: January 6, 2000: Steve Turns OS X Out - AppleMatters – "… the only revolution in is the early version of OS X was Apple's ability to hide the Unix engine running underneath the eye candy because OS X didn't do much when first demoed at MacWorld Expo San Francisco …" (a 2011 reflection on the 2000 event)
- 2000-09-13: Apple - Press Info - Apple Releases Mac OS X Public Beta
- 2000-09-13: Steve Jobs introduces OS X Beta & new iBooks - Apple Paris Expo …
- 2001-03-07 :Apple - Press Info - Mac OS X “Gold Master” Released To Manufacturing
- 2001-05-21: Apple - Press Info - Apple Introduces Mac OS X Server
- 2001-07-18: Apple - Press Info - Apple Previews Next Version of Mac OS X – "… 10.1 Features Blazing Speed and Aqua Enhancements …"
- 2001-09-25: Apple - Press Info - First Major Upgrade to Mac OS X Hits Stores This Weekend
- 2002-01-07: Apple Makes Mac OS X the Default Operating System on All Macs
- 1997-09: nebulous talk of a great product
- 1998-05: openness about strategy; vision; planning to execute
- 1999-05: early Mac OS X, in depth
- 2000-05: Aqua, in depth
- 2000-09: public beta
- 2001-03: golden master
- 2001-05: server software
- 2001-07: enhancements to Aqua, previewed
- 2001-09: release quality enhancements to Aqua
- 2002-01: confidence.
- probably around one year, maybe more, of private development
- four months between publicity and the first beta test
- six months between the first beta and the first release
- one year between the first beta and the first respectably well-rounded release – a respectable technological underpinning to an already great Aqua interface.
- first sight in public, begin beta testing on the same day
- release after less than five months of feedback.
Consider, compare …
Consider the speed of that 2014 dash from (a) to (b) – with no prerelease human interface guidelines for Yosemite at any time during those five months, at a time when concerns about the interfaces were openly expressed within various communities.
Compare that rushed approach to OS X with the more orderly approach to development of iOS for Apple Watch:
- 2014-09-30: first public sighting
- 2014-12-18: publication of Apple Watch Human Interface Guidelines
- an expectation that the OS will be release quality early to mid 2015.
Set aside that one exaggeration (about the twenty-eight months for Apple Watch) and I'm left with an overall view:
The more I think about OS X 10.10.x, the more I suspect that a few misguided people within Apple – people with inappropriate powers – felt a need to respond to pressure (from shareholders and from some media/marketing areas) by - a strategic, visionary, orderly and open transition from Mac OS to Mac OS X with only one blip – quality of the technologies underlying Aqua in the first release, 10.0
- an alarmingly rushed transition from Aqua Mavericks to Yosemite – in some ways more closed/secretive than the turn-of-the-century transition, and questionable visions (or apparent lack of single shared vision)
- a more orderly approach to iOS for Apple Watch.
insisting upon release of 10.10 before the end of 2014.
Why that insistence, why that disorderly rush? I can't make an educated guess, so I'll lazily go with a commonly expressed concern:
- Apple resources are occasionally moved away from development of Mac OS X to bolster things in the iOS area
Last edited:
I suspect that part of the difference is that Steve Jobs was both a dreamer and a visionary who had a positive chokehold (an oxymoron to be sure) on every aspect of development, and this is why the end product was so good despite some glitches and bugs. On the other hand, Tim Cook is a business man who looks at the bottom line.
Even so, the stock has been uneven in the last year although, since the split, the trend is certainly very good to outstanding for now. Under these circumstances, rushing out product is fiscally productive, but not good for the end user in the near term and the company in the long term.
You may well be right about the alteration of direction in allotting resources to support the iOS area since that is now where Apple is making large inroads in businesses and schools. So, it is the more profitable area. Sad, isn't it?
Then you guys are clearly forgetting the huge threads on MacRumors concerning Expose/Mission Control when 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7 were introduced. The introduction of 10.5 was a complete drama (remember the 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 updates, one of the very first minor updates that brought additional features as well as the release of 10.6 which only job was to fix the drama of 10.5). As well as 10.0, so much that 10.1 was a free upgrade. There were and still are issues with the Mac App Store (the electronic release as of 10.7 is a disaster on launch day). We all probably will remember the "you're holding it wrong!" jokes after Steve Jobs commented on the iPhone 4 antenna problem. Java is another thing. They hyped it at first and then nothing, complete radio silence for years. Until that deal with Oracle. No work done on HFS/HFS+ is another example of that.
Huge mistakes all under control of Steve Jobs. The fact that Apple was nearly bankrupt was also caused by Steve Jobs (which he admitted). They didn't kick him out for nothing. He just got lucky with some stuff and he screwed up badly with others. I think his influence is far less than most people think. Which is exactly why Apple is doing better each year. They guy was a human being, not the magical figure you guys are trying to make him.
From an objective view it becomes clear that there are huge issues perceived by users with each OS X release as long as there has been OS X. There really isn't anything new since 10.0 was released. The only thing that is different is the amount of huge features we get. It used to be quite a lot before 10.6 but since that release they went to a smaller set of changes but they also went to a smaller release period (1 year vs 2 years) which balances things out (more features in more time vs less features in less time).
iOS being more profitable isn't strange if you look at the statistics. There is a worldwide decline in desktop and notebook computers for years. Apple is about the only manufacturer which isn't hit that much by it. That decline caused HP to (publicly) consider selling off its entire PC division. Also the main reason why IBM sold off its PC and why Sony did the same thing. Tablets are now also on a decline. Smartphones and smartwatches seem to be the devices that are profitable (the entire Internet of Things and Quantified Self). Not quite sure if it is sad or not, there are some great new things out there and computing is becoming more personal (as in having it with you wherever you go). Privacy and security would be the primary concerns with these new developments.
Huge mistakes all under control of Steve Jobs. The fact that Apple was nearly bankrupt was also caused by Steve Jobs (which he admitted). They didn't kick him out for nothing. He just got lucky with some stuff and he screwed up badly with others. I think his influence is far less than most people think. Which is exactly why Apple is doing better each year. They guy was a human being, not the magical figure you guys are trying to make him.
From an objective view it becomes clear that there are huge issues perceived by users with each OS X release as long as there has been OS X. There really isn't anything new since 10.0 was released. The only thing that is different is the amount of huge features we get. It used to be quite a lot before 10.6 but since that release they went to a smaller set of changes but they also went to a smaller release period (1 year vs 2 years) which balances things out (more features in more time vs less features in less time).
iOS being more profitable isn't strange if you look at the statistics. There is a worldwide decline in desktop and notebook computers for years. Apple is about the only manufacturer which isn't hit that much by it. That decline caused HP to (publicly) consider selling off its entire PC division. Also the main reason why IBM sold off its PC and why Sony did the same thing. Tablets are now also on a decline. Smartphones and smartwatches seem to be the devices that are profitable (the entire Internet of Things and Quantified Self). Not quite sure if it is sad or not, there are some great new things out there and computing is becoming more personal (as in having it with you wherever you go). Privacy and security would be the primary concerns with these new developments.
Last edited:
Oh really? What was the new version of Windows they released in 2014? I must have missed it...
Oh really? What was the new version of Windows they released in 2014? I must have missed it...
The Windows 8.1 Update released in April.
Windows 8.1 Update
I must have missed it...
Guess you did...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-8-Windows-Phone-8-Windows-Blue-Surface-Foxconn,19382.html
http://au.ign.com/articles/2012/11/28/microsoft-to-push-yearly-os-updates-with-windows-blue
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/windows-blue-confirmed-as-microsoft-hints-at-yearly-updates/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/28/3693368/windows-blue-update-low-cost
Edit: