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
Windows 8.1 Update was released in April 2014 and brought fixes and several new features. It's part of Microsofts annual update strategy.
I think the last significant "entirely new OS" was iOS for the iPod, or outside Apple/üSoft, Android or Chrome. All these OS X updates contain vast quantities of legacy code. 10.9->10.10 is small potatoes, version-wise.
Fine, whatever. It hasn't been marketed as a new OS either. Its an update for Windows 8.1.
Source code for OS X 10.10 but not 10.10.1
Incidentally http://www.opensource.apple.com is still without source code for 10.10.1 I guess that resources are focused on bugs more than publication of code.
Incidentally http://www.opensource.apple.com is still without source code for 10.10.1 I guess that resources are focused on bugs more than publication of code.
Developers who worked on/with those disagree with you on that. Arstechnica has some nice insights and there have been numerous posts by disgruntled Java devs both here and on discussions.apple.com.
Not according to Microsoft. Update 1 (officially known as KB2919355) is a major update and should be considered as a new OS (it doesn't have a lot of changes but the changes it has are substantial). Both 8.1 and 8.1 Update 1 are considered to be Microsofts Snow Leopard. Microsoft did promote it like that as well (not sure if this was limited to Microsoft partners and their larger customers). There is a huge difference between hardware/apps that work on Windows 8, 8.1 and 8.1 Update 1. What used to work fine in 8.1 didn't always work in 8.1 Update 1 . Not very nice if you have to install it within a month in order to be able to receive support and further updates (which Microsoft acknowledged was a bit too short notice and extended the period with a few months to somewhere in June 2014). Update 1 is a mandatory update.
Apple has always been slow in releasing the source code there. In some cases it even took them a year to post. It has been a major nuisance to those who use the open source code. Things have improved to some extent (they are less slow than they used to be but less slow still is slow). At least they still publish open source code.
Those who hate yearly updates...tough luck because almost everything is on a yearly update or quicker (lots of Linux distros are on half yearly updates and there are rolling releases). It's not just Windows and OS X.
I wouldn't mind yearly updates if there weren't so many frustrating bugs. Then spending weeks trying out fixes only to realize that Apple needs to patch it.......and when is that going to be? How many months later? That's the million $ question. Apple never communicates that a fix is coming, just stays silent.
Once bitten, twice shy now and this includes iOS too. I only jumped on board the Apple bandwagon in 2013 after being with MSO for decades. My laptop still has Win 7 on it and I never considered upgrading to Win 8 because I didn't want that horrible Metro mess.
Once bitten, twice shy now and this includes iOS too. I only jumped on board the Apple bandwagon in 2013 after being with MSO for decades. My laptop still has Win 7 on it and I never considered upgrading to Win 8 because I didn't want that horrible Metro mess.
Upgrades and paces of change: Java for Mac, Apple and ZFS, Z-410, ZEVO and beyond
There's Sun (bought by Oracle in 2009), but neither Java nor Oracle is mentioned there. For other readers, that 2011 article (Z-410: How ZFS is slowly making its way to Mac OS X) is a level-headed snapshot of ZFS for Mac OS X around that time.
(I'm well acquainted with that 2011 article, and more; if you'd like to continue the ZFS discussion, please aim for Where is the ZFS?.)
There's Sun (bought by Oracle in 2009), but neither Java nor Oracle is mentioned there. For other readers, that 2011 article (Z-410: How ZFS is slowly making its way to Mac OS X) is a level-headed snapshot of ZFS for Mac OS X around that time.
(I'm well acquainted with that 2011 article, and more; if you'd like to continue the ZFS discussion, please aim for Where is the ZFS?.)
I think the yearly update is putting too much pressure on all the designers. Apple feels it must bring in a large range of 'new' features. Sure it looks good but in reality the software people trying to put out iOS, OS and Apple TV software. Add the sub divisions for each software for Mac Pro, iMacs laptops, then break down to MBP to Air. The same applies to iOS with iPhone, and iPad and break them down.
People know that there is a deadline for the product to be released. Then as they get closer some projects are either removed or put on to the .1 or .2 version. There is always going to be bugs that is a fact of life. If the designers were given more time then they could work on the code to reduce a lot of the bugs and get features to work.
People know that there is a deadline for the product to be released. Then as they get closer some projects are either removed or put on to the .1 or .2 version. There is always going to be bugs that is a fact of life. If the designers were given more time then they could work on the code to reduce a lot of the bugs and get features to work.
Someone posted this blog article earlier regarding the sad state of affair on OS X annual development cycle...
http://www.marco.org/2015/01/04/apple-lost-functional-high-ground
http://www.marco.org/2015/01/04/apple-lost-functional-high-ground
That article is talking about the HFS+ stuff. If you want to know about Java you'll have to look around the forums here, discussions.apple.com and many other Apple/OS X forums. The discussion concerning Java was in the 10.4/10.5/10.6 days. Since Java 7 we have official support from Oracle which is a lot better than what Apple has given us since 10.4.
Do read the update on that article!
Do keep that in mind when you read the original blog entry.
Also keep in mind that Apple is frantic on naming something "a new feature", even simple things like moving files/folders in Finder with cmd-opt-v (when pasting; the opt makes it a move). Not all the new features they mention should be considered that.
Last edited:
I'm familiar enough with the history of Java for Apple operating systems.
Back to your earlier post for a moment; when you wrote
did you simply mean that "No work done on HFS/HFS+" was an example of radio silence for years? Or were you relating the relative lack of work, on the file system, to Oracle?
Apple has changed post-Steve. But then Steve was never going to be able to put another Steve in line for control of Apple (two Steves would have exploded like matter-antimatter). Instead we have Tim Cook who is mostly a corporate hack. Not as bad as Gil Amelio, but someone like John Sculley.
The original 'unwritten contract' between Apple and the end user (in the Steve years) seemed to be this:
-Powerful machines. Seamless software experience - making the interface intuitive yet powerful. Use the newest technology. Hardware and software focused on professionals who make content. (ie Desktop Publishing, Video content creation, music creation, etc.)
New 'post-Steve' contract:
-Add many, many ways to monetize (shake every last dollar, euro, etc.) from the end user via products and services. And then, as a secondary priority, build an operating system that isn't too buggy if you use only email, web, and our monetizing apps and services. And make the OS like using an iphone. Hardware and software focused on people who consume content. (ie. Listen to music, watch movies, play ios games).
I know this is a bit simplistic - but this is how it feels at this point.
The original 'unwritten contract' between Apple and the end user (in the Steve years) seemed to be this:
-Powerful machines. Seamless software experience - making the interface intuitive yet powerful. Use the newest technology. Hardware and software focused on professionals who make content. (ie Desktop Publishing, Video content creation, music creation, etc.)
New 'post-Steve' contract:
-Add many, many ways to monetize (shake every last dollar, euro, etc.) from the end user via products and services. And then, as a secondary priority, build an operating system that isn't too buggy if you use only email, web, and our monetizing apps and services. And make the OS like using an iphone. Hardware and software focused on people who consume content. (ie. Listen to music, watch movies, play ios games).
I know this is a bit simplistic - but this is how it feels at this point.
Java: radio silence for years until Oracle took over.
HFS/HFS+: lack of work (ongoing; Yosemite uses volumes by default but compare the feature set of the lvm to that of any other lvm out there...).
Voted no.
Haven't had any serious issues when 10.10.0 came out, except a few minor bugs and GUI glitches, but that's nothing to **** about... anyway, never had any of these infamous WiFi issues, Safari/Finder crashes and that stuff everyone's been talking about.
So no, Yosemite seemed pretty reliable in my opinion, and way more than Mavericks until 10.9.3.
And seriously. Windows does not run any faster/better/whatever despite it's former four year cycle. So I don't think it would make any differences if Apple did it the same way. But that's just my point of view.
Haven't had any serious issues when 10.10.0 came out, except a few minor bugs and GUI glitches, but that's nothing to **** about... anyway, never had any of these infamous WiFi issues, Safari/Finder crashes and that stuff everyone's been talking about.
So no, Yosemite seemed pretty reliable in my opinion, and way more than Mavericks until 10.9.3.
And seriously. Windows does not run any faster/better/whatever despite it's former four year cycle. So I don't think it would make any differences if Apple did it the same way. But that's just my point of view.
Doesn't break mavericks but with some apps like iworks you get annoying nags to update to the latest version, and then when you try to you get nags saying latest version is only available for yosemite.
OSX should slow the pace of releases and/or the growth of feature creep.
While I've only been using OSX since 10.4.5 (the first Intel build, which didn't get stable till 10.4.7), it seems that the pattern has been:
10.x.0: initial buggy release
10.x.1: +~1 month after initial release; fixes for a small number of 'oh $#!^, how did we miss those!' bugs
10.x.2: +~4 months after initial release; fixes for the biggest bugs, first signs of stability
10.x.3: +~8 months after initial release; fixes for the remaining causes of instability, with OSX becoming a stable system
The issue is not so much the frequency of OSX releases so much as it is that it takes 8 months for each iteration of OSX to evolve into something pretty stable.
In a 2-2.5 year release cycle, 8 months to get it right meant we spent about a quarter to a third of the lifespan of the OS battling instability, but with annual releases, we now have to endure an unstable OS for about two-thirds of the time.
While I've only been using OSX since 10.4.5 (the first Intel build, which didn't get stable till 10.4.7), it seems that the pattern has been:
10.x.0: initial buggy release
10.x.1: +~1 month after initial release; fixes for a small number of 'oh $#!^, how did we miss those!' bugs
10.x.2: +~4 months after initial release; fixes for the biggest bugs, first signs of stability
10.x.3: +~8 months after initial release; fixes for the remaining causes of instability, with OSX becoming a stable system
The issue is not so much the frequency of OSX releases so much as it is that it takes 8 months for each iteration of OSX to evolve into something pretty stable.
In a 2-2.5 year release cycle, 8 months to get it right meant we spent about a quarter to a third of the lifespan of the OS battling instability, but with annual releases, we now have to endure an unstable OS for about two-thirds of the time.
Yes, yes, yes.
I still only use 10.7.5 and one 10.6.5 machine. My wife has Mavericks.
I could sense the wheels were coming off with 10.8 and 10.9 they were gone.
I have talked to several friends who are head of IT at schools and they had so many problems with Yosemite they are can't deploy it at all. They are still having enterprise problems with Mavericks and will not update anything now past 10.7 or 10.8.
Professionally, his reminds me of MSFT in the late 90's. Something bad is happening at Apple in the OSX world and I don't know if they can save it in time. Schools and mid size businesses managed by people I know are actively looking at going back to all MSFT.
It's a shame, because OSX was the best xWin interface over BSD I had ever seen. I am really bummed.
I still only use 10.7.5 and one 10.6.5 machine. My wife has Mavericks.
I could sense the wheels were coming off with 10.8 and 10.9 they were gone.
I have talked to several friends who are head of IT at schools and they had so many problems with Yosemite they are can't deploy it at all. They are still having enterprise problems with Mavericks and will not update anything now past 10.7 or 10.8.
Professionally, his reminds me of MSFT in the late 90's. Something bad is happening at Apple in the OSX world and I don't know if they can save it in time. Schools and mid size businesses managed by people I know are actively looking at going back to all MSFT.
It's a shame, because OSX was the best xWin interface over BSD I had ever seen. I am really bummed.
What does that mean? Do you mean operating system? Are there lots of xWin over BSDs?
IMHO the question is not "too frequent" or "not too frequent" - but rather the fact that this yearly release is driven by marketing rather than by development. A big (if not the biggest) failure as Steve Jobs himself knew too well.
Marketing departments typically don't care much about quality, but mostly about moving boxes and scoring big numbers. And, of course, a Narcissistic Keynote.
The beginning of the end for Apple as I knew it. These days, not a single Apple software is worth using (same goes for the iOS). When I need anything decent, I have to purchase 3rd party apps.
Marketing departments typically don't care much about quality, but mostly about moving boxes and scoring big numbers. And, of course, a Narcissistic Keynote.
The beginning of the end for Apple as I knew it. These days, not a single Apple software is worth using (same goes for the iOS). When I need anything decent, I have to purchase 3rd party apps.
Last edited:
Oh go on. Admittedly Safari isn't the best browser, Mail app is really terrible, iWork is pointless, Java is out of date and even TextEdit is feeble but iPhoto is OK.
If only the underlying OS didn't hang so often I'd be happy. Apparently Mavericks was more reliable than Yosemite but I wouldn't know.