Mac os 10.2
- Thread starter Julesâ¢
- Start date
symphonix
Scratch & Sniff Committee
Ahh, yes, 10.1. All I had to do was pop into my local Apple store for a free upgrade and to chat up the girl who works there. 
Its not a bad deal. We get free upgrades, Apple gets people into their stores.
And of course, you can order it posted to you, or download it. Who could complain?
Its not a bad deal. We get free upgrades, Apple gets people into their stores.
And of course, you can order it posted to you, or download it. Who could complain?
Dak RIT
Missing Intelligence
A little bonus for you... Apple has recently admitted it is strongly considering expanding its line of Apple Stores to Europe (as early as Q3 2002)!
Apple has honestly viewed Europe as its 2nd or 3rd priority in the past, although now that it is beginning to really solidify itself and grow in the US, it's looking to expand. It's also seen very positive growth in Europe recently and is working hard to improve its offerings there.
Cheers,
Dak
Apple has honestly viewed Europe as its 2nd or 3rd priority in the past, although now that it is beginning to really solidify itself and grow in the US, it's looking to expand. It's also seen very positive growth in Europe recently and is working hard to improve its offerings there.
Cheers,
Dak
martijnvandijk
Registered
DAK RIT, If this is really true I am totally excited
googolplex
jeff.hume.ca
where did you hear that??? Why dont they open some up in Canada. Comon toronto! Canada really needs a good mac store. Our CompUSA equivilent equivilent, Future Shop, SUCKS! They usually carry only one mac and its usually old and its usually broken. One would be great in the eaton centre downtown here or something.
sheepguy42
AFOL
We were NOT able to download it. Unless that is something that happened over a MONTH after the update was available! That was the problem everyone had, except me: I have 56k modem at home, and the best I can do @ school is download to 100M Zip and pray... so I was willing to order. I have no local Apple Venue, I don't care what Apple says, Doylestown is NOT local and I can't get there easily anyway.
sheepguy42
AFOL
Not to upgrade from 10.0.4 to 10.1, Apple made us all get discs for it 'cause it was so big (hence symphonix's chatting up a girl at his Apple store to get it). After that 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 (and I assume 10.1.3 etc..) are free to download thru the updater, it's just that symphonix ended his post with:
where the "download it" part is not true for 10.0.x => 10.1
Apple will have every right to charge *fully* for 10.2 or at least more than what 10.1 was for 10.0 owners (free). It'll be like 8.5 or 9.0. Or like 10.0 for that matter. That's why I still believe it'll be called 10.5 at the end (8.2 was renamed 8.5, 8.7 was renamed 9.0 before marketing the system just so they could charge money). It gave me a nice chance to give Apple some money when I didn't need to upgrade my hardware system. Isn't that the best reason why Apple is a better company than MS? I don't know many people who would do them such a favour.
simX
Unofficial Mac Genius
As much as like OS X as it is, I don't think that Apple can charge even for this 10.2 or 10.5 update (whichever it is). Why? I'll explain.
I pay for operating system upgrades because they give me more features. Did Mac OS X (10.0) give me more features when I bought it? Sure it did, but it went back on so many others.
Even OS X 10.1.2 lacks many features of OS 9. Here, I'll list a few:
spring-loaded folders
RAM disk
USB printer sharing
energy saver auto startup/shutdown/sleep
built-in theme support (yeah, I know there was a dearth of OS 9 themes, but there was still this functionality!)
telling the user the size of all the files in the trash when emptying (minor)
folder action scripts
installing only SELECT parts of the system
true location manager (managing system volume as well as other misc settings)
I'm sure there are things that I have left out. But my point is this: I paid my $129 for the modern memory management, the stability, the command line, and the other new features to Mac OS X. I'm not going to pay another $129 or $99 to get back the old features from OS 9 -- or at least I'll seriously complain.
I pay for operating system upgrades because they give me more features. Did Mac OS X (10.0) give me more features when I bought it? Sure it did, but it went back on so many others.
Even OS X 10.1.2 lacks many features of OS 9. Here, I'll list a few:
spring-loaded folders
RAM disk
USB printer sharing
energy saver auto startup/shutdown/sleep
built-in theme support (yeah, I know there was a dearth of OS 9 themes, but there was still this functionality!)
telling the user the size of all the files in the trash when emptying (minor)
folder action scripts
installing only SELECT parts of the system
true location manager (managing system volume as well as other misc settings)
I'm sure there are things that I have left out. But my point is this: I paid my $129 for the modern memory management, the stability, the command line, and the other new features to Mac OS X. I'm not going to pay another $129 or $99 to get back the old features from OS 9 -- or at least I'll seriously complain.
my suggestion or thought was not based on angry users but on basic financial common sense. Mac OS 8.5 also didn't give you that many new features over 8.1, or did it? What about Mac OS 9 to 8.6? Yeah, multiple-users, a technology they killed before (At Ease) and only implemented half-heartedly into 9. So basically I think you might be right to be angry, but it won't change anything. And think of the stuff they put out for free inbetween, like iTunes 2, iPhoto... You could say they're not part of the OS, and you're right, but the OS should be improved in three ways to allow charge of money:
1.) Stability/Security
2.) Speed
3.) Interface enhancements
And 10.2 or 10.5 will bring news in all of those respects. (Yeah and 'MiniFinder' was no longer part in System 7!!!) (And floppy drives gone since the iMac!!!)
Mac OS 8.5 also didn't give you that many new features over 8.1, or did it? What about Mac OS 9 to 8.6? Yeah, multiple-users, a technology they killed before (At Ease) and only implemented half-heartedly into 9. So basically I think you might be right to be angry, but it won't change anything. And think of the stuff they put out for free inbetween, like iTunes 2, iPhoto... You could say they're not part of the OS, and you're right, but the OS should be improved in three ways to allow charge of money:1.) Stability/Security
2.) Speed
3.) Interface enhancements
And 10.2 or 10.5 will bring news in all of those respects. (Yeah and 'MiniFinder' was no longer part in System 7!!!)
(And floppy drives gone since the iMac!!!)
wtmcgee
Registered
honestly, it all comes down to features/enhancements.... if its WORTH the price to upgrade, i have no problem paying for it. if they're just looking to get another revenue stream out of a relatively minor bugfix release, then i will be angry. basically, i've always been one to pay if it's worth paying for.....
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
The thing is, Apple did try to take advantage of the 10.1 Big Honkin' Update issue to make a little bank on it.
In reply to simX, you have some valid points, but a couple of those you mentioned are not available due to technical reasons. RAM Disks are tricky to efficiently implement with the type of VM-always-on paged memory management now used. It can be done, but you either lose out on performance elsewhere in the system, or your lose out on the boost it gives you. Apple programmers have to work that one out fairly carefully. Maybe they could take a clue or two from the 3rd party *nix programmers that took a stab at it and see how they tried to do it, and how successful they were.
The issue of installing selective parts is a valid one, but there are some issues there over inter-connectivity, and predicting future hardware additions. Unless you want to start going through the process of installing drivers for every new piece of hardware you install, the kexts should remain where they are. If you try to remove frameworks, what happens to the apps that use em? If you try to remove the core set of unix apps X installs, what happens the parts of the system that needs them? Before Apple can truly give REAL customizable system install options, they need to find a way around this problem, and I hope that an 'Add New Hardware Wizard' and whatnot IS NOT THE ANSWER. I really hate having to slap the Windows CD in for trival drivers, and would gladly throw a few MB away to not deal with it.
I agree the issues you mentioned HAVE to be resolved, but this is a new environment, and requires new ways of doing the same things we used to take for granted in some cases (spring-loaded folders isn't one of these cases, and should have been implemented by now in my mind, even with the column view issue). Not only do we have to worry about keeping functionality, we have to ask HOW we can keep it in a new environment like this one. Afterall, it was the crappy memory manager in Classic MacOS that allowed the RAM Disk to be so easy, since you could turn VM off. It was the kludge of a system folder that kept it mobile and customizable, and unstable.
Let us hope 10.2 makes a step towards a compromise of some sorts, and addresses the issues that can properly be addressed at this time. I seriously doubt 10.2 will be making us shell out any more than they tried taking from us with 10.1, as it seems with the mark of X, development has geared more towards getting everything to a point where they can move forward with something truly new, rather than putting the finishing touches on the initial version of X.
In reply to simX, you have some valid points, but a couple of those you mentioned are not available due to technical reasons. RAM Disks are tricky to efficiently implement with the type of VM-always-on paged memory management now used. It can be done, but you either lose out on performance elsewhere in the system, or your lose out on the boost it gives you. Apple programmers have to work that one out fairly carefully. Maybe they could take a clue or two from the 3rd party *nix programmers that took a stab at it and see how they tried to do it, and how successful they were.
The issue of installing selective parts is a valid one, but there are some issues there over inter-connectivity, and predicting future hardware additions. Unless you want to start going through the process of installing drivers for every new piece of hardware you install, the kexts should remain where they are. If you try to remove frameworks, what happens to the apps that use em? If you try to remove the core set of unix apps X installs, what happens the parts of the system that needs them? Before Apple can truly give REAL customizable system install options, they need to find a way around this problem, and I hope that an 'Add New Hardware Wizard' and whatnot IS NOT THE ANSWER. I really hate having to slap the Windows CD in for trival drivers, and would gladly throw a few MB away to not deal with it.
I agree the issues you mentioned HAVE to be resolved, but this is a new environment, and requires new ways of doing the same things we used to take for granted in some cases (spring-loaded folders isn't one of these cases, and should have been implemented by now in my mind, even with the column view issue). Not only do we have to worry about keeping functionality, we have to ask HOW we can keep it in a new environment like this one. Afterall, it was the crappy memory manager in Classic MacOS that allowed the RAM Disk to be so easy, since you could turn VM off. It was the kludge of a system folder that kept it mobile and customizable, and unstable.
Let us hope 10.2 makes a step towards a compromise of some sorts, and addresses the issues that can properly be addressed at this time. I seriously doubt 10.2 will be making us shell out any more than they tried taking from us with 10.1, as it seems with the mark of X, development has geared more towards getting everything to a point where they can move forward with something truly new, rather than putting the finishing touches on the initial version of X.
Krevinek
Evil PPC Tweaker
Last time *I* checked, those screenshots were from 6B11 (which is floating around the net if you look hard enough if you want to confirm), and 6B11 is from very late 2001 from my figures. We had the leaks start around Christmas, which would make the copyright figures valid.
What we are seeing here is 'old stuff being replayed as new stuff'. Doesn't mean it is bunk.
What we are seeing here is 'old stuff being replayed as new stuff'. Doesn't mean it is bunk.