Well, well, well... 10.2 will rear it's head at WWDC

The real question is will their be a Mac OS 11. It just doesnt really seem to fit, the wording doesnt flow. I think that Apple will continue using the OS X title for a long time, theirfore it would make it hard for Apple to lable this update 10.5 after only a little over a year has past. My guess is that OS X is the title and every major upgrade will se .X lable, for instance 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5...., this will take us a long ways into the future, but I have a feeling the OS X title is here to stay, but hell I could be wrong.
 
10.1 in 2001
10.2 in 2002
10.3 in 2003
10.4 in 2004
10.5 in 2005
10.6 in 2006
10.7 in 2007
10.8 in 2008
10.9 in 2009

Then by 2010, who knows what we'll have. I'm sure we'll have some kickass hardware that'll be able to run whatever grows off of OS X by then.
 
Originally posted by serpicolugnut
Apple can't sell an upgrade based on bug fixes, optimizations and small tweaks for $99-129. It wouldn't sell. The OS X faithful would revolt, and Apple would have a PR fiasco on their hands.
Click to expand...

What do you mean exactly? It's been more than a year since the last full upgrade (10.0). And Apple *did* charge for Mac OS 8.5 for example, which didn't really have that many new features added compared to 8.1. I really, really think it's strange how everyone wants everything for free. I don't understand that.

The price of Mac OS 9 (new features? a crappy version of multiple users and - oooh! - speech recognition login...) was 99$, right?

Mac OS X 10.0, including a full Mac OS 9.1, cost 129$.

If I were Apple - and I think Apple is in business to make some money, too, I'd say:

Mac OS X 10.2 or 10.5 (without any Classic version of Mac OS): 99$.

A fair price for a full upgrade, isn't it? 10.1 wasn't a bug fix release, it was a FULL release offered for free. 10.2 will be a FULL release. I can understand to some extent that free is better than 99$ for most people. But really: Do you think Mac OS X 10.1 was a good release? I do. I love Mac OS 10.1. (It's what 10 should've been.) Thus I'll love to pay for 10.2. 99$ or even 129$ is already very, very cheap. Look at the cost of Windows XP Professional edition. Look at any other operating system sold. Even a Linux distribution costs some money.
 
I don't think Apple would get away with yearly $100 upgrades. 10.1 was what 10.0 should have been? No, I don't think so. 10.2 will be what 10.0 should have been if the rumors are true.

People just won't pay $100 A YEAR after they spend thousands in Apple hardware. People will start doing the same thing that happens to Microsoft OSes: warezing them. If they do feel the need to charge, it shouldn't be over $20. People who buy $2,000+ systems just won't keep paying! It's starting to sound as bad as .Net!
 
Originally posted by alexrd


Well... fine except for the 9.0 "Mysterious total data loss issue." But of course that was fixed in 9.0.1 (if you were really quick) and 9.0.2 for the rest of the world, so it doesn't really negate your point, but saying 9.0 was fine is a little funny if you recall all those people whose drives were wiped clean...

L8r,
-alex.
Click to expand...

I believe you are confusing the data loss issue with Mac OS 8.5. I never heard anything about data loss with installing Mac OS 9.0, and I, for one, would've heard about it.

Originally posted by Koelling
Unfortunately, they took our rumors section so this is the one and only place to speculate.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say here was that it's not going to be useful at all to speculate any longer. Like I said twice already, OS X is a new operating system and with it could come a new upgrade cycle/pricing system. So until we go through a complete upgrade cycle (i.e.: get OS X 11.0 on our hands, assuming that's what the next major release after this major release will be called), we can't really reliably say what Apple will do. Sure, speculate all you want, but that's one place that I doubt Apple will listen unless it gets a strong, unified reaction – and based on the opinions here, that's not what Apple's going to get whatever they charge for OS X 10.2.
 
I am going to continue speculating, because that's the point of this entire board! ;) Can you say "Mac News & Rumors Discussion"?

Anyway, sign me up for expecting a fee-based upgrade. 10.2 or 10.5 or whatever they call it will be loaded with "features" and marketed in such a way (anyone remember the moronic Sherlock hype?) to justify the price tag. I will pay without hesitation even at full price and I think everyone here will do the same as much as we may gripe. Junkies are junkies.
 
I'm interested in 10.2 just because of the progression... but speculating about it isn't all that interesting. We've all read the news... some of us have been using the builds... what's going to happen is pretty well set. Small tweaks... spring loaded folders... etc. It'll be cool, but whatever.

Some of you may remember the Register's article about old BeOS dudes Pavel Cisler and Dom Giampaolo are now working for Apple in their respective specialties (the Finder (tracker) and filesystem (bfs), respectively).

With Microsoft rolling out their version of a database as a filesystem towards the end of the year... this should be frickin' cool. It almost looks like the filesystem dreams of ditching HFS+ are more of an eventuality than a pipe dream... mmmmmm.... packages and user defineable filesystem fields.... oh baby...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24648.html
 
Anyone wanna give a primer on the significance of a database for a filesystem? thanks!
 
yes. for example, e-mail was file based on BeOS. You could handle them like files. With multiple metadata. Sort by 'from', for example. Very simple, very handy. This was also extendible. Having the database for a filesystem would allow you basically just drop stuff wherever you want and find the stuff very, very fast by several criteria which you can define on your own.

the question remains whether that's feasible with decent speed. MS will try, and maybe they'll fail with the first attempt. History shows that failures of MS are swallowed easily, though.

But what Mac OS X really is missing file system wise is a real journaling file system. would prevent some data loss. afaik they're on that case, though.
 
Surely what Apple needs for OS X is 2d Hardware rendering. Am I wrong in saying that all the quartz rendering is handled by the CPU?


I'm sure it's something like that. Is there no way Apple could implement a way for the Gfx card to take the strain off of the GUI?

With new imacs now shipping with a Geforce 2 as standard, surely them cards can handle drawing windows, etc, etc...

Surely this will speed up the responsiveness no end.

This is coming from a new Mac convert, i've just bought an iMac and window resizing and scrolling is pretty dire. :(
 
I'm sure it's something like that. Is there no way Apple could implement a way for the Gfx card to take the strain off of the GUI?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Apple is fully aware of the hit that the processor it taking from all that Quartz rendering and will find a way to offload that to the graphics card.

Will that be in 10.2? 10.3? who knows, but it's gotta happen eventually.. if they keep adding features then they're gonna have to find a way to keep the system performing well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top