OS X Mountain Lion Out Tomorrow 230
Apple revealed in its third quarter earnings release today that OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion will be released tomorrow, July 25th. "As a quick recap, the $19.99 software update brings a handful of iOS features to Macs, including the notes and reminders apps. It adds a few other things, like Twitter integration, Apple's Game Center and iMessage services. There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed." The release also noted that iOS 6 will be coming out this fall, and that the company sold 17 million iPads in the third quarter, up 84% from sales in the third quarter of last year.
Wifi (Score:5, Funny)
Will they finally fix their WiFi woes?? My brand new macbook pro drops connections more than I drop the end of
Re:Wifi (Score:4, Funny)
get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.
The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.
Re: (Score:3)
get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.
The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.
No, for me at least, it's definitely failing inside the operating system (which ATM is still 10.6).
For starters I've used three different types of Wifi module on this mac mini, and as many different brands of AP. I'm currently using an Airport Express as the access point, and for a long time I ran both the internal wireless and an external USB dongle on the mac to try and give me some failover capability.
What always happens is that the Wifi stack reports station disconnection "due to inactivity", which is
Re: (Score:2)
If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone. I've got a mini (on 10.6) that has happily sat beside my TV for something like five years now, connected through wifi. I've never noticed a problem with it. The bluetooth was flakey for a while after I replaced the hard drive in it, but after opening it up again and making sure the antenna was well connected it seems to be fine.
It seems like you have some kind of interaction happening between two or more of the hardware, OS, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wifi (Score:5, Insightful)
After upgrading to Lion, my 2008 iMac suddenly started dropping the wifi connection periodically, while my 2010 MacBook Air is rock stable. Anyhow, that's my experience. Anyhow, we'll need a bigger sample in order to determine if Macs really have more wifi-issues than Windows computers. Statistics matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is right up there with turn portfast on for STP routers where Mac's plug in, don't have a .local AD domain, and expect more chatter on your network than a "normal" PC.
1) STP and portfast are switch settings, not router. STP prevents switching loops on a local segment; a router would have no need for that, since each of its interfaces will be on a separate segment and routing protocols are designed to prevent loops.
2) Whether or not portfast is set should have no impact on your network connectivity, except for a slight delay (~10-30 seconds) on initial plug-in. After that it will work fine, and IIRC unix-y OSes like OSX tend to keep trying DHCP quite a while before givi
Re:Wifi (Score:4, Informative)
Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.
I wasn't very specific in my original post, but there are known issues with Apple's 802.1x authenticator code. WPA Enterprise is less commonly used with Macs than consumer-level wifi, which is probably why our experiences are so different. For what it's worth, I've never had a problem using wifi anywhere where there was WEP/WPA-PSK security (or no security). I'm perfectly happy with the MBP I use for work, as are thousands of others who use them at my company. And the WPA supplicant in Lion works better than SL, but isn't quite 100% yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MOUNTAIN LION IS OUT?! (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't even suspect it had teh gay!
Re: (Score:2)
Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.
That's the exact opposite of my experience, where I've had no trouble passing traffic on an overloaded conference network where some nearby non-Apple weren't even able to get a DHCP lease. In my office environment, I can't recall ever hearing a Mac user complaining about Wi-Fi issues where it didn't turn out to be an actual network outage. I'm not saying that Macs are magic or have some special hardware that no one else in the world gets to use, but I'll assert that they're solid machines with good hardware
Re: (Score:2)
Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.
Ahahahahahaha, yeh... No.
Macs are notoriously good at just working on wireless, something that microsoft didn't get sorted for a long time in windows due to hundreds of different bits of hardware, each with its own crappy driver and stupid branded control centre to connect.
Re: (Score:2)
Dont need to. I know a LOT of people with mac's and they dont have ANY problems. most of the time it is a crap access point and you will find that Windows people are having the same problems. If I listened to the "internet" then all Segate Momentus XT drives were crap. less than 2% had problems yet that 2% was 100% of the noise screaming about the problems with OSX and Macbook Compatibility.
Re: (Score:2)
It happened to me. One of the numerous MacBook I had over the years would just not connect to channel 11. Worked flawlessly with other channels, but not with 11. The "genius" fix was to set my access point to another channel. Too bad the airport authorities were not so keen on doing the same. Anyway, hardware and/or software issues that are never resolved are very common on mac models, if you are unlucky, and don't hope on the genius to help you if it is expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.
The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.
Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.
Horse crap. This isn't Mac OS 9 and earlier. Macs are ten times easier to set up wireless than Windows. Then again, the Apple Base Station Extreme is a dream compared to the 3rd party crap on the market, for Linux, FreeBSD and OS X. The only one that's a pain in the ass is the XP laptop.
Re:Wifi (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you telling me the GP paid a not-insignificant markup for a luxury, premium laptop which proponents will consistently reiterate is made of superior parts and Just Works(c), and it's flawed?
In related news, there's a BMW repair shop near my house. There's a difference between "well made" and "magically impervious to any kind of damage or defect imaginable".
Re: (Score:2)
No problem here. My netbook can connect to networks under OSX without any problem. Funny thing is sometimes XP has issues connecting to the same network, on the same hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
We keep replacing our desktop environment every once in a while, now recently with Unity/GNOME3. Have we actually gone anywhere? At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago.
Can the Linux desktop survive that long?
Re: (Score:3)
X is almost that old. It started in 1984.
You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but how many share your choice of DE?
I guess we're talking twm or similar.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not know and I do not care. I would assume plenty though, has its own version of ubuntu.
XFCE if you really care.
Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
So's mine, even though it basically is OSX.
Ever since about 1989 or so, my favorite GUI environment has been NeXTstep. My employer got prerelease access (since we're Carnegie Mellon, where the Mach kernel came from), and it's essentially been my favorite desktop environment since version 0.8 or so, back when I taught myself Objective-C programming on it.
I pretty much hated "classic" MacOS and didn't like most Apple products except HyperCard and the Newton, right up until Apple required NeXT. So much of what was great back then is still here. I wish they'd managed to keep the old application remote display mechanism (NXHOST =~ DISPLAY), but the unreasonably-licensed Adobe Display PostScript pretty much put an end to that... alas.
If Apple screws it up too much (and signs are that they might, though I don't think they have yet), well, I'll probably end up switching to Ubuntu with GNUstep.
Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (Score:5, Informative)
Have we actually gone anywhere?
Yeah. When I started using Linux in 1995 it was rather challenging to get X to run at all. To get a good functioning X people often had to buy a commercial X server. There were 0 GUIs. Microsoft announced they would not be porting their IE for Unix to Linux and people were upset. There were real questions as to why would anyone use Linux when for not much more money you could get an SGI or Sun workstation, there were also alternatives like SCO on x86 and AIX.
Today there exist 2 major GUIs with large suites of applications. There exists a full office productivity suite which is capable of stealing market share from Microsoft Office, on the Windows platform. With the exception of Trident all the major browser engines are either open source of available for LInux. The server space is dominated by Linux and Linux desktops play an important role in server development. SGI, Sun and SCO are all dead, AIX is weak. No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux. The Linux kernel is arguably the most advanced kernel available.
That's real progress. Maybe not enough to beat Windows and OSX but there is no question there has been progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. I had no problems with X11R5 on linux in 1994-1995. in fact... yggdrasil had everything you needed. you did need a decent video card, and the bigest annoyance was that I could not afford a 17" monitor to run at 1024X768 that most apps and GUI's wanted. Again you mention there were 0 GUI's. TCL/TK was alive and well. and FVWM was a fine window manager back then in 1995...
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Lumpy.
You might have been saved by being at 640x480. Often the higher video resolutions had chip specific settings but VGA was a standard.
There were plenty of window managers. I used (and still often use) WindowMaker. TK is a graphical toolkit, so was Motif. But a GUI is much more.
-- Consistent Policy
-- Higher level widgets
-- An object broker
-- Sound support
-- desktop applications
Re: (Score:2)
My impression was there was huge progress from 1995 to (say) 2005ish. But after that things slowed. Essentially the Linux desktop was good enough, but Linux as a platform is now held back by other non-technical things: the kernel "no ABI" philosophy, the fragmented distributions, Windows is now also "good enough", specific applications that businesses rely on (Office, Photoshop, etc) even if there are equivalents.
Re: (Score:3)
No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux.
That's a big surprise to those of us who bought a Mac so we could have a nice Unix workstation.
I can run a Linux desktop (or a thousand, if you want me to) but I switched so that I could stop messing around with my desktop and spend my time using it.
Re: (Score:2)
I run a Mac too. But there is no question it is an inferior Unix to Linux. When I need to Unix stuff, and not desktop productivity stuff I use Linux. And I believe that's generally the case. Look at how lightly supported Macports is.
Re: (Score:3)
I found Homebrew to cover almost everything Unixy I need on a regular basis. I run plenty of Unix daemon - PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. - on my laptop on a regular basis, and they do about as well as I'd expect them to on any laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
Homebrew is even more meager in its offerings. Postgres, Apache... run well on Windows. I understand you are getting what you want from Mac, I am too most of the time. But that's different than saying Macs are remotely comparable to Linux boxes when it comes to the depth of Unix software.
Re: (Score:2)
No they weren't. In 1994 when /.'s parent company got into the Linux workstation business a good Sun ultra was $7k, though you could get the bottom line for $4,295. Used Indigos were coming down to the $2k range. The Indy was out. The spread was between the $2k x86 desktop and the $7k low end workstation.
And no, they were never 10x the price of comparable PC hardware. PC wasn't comparable in 1995. You were getting a much worse system for a lot less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Well 95 you could pick if you were lucky. Otherwise you had to try and find the right settings in a how-to. Those days were tough. But as I see it, probing now works that time in the between was the pain for the gain.
I just switched to a retina so my PPC apps are gone. Going to be on 10.8 soon but I just spent the last month on 10.7. I rather like the Virtual Desktops with a trackpad. I'm a fan of Mission Control, best virtual desktop setup I've ever used. I only wish that
a) I could name them
b) Th
Re: (Score:2)
"At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago."
In what ways is it "very similar"? Oh yeah, it's got a menu bar across the top of the screen. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
I went the other way. Bought a Macbook air and had to install linux. Even after getting FFM to work using a pay for product and installing fink and iterm2 it was still a pain in the ass. I could never get the 10 key input working in vim on any server I connected to, lack of X style highlighting and middle click paste, and so on.
To each his own.
iPad sales up 84% (Score:2)
Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?
Google and Amazon selling tablets at cost (Score:2)
iPad sales up 84%. Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?
You can't look at iPad sales in isolation. You have to also look at how the tablet market has grown year-over-year. For example if the tablet market is growing at a faster rate then Apple would be "falling behind". That is what happened with respect to personal computers back in the day. Apple had a huge share of the early adopters but as the rest of the population entered the personal computer market they chose IBM compatibles. Apple sold more computer each year as their market shrunk. With google and amaz
Re: (Score:2)
"With google and amazon selling tablets at cost"
I don't think Apple really cares if Google and Amazon are paying people (or nearly so) to take their tablets. Dominant marketshare is only really critical if you intend to do evil things with it a la Microsoft.
Can't complain... (Score:2)
What I am going to be curious about is how the GateKeeper signed executable functionality will help in the wild against Trojans.
Assuming users are smart enough to not turn it off because a Web ad for a "pr0n viewer" or a free iPad told them to.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't, and never will. But it is something. And with enough somethings the sum of somethings may become fairly large.
Re:Can't complain... (Score:5, Informative)
GateKeeper eh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Its still rather hard to do since OSX is a dev machine. Macports needs to keep working. But I assume the barriers are high enough that this is a useful out.
On the commercial side: the combination of pushing customers to the App Store and the App Store imposing restrictions is starting to change the software culture. On several products I buy the App Store version and the downloadable versions are different. I'd imagine those companies are going to be switching to App Store only within a few yea
Re:GateKeeper eh (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to install and use software outside of the Mac App Store, it's my opinion that an OS X "walled garden" is a hugely excellent feature for the majority of users.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to buy software from a third party without giving Apple 30% by going through the Mac App Store....
FTFY
Re:GateKeeper eh (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three settings to Gatekeeper.
First is the walled garden - Mac App Store apps *only*.
Second is the default secure - Mac App Store apps AND verified developer ID signed apps. The latter is a program where developers buy a signing cert from Apple, then the developer can sign anything with it. Just like the current code signing certificate Microsoft has, except the OS enforces the signature.
Third is the "full open" mode - any valid executable can run. Developers probably will use this mode to avoid needing to get a signing certificate (and we'd hope developers are smart enough to not click on any random executable that comes their way...).
The second is default because there are a whole class of programs that cannot work under the Mac App Store. First - the Mac App Store has a limit of $999.99 as the maximum price - some programs cost more than that (e.g., AutoCAD 2012 vs. AutoCAD 2012LE (which IS on the Mac App Store)). Second - big names don't want to be subject to the Mac App Store terms - they want to do things their own way. You know, a little company called Adobe who makes a little-used program call Photoshop. Or a tiny Washington-based company who makes an insignificant productivity suite they called Office.
Finally, another reason is utilities - disk defragmenters, disk repair tools, data recovery suites, even things like hardware drivers cannot be done via the Mac App Store - they must be distributed separately.
Hell, developers cannot distribute a DEMO version of their app via Mac App Store - they have to host those themselves.
I think for a good 60% of users, the Mac App Store is all they need. For another 35% the default setting is perfect, and the last 5% are hopefully smart enough to be the ones to turn it off completely and not do stupid things.
As for the signing requirement - well, a developer can't sign any old binary as their name is attached to it. If they sign some malware, it won't be long until said certificate is revoked by Apple and all apps signed by that developer stop working (until overridden by the last option, or they approve the app again). So developers have an interest in not signing everything.
Heck, Firefox did the smart thing and got TWO certificates - release builds are signed with one, and nightly builds and such are auto-signed with the other. This prevents the revokation of one key from disrupting firefox development.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX
Walled garden can be nice. I had a fox regularly coming into my garden shitting on the grass. It stinks. Badly. Didn't quite need to put a wall around the garden, put some spikes on top of the bit of fence that the fox or foxes used.
You can choose three settings: 1. Allow only apps from the App Store (known maker, vetted to some degree). 2. Allow only signed apps (maker of the app is known to Apple). 3. Allow anything. Signed apps also have the advantage that the OS knows when the app is upgraded that th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An immune system is more like anti-virus software that updates its definitions automatically. There are some nasty viruses that can hide from it or disable it, but most get dealt with soon enough, you may have some down time while that happens though.
Out of cats (Score:4, Funny)
What will they name releases when they run out of cats? I mean, "10.10 Housecat" just doesn't sound like a product people would be enthusiastic about...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With their new naming strategy it's likely to be *The New OS X*
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only so bitter as my 2006 Mac Pro won't be supported. Boo. Hiss.
Re: (Score:2)
What will they name releases when they run out of cats?
Slang terms for portions of the female anatomy.
Duh.
Re:Out of cats (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno, but for the 40th Anniversary of Apple (2016) I'm betting they put out a Cougar release.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll seal off their walled garden, turn it into a hellhole, and change their naming scheme to snakes.
Remember the biblical story about the snake and the apple?
Re: (Score:2)
Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
I "upgraded" from Snow Leopard to Lion at the urging of a friend who had it already and
that upgrade has been an unmitigated disaster. I then spent many hours getting things
which had "just worked" working again. The loss of productivity which resulted was significant.
Snow Leopard was stable, and did everything I needed to do.
Lion includes a bunch of iOS mimicry which is a stupid mistake and which makes me
regret being an Apple user because it feels like I have been duped into thinking I was
buying great design
Re: (Score:2)
Why upgrade? Only do it when needed. Why not do a clean install instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Tim Cook is going to be famous for leading Apple into the abyss.
I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I switched from Linux to Mac in 2006 because I was starting grad school and needed a *nix that Just Works. I've been a happy user, but Lion has been finicky, and the new hardware makes me cringe. I am now working my way back to Ubuntu. The only thing holding me back from using Ubuntu exclusively is that I need my EVE Online fixes, and getting the latest release working on WINE can be interesting.
But
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could just put Win7 on it and be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of which OS you are upgrading you should always make a backup first so you have a fallback if it all ends in pain.
Kerberized NFSv4 (Score:2)
Someone who is testing says that they've finally implemented it. I'm still skeptical.
Staying away (Score:2)
I have a MacBook Pro 5.2 running 10.6.8. So far I have luckily stayed away from "upgrades" to later OS X flavors.
My Mom tried upgrading to Lion with her iMac and lost a lot of functionality, then limped to experts with a semi trashed system trying to roll back to use the applications that used to work.
Since Lion and Mountain Lion sound like totally stupid mobile OS trappings I have no idea why I should even consider upgrading to Mountain Lion. Which is too bad since I have long wanted more advanced technolo
Support life? (Score:3)
I see a lot of comments asking "Why upgrade?" or not to bother if what you are currently running is working for you. What about security patches and support? I've searched all over the place and, so far, haven't been able to find any clear statement about when Apple stops support for a particular version of OS X. The "word of mouth" answer seems to be only the current release and one version prior are supported with patches and security fixes. It seems a bit irresponsible to drop support for an OS without letting your customers know that they're system is no longer being updated to protect against the various vulnerabilities that can be exploited.
Re: (Score:3)
designed to fend off malware
Why would you need this on a Mac?
to um...fend off the malware?
Seriously dude, did you even read what you just wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because it *fends* the, off.
Didn't you pay attention?
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!
Because the system is designed to fend off malware perhaps? ;-)
Year of the Linux desktop (Score:2)
Designed to fend off malware. Why would you need this on a Mac?
Because of users. When the year of the Linux desktop arrives Linux will need to do the same thing. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine. That's why it's "needed".
Re:designed to fend off malware (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine.
If you don't like it, uncheck the box and install anything you wish. That's what I'll be doing.
For the typical home user, though, I think it's a reasonable limitation that's not likely to impact what they can do *at all*.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a setting that you control and can override on a per-app level.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a checkbox in System Prefs to turn it off. Or if you control click on the app and select open it will launch (and white list for future launches).
It is really so people don't double click an app that has an icon that looks like a MP3. Or maybe they won't launch what looks like PhotoShop, but isn't. If it gets enough adoption from 3rd parties I can see it being a huge help to the average user. If it gets low adoption it'll be more useful for folks that really know what is going on.
Re: (Score:3)
By the time Mountain Lion launches, it will have been a few days over a year since the previous major release. Hardly 10 minute updates. Plus, it's rare that you meet someone who is aware and legitimately cares about a difference between Chrome version X and Chrome version X+1. In contrast, Apple added a few hundred new features, a few of which people have been requesting for years.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's so restrictive to have the choice of what sources you want to trust for installing software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Optionally restricting the OS to running only signed binaries, and checking certificates haven't been revoked is ridiculous? What fantasy land do you live in?
Re: (Score:3)
Is this anything like Gatekeeper from The Net [wikipedia.org]?
If so, stay away! ;)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it will be called "The New OS X".
Re: (Score:2)
Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.?
Probably. It's not as if there's some Iron Law that some particular component or components of a version ID are limited to one digit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they have made their decision. They believe the desktop form factor and the tablet / phone form factor are fundamentally different and will stay different. The two can borrow for one another but they should have different functions and thus different types of applications. Microsoft is choosing an opposite approach. Consumers are going to get a real choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought FTFF was to just remove the notion of files altogether and replace it with Launchpad.
Re: (Score:2)
And do something with the way keyboard shortcuts are handled. The inconsistent behavior that is the mark of OS-X is ruining productivity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Assuming regularly distributed birthdays, since AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to birth date.
AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to slashdot readership either...
Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P (Score:4, Informative)
The machine is 64 bit but some components aren't.
Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P (Score:5, Insightful)
See, here's the thing you're missing. You have a fully functional machine which is running an OS more than 5 years newer than it, and it's doing it just fine. Lion will continue to work on it and be patched for the foreseeable future, and most software will run on it as well. What obligation does Apple have towards you? Did they sell you a machine that promised more than 5 years of updates? Or did they promise EFI64, which is what's needed to boot ML? (hint: they didn't [wikipedia.org]). They sold you a 64-bit workstation, and you got a 64-bit workstation, and you've had no trouble upgrading the OS twice.
Via hacks and other messy stuff, you might be able to get it to work, and I expect directions will be available shortly and relatively straightforward, but it's hard to blame Apple for not wanting to mess up the experience. They seem happy to allow "hacks" to extend their product's functionality, but they're not really the kind of company to give you enough rope to hang yourself with, which is how they keep their reputation that anything "Apple-sanctioned" "just works"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't bought anything from Apple in 5+ years, why should they care about you?
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite an attitude. What have you done for me lately?
Re: (Score:3)
That's quite an attitude. What have you done for me lately?
Not a damned thing. Which is why I don't feel bad about you not doing anything for me.
Re: (Score:2)
iPad, several iPhones, laptops, software and several family members and friends who did likewise.
And they all work as described when you bought them? I'm sensing a lot of butthurt for a product that has worked for five years. That has been updated for five years. That presumably will work as it currently does for another five years.
Re: (Score:2)
If you strip out the broken-hearted fanboy stuff, there's a perfectly rational letter in there explaining how his business needs aren't being met by their current product offerings, and that lack of software support for capable hardware is driving him to migrate to another platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple must think people are really too stupid to know where this is going.
And they're probably right about that. On the other hand, people buy Nintendos, X-boxes, Roku boxes, etc all the time without batting an eyelash, so it's more likely that the people who know where this is going don't really care, or think it is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Bare bones how? Users can upgrade ALL THE WAY FROM XP to Windows 8 Pro for $40. That's a $40 upgrade from an OS released in 2001 (around the same time as OSX 10.0, in fact).
When I tried to get a Macbook with OSX 10.3 upgraded to 10.6, the "genius" at the Apple store actually said "oh, we don't support that, but you may be able to find an old version of 10.4 on the Internet, and then we can sell you the 10.5 and 10.6 upgrades". How nice of them.