Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51046 > unrolled thread

The Death of 10.8?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 14:08 +0000
    Re: The Death of 10.8? Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 15:53 +0100
      Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:12 +0000
        Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-28 08:34 -0700
          Re: The Death of 10.8? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-28 16:48 +0100
            Re: The Death of 10.8? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-28 16:55 +0100
              Re: The Death of 10.8? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 16:24 +0000
                Re: The Death of 10.8? android <here@there.was> - 2013-10-28 17:33 +0100
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 10:10 -0700
                Re: The Death of 10.8? David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2013-10-28 16:14 -0400
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-29 09:39 +1300
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 14:23 -0700
          Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 15:54 +0000
            Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-28 14:50 -0400
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 19:56 +0100
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-28 15:11 -0400
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-28 21:24 +0000
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-28 18:10 -0400
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 07:49 +0000
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-29 05:49 -0400
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 10:25 +0000
                        Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-29 06:52 -0400
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 11:41 +0000
                            Re: The Death of 10.8? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-10-29 10:29 -0400
                              Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 15:38 +0000
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:36 -0700
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:35 -0700
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:33 -0700
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2013-10-29 08:47 -0500
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 15:45 +0000
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 14:32 -0400
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 09:57 -0400
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 07:35 -0700
                        Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 15:50 +0000
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 08:58 -0700
                            Re: The Death of 10.8? Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 16:03 +0000
                          Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 23:36 +0000
                        Re: The Death of 10.8? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 14:32 -0400
            Re: The Death of 10.8? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 18:11 -0400
      Re: The Death of 10.8? David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> - 2013-10-28 12:19 -0400
        Re: The Death of 10.8? Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> - 2013-10-28 19:59 +0100
      Re: The Death of 10.8? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 16:22 +0000
        Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 20:53 +0000
          Re: The Death of 10.8? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 21:55 +0000
            Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 22:53 +0000
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-28 18:58 -0400
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 23:24 +0000
              Re: The Death of 10.8? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 19:13 -0400
                Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 16:32 -0700
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-28 16:35 -0700
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-28 20:04 -0400
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-28 22:45 -0400
                    Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-29 23:26 +0000
                      Re: The Death of 10.8? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-29 18:14 -0700
                  Re: The Death of 10.8? Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 23:59 -0400
      Re: The Death of 10.8? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 20:50 +0000
      Re: The Death of 10.8? jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2013-10-29 10:53 +1300

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#51046 — The Death of 10.8?

I flippantly said that Apple could drop support for 10.8 now that 10.9
is out for the same hardware at no cost. I wasn't being serious at the
time, but after seeing how Apple is pushing Mavericks on the App Store
I'm not so sure that they are not planning on dropping 10.8 very soon.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in Software Update
sometime soon, maybe when the first security update comes out.


-- 
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period
of time.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#51049

On 2013-10-28 14:08:03 +0000, Lewis said:

> I flippantly said that Apple could drop support for 10.8 now that 10.9
> is out for the same hardware at no cost. I wasn't being serious at the
> time, but after seeing how Apple is pushing Mavericks on the App Store
> I'm not so sure that they are not planning on dropping 10.8 very soon.
> 
> Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in Software Update
> sometime soon, maybe when the first security update comes out.

The question is "What's wrong with this?". 10.8 has no perks 
whatsoever(at least I don't see them) in comparison to 10.9. Why would 
you want to stay on Mountain Lion? I am not talking about _now_. Of 
course, at the moment 10.9 is still in beta state. But after the 10.9.1 
I would expect to have a nice and stable system, with improved Finder, 
iCloud keychain and other features. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51052

In article <526e7a6e$0$8957$c3e8da3$4e334b76@news.astraweb.com>, Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I flippantly said that Apple could drop support for 10.8 now that 10.9
> > is out for the same hardware at no cost. I wasn't being serious at the
> > time, but after seeing how Apple is pushing Mavericks on the App Store
> > I'm not so sure that they are not planning on dropping 10.8 very soon.
> > 
> > Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in Software Update
> > sometime soon, maybe when the first security update comes out.
> 
>  The question is "What's wrong with this?". 10.8 has no perks 
>  whatsoever(at least I don't see them) in comparison to 10.9. Why would 
>  you want to stay on Mountain Lion? I am not talking about _now_. Of 
>  course, at the moment 10.9 is still in beta state. But after the 10.9.1 
>  I would expect to have a nice and stable system, with improved Finder, 
>  iCloud keychain and other features. 

"beta state"? Someone is confused about a word definition here...


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51060

On 2013-10-28 15:12:21 +0000, Sandman said:

> "beta state"? Someone is confused about a word definition here...

Some people believe that any n.0 release is really a final beta, and 
that the real product doesn't come until the n.1 release, or maybe the 
n.0.1 release.

-- Michelle

-- 
I'm a year older than I was exactly one year ago.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51062

In article <l4m05v$qvd$1@dont-email.me>,
 Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> On 2013-10-28 15:12:21 +0000, Sandman said:
> 
> > "beta state"? Someone is confused about a word definition here...
> 
> Some people believe that any n.0 release is really a final beta, and 
> that the real product doesn't come until the n.1 release, or maybe the 
> n.0.1 release.
> 
> -- Michelle

I'm waiting for the gamma... ;-)
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51065

In article <bd7f9jFt5o2U1@mid.individual.net>, android <here@there.was> 
wrote:

> In article <l4m05v$qvd$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Michelle Steiner <email@michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2013-10-28 15:12:21 +0000, Sandman said:
> > 
> > > "beta state"? Someone is confused about a word definition here...
> > 
> > Some people believe that any n.0 release is really a final beta, and 
> > that the real product doesn't come until the n.1 release, or maybe the 
> > n.0.1 release.
> > 
> > -- Michelle
> 
> I'm waiting for the gamma... ;-)

Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the 
proper release alfa.... But it isn't.
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51071

android <here@there.was> wrote:
> Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
> If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the 
> proper release alfa.... But it isn't.

I drove an Alfa once. It felt like a beta.

-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51075

In article <l4m341$c3k$3@dont-email.me>, me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) 
wrote:

> android <here@there.was> wrote:
> > Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
> > If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the 
> > proper release alfa.... But it isn't.
> 
> I drove an Alfa once. It felt like a beta.

A Spider? :-)
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51079

On 2013-10-28 16:24:34 +0000, me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) said:

> android <here@there.was> wrote:
>> Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
>> If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the
>> proper release alfa.... But it isn't.
> 
> I drove an Alfa once. It felt like a beta.

The Alfa felt like a Lancia?

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51094

In article <l4m341$c3k$3@dont-email.me>, me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) 
wrote:

> android <here@there.was> wrote:
> > Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
> > If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the 
> > proper release alfa.... But it isn't.
> 
> I drove an Alfa once. It felt like a beta.

I drove an Alfa Sud for almost 2 years. Great little car. Too bad about 
the rust...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51099

In article <dfritzin-5DB99B.16141328102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote:

> In article <l4m341$c3k$3@dont-email.me>, me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) 
> wrote:
> 
> > android <here@there.was> wrote:
> > > Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
> > > If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the 
> > > proper release alfa.... But it isn't.
> > 
> > I drove an Alfa once. It felt like a beta.
> 
> I drove an Alfa Sud for almost 2 years. Great little car. Too bad about 
> the rust...

Alfa [Romeo] prodcued lots of models, including the Giulietta ...
leading to the Shakespere-written TV advert "Alfa Romero & Giulietta". 
;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51110

On 2013-10-28 20:14:13 +0000, David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> said:

> In article <l4m341$c3k$3@dont-email.me>, me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király)
> wrote:
> 
>> android <here@there.was> wrote:
>>> Breaking netiquette and replying to myself;-P:
>>> If commonsense ruled the world the alfa should be called gamma and the
>>> proper release alfa.... But it isn't.
>> 
>> I drove an Alfa once. It felt like a beta.
> 
> I drove an Alfa Sud for almost 2 years. Great little car. Too bad about
> the rust...

The Alfa Sud was a great handling (& sounding) car, and you are 
correct, it was ruined by the poor quality of steel used in the body 
panels. Two years was the outside limit before the rust cancer hit it.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51064

In article <l4m05v$qvd$1@dont-email.me>, Michelle Steiner <email@michelle> wrote:

> > "beta state"? Someone is confused about a word definition here...
> 
>  Some people believe that any n.0 release is really a final beta, and 
>  that the real product doesn't come until the n.1 release, or maybe the 
>  n.0.1 release.

What people "believe" is of no importance here. The author of the software 
gets to decide whether or not is a beta version or not. The user of the 
software does not get to decide that.

Some software developers may prematurely call something the final version 
and not beta, and the users may feel that the final version is of expected 
"beta-quality", but that doesn't make it a beta.

As for OSX, pre-release versions are called "developer preview" ("DP"), and 
the final version is called "golden master" or "GM". So you would generally 
see "Mac OS X 10.9 DP3" for the third developer release, or the version 
number "Mac OS X 10.9 13A598". Sometimes there is a golden master released 
to developers and another golden master release publically. The public 
release is the final version.

Here are the versions of Mavericks that has been released:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_Mavericks#Releases

As you can see, there are five build seperating the GM from the GM2. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51085

In article <slrnl6t2hd.aeg.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> Some software developers may prematurely call something the final version 
> and not beta, and the users may feel that the final version is of expected 
> "beta-quality", but that doesn't make it a beta.

I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he 
meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone picked 
up on it.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51086

On 2013-10-28 18:50:19 +0000, Barry Margolin said:

> In article <slrnl6t2hd.aeg.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
>  Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
>> Some software developers may prematurely call something the final version
>> and not beta, and the users may feel that the final version is of expected
>> "beta-quality", but that doesn't make it a beta.
> 
> I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he
> meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone picked
> up on it.

Every 10.X.0 feels like beta.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51088

In article <526eb37a$0$51827$c3e8da3$efbdef2c@news.astraweb.com>,
 Mordred <mordred@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2013-10-28 18:50:19 +0000, Barry Margolin said:
> 
> > In article <slrnl6t2hd.aeg.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
> >  Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Some software developers may prematurely call something the final version
> >> and not beta, and the users may feel that the final version is of expected
> >> "beta-quality", but that doesn't make it a beta.
> > 
> > I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he
> > meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone picked
> > up on it.
> 
> Every 10.X.0 feels like beta.

That was the poster's point.

More to the point, the software industry in general seems to push 
products out with less testing than they perhaps should, so that all new 
products seem like a beta.  They use the ease of sending out updates as 
the excuse. As a result, the prerelease testing that they call "beta" is 
often more like "alpha".

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51111

In article <barmar-1F4D98.14501928102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > Some software developers may prematurely call something the final version 
> > and not beta, and the users may feel that the final version is of expected 
> > "beta-quality", but that doesn't make it a beta.
> 
>  I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he 
>  meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone picked 
>  up on it.

Right, but the poster hadn't used the software in question when making the 
claim, meaning that it was not in reference to what he considered to be 
"beta quality" since he couldn't know. It was a pre-concieved notion and 
misdirected as such.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51119

In article <slrnl6tlrd.b0i.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <barmar-1F4D98.14501928102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry 
> Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > Some software developers may prematurely call something the final version 
> > > and not beta, and the users may feel that the final version is of 
> > > expected 
> > > "beta-quality", but that doesn't make it a beta.
> > 
> >  I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he 
> >  meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone picked 
> >  up on it.
> 
> Right, but the poster hadn't used the software in question when making the 
> claim, meaning that it was not in reference to what he considered to be 
> "beta quality" since he couldn't know. It was a pre-concieved notion and 
> misdirected as such.

Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically 
always effectively a beta.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51163

In article <barmar-58776C.18105228102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > >  I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he 
> > >  meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone picked 
> > >  up on it.
> > 
> > Right, but the poster hadn't used the software in question when making the 
> > claim, meaning that it was not in reference to what he considered to be 
> > "beta quality" since he couldn't know. It was a pre-concieved notion and 
> > misdirected as such.
> 
>  Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically 
>  always effectively a beta.

But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
"beta". 



-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51172

In article <slrnl6uqf2.d0e.mr@irc.sandman.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <barmar-58776C.18105228102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry 
> Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > >  I think the poster expected readers to understand that this is what he 
> > > >  meant, even though he left it implicit. Apparently, not everyone 
> > > >  picked 
> > > >  up on it.
> > > 
> > > Right, but the poster hadn't used the software in question when making 
> > > the 
> > > claim, meaning that it was not in reference to what he considered to be 
> > > "beta quality" since he couldn't know. It was a pre-concieved notion and 
> > > misdirected as such.
> > 
> >  Seems like he was just basing it on history: 10.x.0 is practically 
> >  always effectively a beta.
> 
> But isn't beta. And I personally disagree with that. Never had any problems 
> with any 10.x.0 release. At least none that would make me consider it 
> "beta".

There's almost always a software update within a month or so of the 
release.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web