[G4] Jump from Jaguar directly to Tiger?

[Ronald Steinke]

On 29 Apr, 2005, at 7:43, Tim Collier wrote:

I really have to disagree.  The changes in OS X from 10.1 to what I'm 
using now, 10.3 are dramatic.  These are not minor upgrades but 
entirely new OS's each time.  ......Of course all of my Macs will 
support it too, we have two iBooks (a 12 inch 1.2 gig G4 and a 14 inch 
1.3 gig G4), a dual 1 gig Quicksilver G4 and the one I'm on now, a G5 
1.8 gig 20 inch iMac.

Tim

I did you the kindness of editing out your personal comments against my 
participation in the G4 List. But, I still maintain that not everybody 
has the resources (money) to indulge their whims and desires as you 
seem to. For the majority of Mac users, spending money like a MS 
fanatic isn't a practice that can be maintained for long.

When an upgrade comes along, many users have to consider whether the 
new features justify the expenditure. Just because Apple inserts a 
bunch of widgets, bells, and whistles, doesn't make the upgrade 
worthwhile for all of us.

I am not saying that we should ignore the upgrades, but that we should 
understand that they are not necessarily for everybody immediately when 
they are distributed. When the advantages have been tested and proven 
and a qualified comparison of the programs has been completed and shows 
that the upgrade will indeed be an advantageous thing, then is the time 
to pull out your wallet and loosen your grip on poor old Abe and his 
friends.

Were the past upgrade steps really "entirely new OS's each time"? Or, 
were they just repairs made to a program that was released a bit too 
early? I am not educated enough concerning program coding to argue 
either question. I do know that many bits of code were inserted in the 
upgrades to repair problems that weren't caught before the original 
release date. Apple has already admitted that situation in print. 
Either way, I bought into the okey-doke and spent my shekels for them.

If the upgrades were new OS's, why did Apple continue numbering them as 
versions of OS-X? Apple has made public statements that illustrate the 
recognized pattern for naming new versions of operating systems and 
v10.4 is certainly not a new OS according to Apples' own statements. 
This is simply a modified version of OS-X that brings some new 
"built-in" features and some widgets to the desktop.

You should expect the differences to be dramatic between the upgrade 
versions. Apple fixed many problems each time they upgraded the OS, 
didn't they? When the problems were fixed and third-party companies 
caught up to the modifications, life suddenly became a lot easier for 
all of us and we sang hossanahs in praise of Apple.

I am a definite Mac fan/user and will not use a (bad word deleted for 
decency's sake) computer unless I am tied down and given the chinese 
water torture until I grow gills. I will continue to give my few pieces 
of paper to good old Steve and company, but I really expect that there 
will be another upgrade to pay for before too long and that it will be 
numbered somewhere in the 10.4s. Anything with a decimal point in its 
name is NOT a new OS, it's just a modifiction of an existing version.

I'm changing the subject and getting away from this ranting. It's not 
good for our attitudes to start arguments among ourselves over 
something this trivial. Have a safe day and watch out for MS fanatics 
on the road.