Want to highlight a helpful answer? Upvote!
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >
Choice is the America Way. So will someone tell the new boss of Apple that Apple Customers are smart enough to understand that taking away an option to purchase Maverick is a dictatorial way of trying to force people to upgrade to Yosemite. One can only go but so far before such tactics backfire.
Never think your company is too big to fail. There are many examples of what happened to companies that played those tricks to their once royal customers.
SN101 wrote:
Never think your company is too big to fail. There are many examples of what happened to companies that played those tricks to their once royal customers.
Yeah,
The government bailed them out. Sometimes more than once.
Apple has so much cash in the bank they could buy an entire country.
You could always purchase OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion.
I do agree that Apple should make OS X Mavericks a paid download, now, just like they did with OS X Lion and OS X Mountain Lion.
Yup, that's how they always think. But remember before Steve Jobs came back to rescue Apple, it was about to file chapter 11. I think their stoke had gone down to a few pennies, even no bank would lend them money. Microsoft came to their rescue with $150 Millions http://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
No use griping here. While these forums are owned, operated and moderated by Apple employees, you're talking to other users.
We have no clue why Apple pulled Mavericks the day Yosemite was introduced. It's their product, and they can do whatever they want with it.
So how does that make sense? You can still purchase a lower upgrade of OS X 10.8 but not a higher one of OS X 10.9?
(Note: I got this text - "Post limit reached. Please try again in a few moments." So I have to wait until someone monitors my previous post, I guess. Now if that is not unreasonable control, tell me what it is!)
"It's their product, and they can do whatever they want with it." I agree that it why I mentioned that without Steve Jobs, the company was run into the ground with that kind of mentality and had to be rescued by Microsoft.
Many, many users have asked why Apple doesn't allow anyone to download Mavericks anymore.
If you examine Mac models closely, you can figure the logic of most of it out. Such as my mother-in-law's iMac. It came with an Intel version of Leopard, 10.4.x., but can't be upgraded to an OS any newer than Snow Leopard. So for anyone in that situation, it makes sense for Apple to continue to sell Snow Leopard.
Other Macs can't be upgraded past Lion. So again, it makes sense for Apple to continue to sell Lion for those users who want to, or need to move up to the newest OS they can on the Mac they have.
Mountain Lion doesn't make sense. If your Mac can run ML, then it can also run Mavericks or Yosemite. In which case, ML should also no longer be available. Why keep selling that, but not allow access to Mavericks if the idea is to get those users who can to move all the way to Yosemite? Pulling only the one in the middle instead of both (Mountain Lion and Mavericks) doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing something.
SN101 wrote:
Yup, that's how they always think. But remember before Steve Jobs came back to rescue Apple, it was about to file chapter 11. I think their stoke had gone down to a few pennies, even no bank would lend them money. Microsoft came to their rescue with $150 Millions http://www.wired.com/2009/08/dayintech_0806/
Back then, Apple wasn't nearly as big as it is, now, If Bill Gates hadn't lent Steve Jobs the money to help Apple out of it near bankruptcy, Apple would have failed and gone under like most of the tech companies that had gone before and after it ( like Digital, Compaq, Amiga, etc.) Apple then wasn't too big to fail.
SN101 wrote:
So how does that make sense? You can still purchase a lower upgrade of OS X 10.8 but not a higher one of OS X 10.9?
(Note: I got this text - "Post limit reached. Please try again in a few moments." So I have to wait until someone monitors my previous post, I guess. Now if that is not unreasonable control, tell me what it is!)
There is a posting limit.
You can't post three times consecutively within a certain period of time.
This is to deter spammers.
I will ask you here, again,
Why do you need Mavericks so badly? What is in Mavericks that you absolutely must have?
What software are you running or need the requires OS X 10.9 Mavericks as the minimum OS X requirement?
The minimum OS X requirements for most of the software on the Mac App Store is either 10.6 or 10.7'and above.
What is so special to you about OS X 10.9 Mavericks that you need it so badly?
And, It you needed OS X 10.9 Mavericks so badly, why didn't you install and download this version when it was available and free over a year, ago?
OR are you just coming to these forums just to rant and rave for no real reason...
OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion is much better than 10.7 Lion. It is what Lion should have been,
Are you ranting just because you can't have something any longer because it is no longer available to you?
OS X Mountain Lion is not that much different from OS X Mavericks.
OS X Mavericks, I feel, has more iOS-like junk in it (some of it I never use) than the previous OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion.
Note: My comment to your question as to why I wanted Maverick was removed because one of the reasons I gave was that Yosemite is no good and people who upgraded to it had to got back to Maverick.
Take care.
I've been using Yosemite since 10.10.1. It's faster than any previous OS for every app I use, and I use a lot of large apps related to prepress work and video. It does require more RAM to run efficiently. The 2 GB minimum shouldn't even be considered as a Mac to install Yosemite on. 4 is the real usable minimum, and 8 is better for smooth operation under most conditions.
As far as the iOS type of stuff, you can turn virtually all of it off. Which I do. Except for the iOS 7 and 8 type of design, Yosemite operates pretty much the same as Snow Leopard if you set it up that way. Just faster and, quite honestly, more stable. And I say that as a person who for a long time thought Snow Leopard was Apple's best OS.
Thank heavens. I finally got someone who gets it, just like Steve would have put it:
"If your Mac can run ML, then it can also run Mavericks or Yosemite. In which case, ML should also no longer be available. Why keep selling that, but not allow access to Mavericks if the idea is to get those users who can to move all the way to Yosemite? Pulling the one in the middle doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing something."
I agree with you that Yosemite is not too good.
I installled and ran this on my 2009 iMac for two or three weeks and I was thoroughly unimpressed with its GUI and resource hungry performance.
I went back to Mavericks, also, but I already had Mavericks installed and copied it to three external hard drive locations as backup so I could easily revert back.
I have no plans on gong back to Yosemite.
It is a brand new operating system ( like the first version of OS X was) and it needs to undergo a few more full versions before I will attempt a newer OS, again.
As I stated, you have OS X Mountain Lion available to you and has less IOS style junk in it than OS X Mavericks.
At this point, this is your only option, now.
SN101 wrote:
Thank heavens. I finally got someone who gets it, just like Steve would have put it:
"If your Mac can run ML, then it can also run Mavericks or Yosemite. In which case, ML should also no longer be available. Why keep selling that, but not allow access to Mavericks if the idea is to get those users who can to move all the way to Yosemite? Pulling the one in the middle doesn't make sense to me, but I may be missing something."
You will not gain much arguing your personal opinion here. You need to make your feelings known to Apple, not us. Feedback
Also, when you do, ease up on the "Steve would have done this......" etc.
FWIW I found Mavericks to be really only a beta of Yosemite. I still have a copy, as I do of every OS X released, but that will not make it back onto my Macs while Yosemite is performing so well.
Cheers
Pete
Bring Back Maverick OS X 10.9
