Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

> > First of all, the "minor"
> > releases of OSX are all pretty big upgrades (OSX will always
> > be 10.something). Second, these minor releases are viewed as
> > such big development branches that support for the older one
> > goes on after the new one is released.
>
> That's your opinion and I respect it.

Well the amount of changes and improvements in the upgrade are not an opinion; 
just how important they are is an opinion. :o) And if they aren't, well then 
don't pay and don't upgrade. :o)

> However, I don't think they were that 
> big a deal. Most of the features added were things that were blatantly
> missing in the initial release.

That doesn't matter. You didn't buy those features in the first release.

> Like Expose. Sheesh. Windows has had 
> similar functionality (although not as flashy) through its task bar since
> 1995.

That's a very far-fetched comparison. :o) Anyway like I said, this is beside 
the point. You get new things you didn't pay for the last time, you pay for 
them. And actually I didn't even mean things like Expose.

> I'm trying to start a PC vs. Mac war. I'm just explaining why I 
> didn't find Expose something worth charging for. I'm sure you disagree.

No not really. I agree Expose isn't a big deal, and neither is a Finder with 
graphite look (I actually preferred the old one). :o) But the differences 
between 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 that are really important are in the core 
services etc. That's the only reason why many new programs can't work with 
the older OSX'es in the first place. Not because they miss Expose or the 
latest iTunes, but they miss core functionality.

If those added applications were the only difference and they are so 
unimportant, why buy 10.2 or 10.3 at all? Same thing for a paid Logic 
upgrade.. if you don't want the new stuff added, why buy it? (But as I said, 
if the next version is going to have lots of new stuff and should be paid 
for, I hope the 7.0 branch at least continues getting bugfixes).

Maurits.