Dvorak: Discontinue the Mac

paradesign writes "In an 'E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac', John C. Dvorak makes the claim that the Macintosh should be discontinued. He adds, 'I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that.' Worth a read, but keep in mind where its published." I am not posting this as a Dvorak basher to make people realize he is clueless, although plenty of people will accuse me of that.

Comments

Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS

[SN74S181]

Oh, come on. There was buzz in the technical community about USB for several years before Apple or Microsoft had support for it in their operating system. I remember getting all the sample connectors from the big vendors, and all the hype about the 'great thing coming' and all that.

USB didn't come from Apple OR Microsoft. My point wasn't one about a horse race between those two entities. I'm just tired of people claiming it's yet another 'Apple Innovation.'

Re:They did; it was called `NeXT'.

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Obj C

IMO, any competent software engineer familiar with C/C++ should be able to pick up Objective-C within a few days. The syntax is not particularly difficult, and I think Cocoa is a tremendously productive environment (almost scary in how good it is).

For anyone interested in learning more, I recommend Aaron Hillegass' book Cocoa Programming for MacOS X.

right complaint, wrong target

[g4dget]

This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the Xerox Star in over 20 years. All the R&D money has been diverted, mismanaged, killed by zealous bean counters, or simply wasted. Most of the big R&D labs have been closed or cut back. All the R&D seems to be in semiconductor technologies, which is because that particular business is more of a psychopathic rat-race than anything else and you get eaten by the rats if you miss a step.

I fully agree with this. The state of computer research is depressing, and funding for it is very limited.

However, Dvorak's attacks on Apple or Linux are ill-founded. Both Apple and the Linux community are pushing the envelope within the limits of what is commercially feasible or practical. Neither Apple nor Linux developers are charities. In order to survive, they have to deliver tools and environments that programmers and users trained in the current, outdated paradigms can deal with.

The real culprit is the US government. Due to a quirk in military funding and the cold war, it used to fund research lavishly and often independent of short-term commercial considerations. But in the spirit the radical free market ideology that has gripped most of the government, research is now largely only funded if people can answer the question "what is it good for in the short term", or "how many jobs will it create in my state before I face re-election".

Of course, it should also be said that some innovative ideas in programming are out there, if you know where to look. And it should also be said that the "low hanging fruit" has been plucked in the 20th century--most of the easy, gee wiz, solutions have been found.

Re:Easy answer

[baumanj]

BeOS was the last platform that looked like a major contender, and it didn't get anywhere. Why? As well as having no name recognition, there simply wasn't the body of applications for it.

As an early user of BeOS on PPC, I have to disagree. There were quite a few applications, and after BeOS shifted their focus to x86, the number grew dramatically. What really doomed BeOS? It was Microsoft's confidential agreement with vendors that forbids installation of any other OS alongside Windows. 99% of computer users just use the OS their computer comes with. If people could have bought dual-boot or BeOS only boxes at Walmart it may have had a chance.

The terms of MS's contracts with vendors was at one point a part of the antitrust case against them. Gil Amelio even testified. However, the feds chose to focus on the browser issue for some reason.