Slashdot Mirror
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.
John C. Dvorak has been saying this for like 15 years. He's a DOS fanatic through and through. I guess getting attention was just a side effect, anyway. Haha.
So if he ran Apple, he would do what? Concentrate on selling on OS that ran on discontinued computers? I guess he hasn't been watching Apple's annual reports lately.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The article didn't bash the Macintosh system itself, rather, it critisized the company's decision to release "sleeker" computers, instead of making more software and better hardware.
Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!
Unfortunately, it turns out that it was kinda too expensive to ever really catch on. Good chunks of it live on underneath MacOSX, of course, but it's a bit dated now.
The real answer to ``why don't they give up?'' is because ``people still want to buy their products''. Doesn't seem so hard to understand. Shrug.
As a fresh young undergrad I worked on a zooming user interface (Pad++). It was pretty neat, eventually Sony got bought the right to use it when developing the PS2, but at some point killed the project. (Their version could put any Java app into a zoomable window. Though they never did X11 apps.)
/. I have sinned.)
There's all those wearable computing folks too, talking to their computers all day.
And I'm sure there are a few other good WIMP replacements out there too, but they never seem to be adopted by the big boys into shipping products. What gives?
It seems like Apple has the kind of user that would try a new UI, like say telling your mp3 player what you want to listen too. But they are too focused on little improvents, just like their PC Bretheren. It may make for a profitable company but there's something wrong with our industry if only mediocre products can be profitable.
I'm not blaming Apple per say, Jobs had to save them from early death. But I don't the Dvorak is either (ignoring the Slashdot headline and reading the article, oh
There's an easy answer to the question, "Why not come out with a new computer?" This applies to anybody else in the industry as well as Apple.
Software is why most people buy and use computers - not many outside the geek community are interested in playing with a machine with no applications.
It's the software, stupid. A new system that was substantially different from the old ones (in a way that Dvorak, who pooh-poohs the substantial 680x0 -> PPC and Mac OS -> NeXT/Mac OS X transitions - the most radical transformations you can get while maintaining compatability, means) would not be able to seamlessly run old software.
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.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
For people who read the article, they'll notice that what I quoted is the intro paragraph. That's all I had to read to realize that the author is full of it. Macs aren't ready to die. On the contrary, they are blooming. Macs are one of the few computer brands that are actually profitable right now. Look at the computers that are being sold. Most people buying systems want to spend $800 or less. People will then go ahead and drop $1500 on a Mac system. Why is this? Because a Mac is a niche market system. There is special hardware and software that people are paying for. It's never going to explode onto the desktop (again) and take over the Windows community, even though the Mac zealots would really like it to.
The Mac exists for a small group of people, and also in my opinion as a testing ground for new technology. Would your PC have a USB port on it right now if it wern't put onto a Mac first for B. Gates to notice and snap up? How bout IEEE 1394? In a year or two you'll have a DVD burner on your system (many people already do). What systems did they originate on? The Mac.
Apple never moves forward? Riiiiight. On the contrary... Apple moves EVERYONE ELSE forward. Linux/Unix/BSD can't move the market. On the X86 systems there is not enough pull from those communities to get hardware like USB or IEEE put in as standard, so the job falls to the Mac systems to get the attention of the rest of the world when newer technology comes out.
I'm not a Mac person. I have many P3 and P4 systems in my house and like it that way. I'm also one of the few
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
I actually like Dvorak too. He's pretty funny sometimes. I think he coined the term "porn storm" to describe those sites that will never let you out of their grasp.
However, he gets WAY to much credit as a visionary or pundit. I heard him say on his Silicon Spin show several times (quote, unquote) "People don't want to edit their videos." I personally know three first time Mac buyers who bought Macs mostly for that very reason.
As near as I can tell, he's saying that Apple is the only innovator in the entire computer industry, and that computers are only worth using if they from how they work currently. He's using your basic Shock Jock technique of yellow journalism to generate controversy (Oooh, I'll pick on Apple and people will yap for days about this one!). And, look, it's worked. I've subbed some words in the article to try to put things in perspective:
-----
Isn't it about time the Personal Computer was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does everyone maintain this type of machine instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The computer has become the horse of electronics, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if nobody ever moves forward, what happens to the television?
I'm not writing this column as a computer basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the computer buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the personal computer as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's look at the recent computer offerings. The industry made the PC available to the public after initially saying nobody would ever buy it. The PC is the desktop version of the mainframe, and similar to the original mini-computer, built with a display in a small package. The company also rolled out some beefy computers for tech-heads who like running massive Web sites with PC technology. The obvious next iteration of the computer will be the current l33t-looking PC with a bigger screen and probably new colors. After that, what is the industry going to do?
Remember that in 80's the PC arrived amidst a flurry of experimental activity, much of which was triggered by the Commodore Pet. IBM PC-Jr was designed with ideas lifted from the Eniac. The PC-AT was an improvement, but apparently there hasn't been a new idea since.
[...] [Getting lazy]
Having said that, why can't the industry take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Personal Computer? The answer is obvious if we look at recent history and compare it to the era when the PC was invented. Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the IBM PC-AT 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.
So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called PC. The industry has nothing it could possibly replace it with. There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away.
In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but up with hormones, and patched with reconstructive surgery, instead. The PC will go in the only direction possible: big design. The next era will be like the car business in the 1950's. Lots of chrome, big fins, and a new model every year. Form over substance.
---
=Brian
There is nothing so good that someone, somewhere, will not hate it.
OS X, with its underlying Unix kernel, an update.
That is an understatement.
The new kernel was necessary to better manage today's networked multimedia.
More like to handle crashing apps without taking out the whole system.
Apparently Apple has done the impossible [in creating a user friendly unix].
Well, at least he gives Apple some credit.
Having said that, why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh?
They have, it is just under the same name.
There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer.
Well, Apple has the idea of a digital hub, and they are implementing it quite well.
Apple has done many new thing with their computers; it just happens to retain the name "Macintosh." They now have the option of dual processor (OS 9 just couldn't do it well), better perefereal connections, different processor than they had a decade ago, rack mounting, and many others.
The professional has gained a lot from these advances. Could you imagine editing a movie on your computer a decade ago. What about a hollywood level movie (Anyone else see the thanks to Final Cut Pro at the end of SW ep2?).
But, what about the consumer:
They can create their own movies quite easily with iMovie and the Firewire connection (another Apple invention).
There are also Digital Cameras, MP3 players, and a whole list of others that I am forgetting right now..
Just about the only thing that is the same about the Mac is that it is still a computer. The OS has changed, and so has a lot of the hardware. The Mac has more life left in it that Dvorak would like to admit. Part of it will change; that is inevitable, but it will likely be a Macintosh as long as Apple is in business.
You see? It's like I've always said. You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word.
Isn't it about time the John Dvorak was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does John Dvorak keep putting out his aged crap instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. Dvorak has become the Ann Landers of journalism world, except for the fact that she's prettier.
I'm not writing this post as an ageist to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I've noticed a complete lack of intellectual content of this column for ages, and I'm now beginning to see John C. Dvorak as an old hound that can't hunt.
Some one give this man a shotgun. Or help him contact Jack Kevorkian.
And kudos to you for having an insight in the general computing industry that few people, particularly people such as Dvorak and many IT professionals lack.
The Macintosh brand is a stable brand, but Dvorak does raise an interesting point. Since Apple is one of the few companies that seem to be able to reinvent itself, perhaps they should consider reinventing the Macintosh in another brand name that's more in line with the product's diversity (it's a business computer, it's a graphics box, it's a recreation box, it's a floor wax, dessert topping and more, et al.) I can see that a name change, even if Apple never changed the basic design, may make a better market pitch to IT professionals whose name sours on the word "Mac."
Usually Dvorak doesn't have a clue. He might have one here, although he's generally wrong in his basic point of the article.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Remember kiddies, don't smoke crack before writing a magazine article like Mr. Dvorak.
"Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs."
The G4s of today are a far cry beyond the Motorolla 68000 based Macs of the early eighties.
If it's software that's his problem, OSX is the very fresh start that he speaks of, but he is too blind of biased to see this. Apple has managed to maintain some backward compatability with OS9 and step into the UNIX world with one fell swoop.
Just what the hell is the bug up his ass?
The only thing Apple could do that would be more progressive is a full port of OSX to the x86. But that would mean war with Microsoft.
That would be a hell of a thing to see.
I was wondering if I should send my advertisement to them in a format that is no longer going to be around. It seem like I would have to pay extra to send a Windows native file.
This is in their media kit
Ziff Davis Media publications are produced in a 100% digital pre-press, computer-to-plate environment. We therefore require digital materials for advertisements running in our publications.
Preferred digital file formats for advertisements are:
TIFF/IT P1, Scitex CT/LW, & QuarkXPress 4.04 Mac Native files, collected for output, including all fonts & graphics. Please contact Production Department before sending any digital files besides these Preferred Mac application files (additional charges may apply).
Yes the G4 PPC technology is kinda old but so is Dvorak :). Shouldn't he also be replaced. I am tired of hearing the same old shit.
Sadly enough he makes a decent point... what next? Of course he has turned a blind eye to the XServe and the potential for the G5 and G6. Not to mention all the really good software technology present in OS X.
What the hell more could he want? The all-digital flat panel monitors are second to none IMO for the price. [I was skeptical of the price/value of them until I bought one... holy cow is it cool].
I have to disagree with this... Perhaps he hasn't noticed that Apple has been doing new things because they are doing new things in software and not hardware so much [except the XServe of course].
Oh... and it wasn't the Xerox "star" it was the Alto. Oh yeah... and Xerox was notorious for developing stuff they didn't market and basically invited Apple to come look at all of it. That story has been told so many times no one knows what the hell happened anymore. *sigh*.
I think this article was written from a completely different perspective than the one I see. I generally like Dvorak but this article just makes me think he is blind.
Basically, the dude has a major issue about his masculinity. Remember when he got all that attention for saying that the clamshell iBook was for girls? Well, guess what: he said it about the original Mac, too.
John Dvorak, noted PC World columnist, has reported for the very first time that Apple is irrelevant.
Dvorak could not be reached for comment, although his agent noted that "John's probably just off his meds again".
Seriously. Dvorak seems to forget that Apple HAS reinvented the Mac into something quite different and novel - through Mac OS X.
A Mac in OS 9 is one thing...but a Mac in OS X is a completely different computer. Dvorak either needs some hits on his portion of the PC Magazine web site, or he's just feeling mean.
1) Releasing the eMac after original not: they did it becuase they're pushing the envelope so much by having their entire line use LCDs that they've hit up against the bleeding-edge problem of LCD supplies and prices not meeting expectations. I think flexability and admitting you didn't make a good decision is a good thing. In any case, it seems like he should at least wait for the sales figures before he calls it a bad decision.
2) The OS isn't moving forward: Need I comment? Well, I will because it's just too stupid to pass up. Apple's moving to a more UNIX-centric OS. So is Sun (embracing Linux, they already had Solaris), IBM (embracing Linux over AS400/AIX/etc.) and the rest of the market (see growth of Linux). I just saw an article in Network World (I think) that projected 12 million Linux installations by 2006. Clue: if you think everyone but you is crazy, you may have it backwards.
3) Why can't Apple bring about an entirely new machine: well, I think other people have made good points about the digital hub. It strikes me that he wants something here but doesn't know what. Yes, I'd like the computer from Star Trek too, but we can't have it yet.
4) There's a post (supposedly from him) pointing to an article on The Register that implies that Apple's given up on advertising to anyone but "Dummies and Losers". Quite the oposite: I've seen Apple in more technical places lately than I ever have. I'm a Java programmer, so I'll talk from that angle. They were HUGE at JavaOne. They've a two-page spread in almost every Java developer magazine talking about the virtues of Mac OS X. It's just not true! Just like Dell's got the "Dell Dude" and yet hits the server market pretty hard, Apple has a two-sided strategy.
Well, I've ranted long enough, but hopefully you got the point that I think this guy is full of crap.
"Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer
Here's my favorite quote: "There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away."
:-)
I selected the above, right-clicked on it, and chose "speech/start speaking" from the context menu. I got quite a laugh out of hearing my computer talking about how a talking computer is decades away.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
You say that GNU/Linux won't move the market. Free Software transends the market. Apple moves the market. Free Software moves the world.
dude, buy a new eMac, iMac, or iBook. Preference from least desirable to most. I picked my iBook up for about 1K. It is the coolest. Powermax is the place to look. Install OS 9.2, OS X, Fink, and OroborOSX.
The middle mind speaks!
With a USB keyboard (i suggest Keytronic), USB mouse (Microsoft Optical Trackball), and a 17 inch or greater monitor (Apple Studio Display 17) you get a kick ass desktop and a kick ass laptop.
The middle mind speaks!
i agree, he should be replaced with a new model, John Qwerty, maybe ;)
Uh, anyone who interprets that as a real troll is a moron. It was a (rather uninspired, I'll admit) parody of the classic "BSD is dying" troll. I was trying to point out that Dvorak is essentially trolling for Mac users with his article. The correct mod would be "+1 Funny" or nothing, if you don't have a sense of humor.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Yes, they are, however Quark and inDesign are available for the windows PC and some magazines are layed out with a windows PC. I just thought it was strange to see a writer bash Apple, when the magazine he writes for uses the computers he says should be dicontinued.
Now this is proof that art directors don't always read the content of the magazine they work for(myself included sometimes)!
Add me to your list. I bought my new dual 1ghz Mac, just about three months ago. Other than Unix (OS X), the main kickier was the *awesome* video editing capabilities. My x86 box, a 1ghz Thunderbird, totally sucked at video editing. I'll keep upgrading the x86, because I'm a gamer, but the Mac is my main development/video/audio creation platform.
I read the Dvorak column when it first came out. Believe it or not, he makes a small amount of sense. Apple needs to be leading the pack when it comes to OS innovations. I totally disagree with him that Apple is not innovating though. Apple is just playing with the hardware right now. I mean, isn't a postscript disp[lay interface an advance? Quartz is absolutely beautiful.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
The only thing Apple could do that would be more progressive is a full port of OSX to the x86. But that would mean war with Microsoft.
well, thr problem is that it would mean war with commodity hardware producers. Apple is not, like Microsoft, primarily a software company. It is not clear that making OS X run on intel hardware would be a good thing. One reason that things work so well on the Mac is that they have complete control over both the hardware and software pieces. If people suddently quit buying Apple hardware because they could get OS X on cheap, commodity Intel stuff, you would have two problems. One, Apple doesn't get money from hardware. Two, Apple doesn't control the quality of the hardware that OS X has to run on.
The (fairly well substantiated, I think) rumor is that they do, in fact, have a port for x86, but have decided not to release it for something like the above reasons. There might even be early releases out there of Rhapsody that ran on x86, but I don't remember for sure.
Liberty uber alles.
Seems to me that if Apple just called the iBook the NeXTBook, and called it a NeXT computer rather than a Macintosh, they've have answered all of Dvorak's objections in one fell swoop.
And immediately have lost 99+% of their market.
Apple computers are called Macintoshes for the same reason that Microsoft's XP operating system is called Windows: Windows XP has little in common with Windows 3.1, but MS wants to market to loyal Windows customers. If they had called it Whistler, would it have sold so quickly? Not likely.
Same with the Mac: Apple is basically fooling long time Mac customers into buying a PPC-based NeXT box by falsely calling it a Macintosh and including a few pretty graphics. When you've got a fiercely loyal customer base, you do incremental changes, or disguise sea changes as incremental changes (Carbon, anyone?).
I lusted after the first NeXT box I ever saw, but couldn't afford the $4K price tag. I snapped up the first NeXT computer I could afford. I don't care that it has an Apple on the lid, I don't care that it still has OS 9 in it (though I'll admit I like such technologies as Firewire, 802.11b, and the like, all of which seem to work better, and to arrive sooner, on the Mac than on Wintel machines), and the Aqua finder is an improvement over the old window manager. There are what, 2,000 people in the world like me? And 2M who'll buy anything with the word Mac on it.
I think Apple may actually have a much better idea than coming up with a new computer (although firewire, digital video editor, all-digital flat panel display, new Unix core (so now it can be a first-class server, too--what more is it, exactly, that Dvorak wants), and that is to see a new role that the computer is taking on (the "digital hub") and then refining their machine to do really well in that role.
Then, instead of coming up with this mythical new computer thingy, they could just come out with software components that make it easy to plug your other digital devices in (iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes) and maybe a few cool little digital devices of your own (iPod, i[Newton] ).
There's your "new computer"--it's an imac with a detachable mp3 player, digital camera, digital video camera, and (soon, please!) the Second Coming of the Newton.
Liberty uber alles.
I'm not writing this column as a [product] basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the [product] buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the [product] as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's try it out:
Isn't it about time the Beetle was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Volkswagen maintain this line of cars instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Beetle has become the Mack Truck of compact cars, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Volkswagen never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Ford Focus?
I'm not writing this column as a Bettle basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Beetle buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Beetle as an old hound that can't hunt.
I'll just ship this right over to AutoWeek. I'm sure they'll print it.
Do not touch -Willie
This story shouldn't have been put under the Apple category. Perhaps the Slashdot staff should include a new "Short Bus" icon and category for this kind of stuff (and Jon Katz).
- Ok John, I've heard your question however strange.
The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
Free software does move the world - or at least the computer side of it - by giving people access to software they otherwise could not afford.
So we have millions of people running Linux who would not normally be able to afford a Unix at all. And we have thousands of people running mySQL and PostGresSQL who could have never afforded a SQL database.
Without Linux, FreeBSD and Darwin - all open source projects - Unix would be dying since it would not be cost-effective compared to Windows.
I agree with you that free software isn't innovative as software, and that's why I use MacOS X at home. It's a great deal more innovative than anything out of the Linux camp, because it takes a driving force like Steve Jobs to create something truly brilliant and new.
But that should by no means allow us to underestimate the importance of free software. It's just a different kind of importance.
D
> perhaps they should consider reinventing the
> Macintosh in another brand name that's more in line
> with the product's diversity (it's a business computer,
> it's a graphics box, it's a recreation box, it's a floor
> wax, dessert topping and more, et al.)
There is no way in hell that Apple is going to kill off the "Macintosh" brand name until something bad happens (e.g., Some terrorist named Mac N. Tosh kills 50,000 school children in a horrific poisoning involving McIntosh apples).
Companies work for years and spend millions of dollars to build brand names, and they don't toss them aside without good reason. Very few computers (or regular products, for that matter) have the same type of recognition. For example, how likely are you to be able to figure out who builds the following: Accsys, Dimension, Inspira, Achieva, Presario, Millennia, Evo, OptiPlex, etc. You might be able to figure it out if you've got one on your desk, but if someone says Macintosh, chances are better they'll figure out it's an Apple, whether they like the product or not. That type of brand recognition in the industry is something other computer makers would kill for.
Dvorak's article isn't as much of a troll as he usually does (the title is an order of magnitude worse than the article itself), but that point still doesn't make any sense. One thing that has to be understood is that Apple did kill the Macintosh. If you think of the Macintosh as a 68xxx-based computer running the Mac OS -- keep in mind, Mac OS 9, although more advanced than the original OS, was still the original OS -- then Apple did kill it. The new Macintosh runs Unix, has the PowerPC, and is a very different machine.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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.
No. JFK called himself a Jelly Donut.
A "Berliner" is a person from Berlin, while "ein Berliner" is a goop-filled pastry. Kennedy mixed it up.
Churchill said "We are all worms, but I believe I am a glowworm."
Harry S. Truman said "Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."
I'll make sure not to kick you.
Me too. Especially Symphony No. 9, The New World. (Sometimes classified as No. 5.)
-- My hovercraft is full of eels.
Gawd, did this guy go to sleep in 1992 and just wake up long enough to write a column?
sulli
RTFJ.
I can make the simalar argument that the PC is an out of date archecture that needs to be replaced with something new and the fact that windows really hasent changed much sience 1995.
Its not an argument if someone can give the same responce back for the other side.
He seems fixed on the idea the name of the computer is a Mac and sience it has the same name it must be old and out of date. Lets use cars. I drive a Toyata Camry comparing the 2002 model with the mid 90s model you see a big difference in the car. The Camry is more luxerius then the little boxy camry of the past. The same is true about Macs. They keep the name but there are verry diffent. I mean they even have a differnt archecture then the old macs. You cant say that about PCs.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yep, looks like he's trolling.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
He's not saying that the mac is the worst thing out there and should be discontinued, he's saying that it is the best thing out there and should be discontinued. Though breifly, he states clearly enough that MacOS is better than copycat Windows or too-difficult-for-the-desktop-user-GUI Linux.
My interpretation is that Dvorak expects that because Apple claims innovator status (I would agree with Apple) it should be coming out with some revolutionary new thing. The modern computer in general is obsolete and Apple should abandon the Mac for this "new thing."
Problem is this: Dvorak never even hints at what this revolutionary new product should do. He seems to forget that it is necessity (or at least desire) that leads to innovation. The Mac provided something people needed -- a GUI that a home user could handle. Dvorak doesn't even address what void exists now and how Mac does not fill it.
In my way of thinking, what people want now is stability and streamlined use of the web. OS X has those features in mind. Dvorak discounts the new OS as merely eye-candy and beautification akin to fancy chrome on a car. My experience is contradictory, though. OS X has provided better stability and a better internet experience for me.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
Vendors would(should?) jump at the opportunity to build OS X compatible boxes, provided they lose their fear of MS screwing them over. With the proper hardware selection, people could get a kick-ass Wintel and OS X dual-boot box.
I agree that this is technologically feasible. I wasn't questioning that. What I was doing was questioning whether that is a situation that Apple wants.
That's why I said:
Maybe I should have said "releasing a version of OS X that runs on Intel hardware" rather than "making OS X run on Intel hardware". I would not be surprised if they have this sitting in the lab. It's just not clear at all that ti makes business sense for a hardware company to invite competition from the commodity pc world.
Liberty uber alles.
We all used it under Linux and SunOS. There was one student that did the Windows port in a semester near the end of the project. Also the 0.2.7 version is quicker than the 0.9 version so you should try that one.
That's an urban legend, deal with it. If you are in doubht, try this.
Some Germans I met got confused when I mentioned that JFK called himself a jelly donut. So, the phrase was perfectly good German.
Funny thing about Germany is that there are all kinds of foods that bear the name of a city or an area--Frakfurter, Wiener, Tuebinger, etc. All sausages.
One thing missing is the Hamburger. (I live in Hamburg and the city is full of Hamburgers, but they are not all burger joints
All kinds of food that bear the name of a German city, but the most famous example is of American origin... I find it curious.
And this one should therefore be -1, redundant.
Please. Why doesn't anyone built something new and different? Why sure Mr. Dvorak, give me some of your cash and I'll build you something new and different.
The answer is: it doesn't pay to build something new and different if people don't want to buy it. And at least give Apple credit for trying, unlike some other companies I could mention who are simply copycats.
Why do I even bother to write this? As I said, -1 redundant.
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
I think Apple should stop production of the Macintosh, and start releasing models named after other apples, such as Golden Delicious or Jonathan. You can never have too much of a good thing, you know. :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Personally, I find this kind of whining, psuedo-advocacy bullshit extremely annoying. It's far too easy for media pundits with no programming or interface design experience to complain endlessly about how operating systems and applications haven't advanced since the late 80's, without offering any concrete evidence to the contrary.
Okayyy... Well, I don't like Dvorak very much. And I've been doing programming and interface design for fifteen years, even did some research into interfaces (VR Toolshed, Roller [no, you've never heard of them unless you went to some highly specialized conferences]) and have implemented many unusual interfaces (cylinder menus, gesture interfaces, etc.). So can I whine about how little interface design has improved?
It's unfair to single out Apple, though. OS X is good. Apple is just beginning to re-assemble a world-class design team like they had in the early 1980's with Alan Kay and the other Grand Old Men. In the mean time, they need to secure their future in the marketplace. If they need to produce vanilla-scented art-deco Macs with built-in can openers, then they need to do it.
The store clerks didn't know how to operate the machine and they were afraid to just unplug it so they directed people away from that part of the store while someone called for the manager.
Then again, on the Daily Show last nite (6/24/2002) we got to see a reporter browsing porn on his TiBook. I don't think Apple's gonna be exactly thrilled about that sighting.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951