Slashdot Mirror
Is Apple & Community Evangelizing Into Uncoolness?
kbeischer writes "John Kheit followed up his MacObsorne article, which others have since covered minus the parts detailing a Steve Jobs uncanny ability to repeat his own mistakes, with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press, Apple's managment and parts of the user base as a bunch of deranged goose-stepping lemmings that are ignoring the costs associated with the Mac PPC to Intel switch. In the editorial, he links to an older article on BOZO (bitter obstanate zealot order) users causing market share loss. All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?"
Here's a quote from TFA (the very first sentence, as matter of fact...):
Nice going, Sarcastro. Nothing opens up the floor for rational discussion like howling ad hominem attacks.
I thought that the rest of the article would prove to be more substantive, but no, it's pretty much all like that.
Perfect article for Slashdotters, though. Let the flame war begin.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Just do what the cruisers do, just put a sticker on your computer of a kid pissing all over the logo of another platform. A new product for ThinkGeek?
So please, RTFA. It's worth it.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Loving a product because it is of high quality is OK, Loving a product because its made by a certain manufacturer is a problem .
People all too often insult those who like the product for what it is, bycalling them fan-boys when who they really should insult is the people who blindly love something because its made by the manufacturer
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
"They get so caught up in what they are preaching, they don't have time to learn about other things." That reminds me of Linux zealots on Slashdot talking about Windows -- they don't know what they're talking about.
A good evangelist, though vocal and possibly in-your-face, is rational and can explain why he believes as he does and why you should too, but will not insist you beleive as he does "or else."
A zealot will drown you out and/or attempt to make life rough for you if you disagree with him.
Some people get turned off by evangelists they disagree with, almost everyone gets turned off by zealots they disagree with.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Apple would be #1 in the market.
There are zealots on both sides who will argue until they are absolutely blue in the face over what is better than what. However, how does anyone ever plan on being able to prove it? Mac Zealots evangelize Mac just as much as Linux users do Linux....But while linux may be ridiculously stable and open source....try getting any ported game to run as fast on it as it runs on windows.
My point is that there will never be a "winner" in this debate. They're all here to stay, and the more griping and screaming that's done about how much better one product is than the other, the more people won't want to use those products simply because everyone supporting them seems like a blathering idiot... They all have good and ad points and all this screaming is retarded.
Neg Mod away...
We should also hope that Rosetta is capable of helping OS X for Intel to run classic OS 9 applications.
Steve to developers in 2002: OS 9 is dead, stop developing for it.
Steve in 2003: You should all be developing for OS X now, OS 9 is dead.
Steve in 2005: Develop under OS X Xcode, OS 9 is long dead
Steve in 2006: I mean it, seriously, just stop already
Steve in 2007: WTF is wrong with you people, stop developing for OS 9 already.
So they say Rosetta won't run OS 9 apps... isn't it time Classic is laid to rest once and for all? You need to step forward at some point.
...and that's all there is to it.
I didn't pick Apple for their marketing, their fanatics, or their devoted press. I picked Apple because the platform suited my needs. I liked the design of the PowerBook and I liked the design and feel of the OS. Those are the most important factors in my book. In fact, I got my PowerBook because I enjoy my iPod Mini so much. I recognized good design (at least, good design for my purposes, YMMV). Zealotry never really was a consideration.
...from John Siracusa of Ars Technica
Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today's Macs?
A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal has more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto--
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.
Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this?
Steve Jobs manages to repeat the very same mistake.
I think NOT offering an Intel platform in the first mistake.
Also, the author talks about revenue loss until the unproven Intel product was released!
I am not sure, but Apple's announcement is certainly NOT stopping me from running and buying a Mac today...
Heck, if I REALLY want a Mac, I get it... if not.. will hang around till other options are available .
For some reason the editors cut this part of my question out...All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform? Did the iPod become successful because of or because of a lack of evangelizing and is a backlash from Apple becoming a bit too much of a "cool" and "think" dictator coming from people seeing it as hypocritical to it's think different market image ?
I'm sorry. Could someone please assist me in deciphering this first sentence-like-thing:
John Kheit followed up his MacObsorne article, which others have since covered minus the parts detailing a Steve Jobs uncanny ability to repeat his own mistakes, with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press, Apple's managment and parts of the user base as a bunch of deranged goose-stepping lemmings that are ignoring the costs associated with the Mac PPC to Intel switch.
I mean, I get the jist, but my meat parser is going apeshit over the syntax.
The Zealots hurt the platform.
... Profit?
First it places it on a pedistal so high that it can't possibly reach.
Secondly when the normal person uses it they find that it isn't as great as the Zealot advertises they feel ripped off and will likely make an other choice in the future.
Third, excessive love for a company will only lead to pain. A company (espectially a public traded one) is in it for the money. And they will do what ever makes the most bucks for them.
Forth. Forcing decision just by strength of conviction is not a good way to make a good argument. Sure you may win the battles but overall you can loose the war.
Fifth. Dissing you competitors zealotly can make one blind on what good the other guy is dooing.
Sixth. Blind to what you being zealot about faults.
Seventh. When you do make a true balanced point you will be classified as a zealot and not listened to.
Eighth. Situations occure that forces you to flip-flop on your speach. ie "Classic Rules Unix sucks" Now "Unix Rules and Classic Sucks" or "Command line is for loosers" now "Command line adds more power to the system"
Ninth. You spend more time defending yourself then actully enjoying your life.
Tenth.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This activity as of late harkens back to the DEC and SGI days. SGI took a similar route to Apple, ditching their high-performance IRIX and MIPS workstation platform in favor of a lower-powered, but Windows NT-based x86 workstation. In the end, SGI did end up returning to their IRIX/MIPS roots, but it was not enough. They had dischanted enough of their userbase that they never fully recovered. Their switch to the terribly performing Itanium platform has basically sealed their fate as a minor player in the workstation market.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
>All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users
>and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?
I think AmigaOS is the greatest, it's easier to use and customize than blah blah blah.
Guess what? Every time someone says a good thing about Amiga, zillions of Slashdotters attack, calling the poster nuts, stupid, dead, and other things. I'll probably get called names or told my platform is dead just for posting this satirical evangalistic nonsense here.
So it's not good or beneficial to all platforms. You all used to think Mac users were a bunch of weirdos too until the switch to OSX, right? Suddenly Macs became cool and accepted on Slashdot and other places. Why did the Mac Mini get popular here, because someone went on and on about how cool they thought Apple or Jobs was, or because a tiny quiet computer with a BSD based OS was actually useful for new space-sensetive applications?
I don't think that evangelizing changed that, the better technology did.
From the article:
;)
With far too few exceptions, this is a group that just days ago was smugly debunking, dismantling, and railing against the notion of Intel processors in their Macs, only now to squirm and slither out explanations that provide justifications to the contrary.
I see the Reality Distortion Field has worked once again.
This is ridiculous.
Let's take a step back:
Apple is now less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business, and less than 3% of Freescale's.
IBM is focused on the server market, embedded markets, and gaming console marketplace. Not desktop and portable (especially), areas where Apple desperately needs processors.
Freescale is, and has been, focused on the embedded, communications and automotive markets, and the fact that some of the processors were also good for some Apple products was almost incidental.
PowerPC in the desktop marketplace is going nowhere fast, and IBM has shown that in spades for the last two years. Its renewed focus and commitment to the game console market eclipses any priorities Apple would ever hope IBM to have.
So, Apple made a tough choice. A choice its been planning for, just in case, for over 5 years.
The Intel (vs AMD) move was one of convenience and political expedience. Intel gets a big PR win, Apple gets its point across. Once the x86 architecture switch is complete, the hard part is over, and Apple is free to use other products from, e.g., AMD, as do many other x86 vendors. And Apple hasn't forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace in the least. The message now is simple, and has to be kept simple: we're moving to x86.
Further, PowerPC support WILL continue for an indefinite period into the future. The Mac OS X product lifecycle is now about two years. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) will ship likely around MWSF 2007, and will support PowerPC. It will have a lifecycle of two years, for a total of continuing support for four years from now. Apple has been providing security updates for the previous version of the OS from the current one since Mac OS X 10.0; therefore, we can assume security updates and fixes for a minimum of six years. And that's just from what we know now; the support may in fact last longer than that.
At some point, support for older hardware is dropped from the current version of the OS (e.g., G3s). What's the difference whether the hardware that supplants it contains an IBM PowerPC G6 or an Intel Pentium 6?
Further, this crap about software companies - already using Xcode, mind you - arbitrarily dropping PowerPC support from their applications early is complete, unadulterated bullshit. Aside from which, the 68K -> PPC transition, as rocky as it was, is often viewed as the quintessential success in hardware transitions.
I'm sorry if some people really want people to panic and stop buying all PowerPC hardware, and possibly commit mass suicide. But with the CLEAR commitment of Freescale and IBM to literally everywhere but the desktop(/portable) market in terms of the features and performance Apple needs, I can't see this decision as anything but a good thing.
I think I speak for many Mac users when I say "I have confidence in Apple's decision to continue the Mac experience using Intel CPUs."
- I made the x68 to PPC switch.
- I made the OS 9 to OS X switch.
- I'm going to make the PPC to Intel switch.
Our platform has constantly been playing catch-up and on a rare occasion, our top of the line jumps ahead of the x86 top of the line for a month or so.
Unfortunately, very few of us live at the top of the line. Our consumer offerings fall well behind the x86 architecture in various areas. While the rest of our hardware is well ahead of the PC curve, the CPU does not.
Perhaps if IBM had shown us a portable G5 or a 3+GHz system... I would be morning their absence.
I will also wait until I see a shipping system before casting negative speculation on this issue. Perhaps apple WILL use a BIOS in the shipping system, perhaps not. Will we still have Firewire 800? What about Target Mode... etc. etc.
How about you wait and see what Apple and Intel can conjure up?
The article makes a common mistake. Before, SOME mac users claimed PPC was THE way to go. Now SOME Mac users are saying Intel sounds like a good idea. Hey, guess what? They are not the same people saying this. The author is just being silly. I don't think many people have changed their positions about anything since Jobs made his announcement. The people who were saying "Mac is better because of PPC" are now saying, "Damn, this is a bad move, what's going on?" But most people don't give a crap. It's just about making the best Mac possible. If it's built on Intel, great.
Currently hooked on AMP
I want to know what Kheit and the other naysayers think Apple's options were. Motorola failed to deliver on faster chips and IBM has such a huge cash cow with the CPU business for the new X-box and PS/3 that you have to wonder how much effort they'd be willing to make to produce faster desktop chips for Apple.
Apple is already falling behind in the laptop world, for $1000 less than Apple sells their top of the line G4 laptop I can get a Toshiba with a 17" screen, built-in wireless, super drive, 100Gb hard drive, 3.33 Ghz CPU and 533Mhz front side bus. OK, sure, megahertz comparisons are hard but when you're comparing two CPUs and one of them is clocked twice as fast and has a faster front side bus then it's pretty much over. Sure, the Toshiba is a brick compared to the PowerMac 17" (although it's a very solid brick, I've owned Toshibas and like them quite a bit) but if you don't want a brick with a huge screen you have smaller and lighter options.
I'm not really happy about this decision but the naysayers such as Kheit aren't saying anything other than "we're pissed off because we're losing the PowerPC", they certainly aren't offering any kind of alternative strategy for what Apple could have done instead of switching CPU architectures. Perhaps they'd be happier if Apple continued on as a sort of red-headed bastard step-child of IBM and Freescale and faded into obscurity as their CPU offerings became less and less relevant and less and less competitive to what Intel and AMD were offering.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
This article doesn't know what it wants to be.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
And in this cor-nah, wearing tattoos of Apples, weighing in at 45 lbs., with a combined record of 6-12, are tha Macintosh Zealots.
And in this cor-nah, wearing helicopter hats, weighing in at an unknown, global weight, with an unknown record but lots of How-To's, are tha Linux Zealots.
And in that cor-nah, wearing ties, weighing in at an 800 haaaaairy lbs, is the gorilla itself, Middle Management.
And in the fah cor-nah, laughing their asses off, is Microsoft.
Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuummmmmbbbbblllleeeeee.....!!!!
My favorite part of Slashdot these days is all the FUD. I mean, with the Apple-to-Intel stuff, how many more Gross Conceptual Errors can there possibly be in one article??? Come on people! Keep it up! This shit is hi-larious!
"Thank you. Please spellcheck your genitalia references though.
There are a few more in the pipeline:
1. From Objective-C to something faster and less brain damaged. Let's face it, there's NO tangible benefit to using Objective-C. None. It's just an additional cost and pain in the ass.
2. From microkernel to something less taxing in IPC department. Otherwise app startup times and multithreaded app performance will remain as crappy as they are now.
3. From 32 bit to 64 bit for UI apps. Right now only console apps can be 64 bit.
And you're gonna pay every step of the way.
Steve's been trying to kill Classic Mac OS for longer than that.
Steve to developers in 1997: Rhapsody will only run OS 8 apps in an emulator, start using "Yellow Box" now.
Steve to developers in 1998: If you port to Carbon, you'll be able to run on Rhapsody and OS 8/9.
Steve to developers in 1997: If you develop for Carbon, you'll be able to run on OS X and OS 8/9.
Steve to developers in 2000: If you develop for Carbon, you can run on OS X, but Cocoa is really the way forward.
Steve to developers in 2001: We really have OS X working properly now, switch to Cocoa.
Steve to developers in 2002: OS 9 is dead, stop developing for it.
Steve in 2003: You should all be developing for OS X now, OS 9 is dead.
Steve in 2004: Develop under OS X Xcode, OS 9 is long dead
Steve in 2005: It'll be much easier to port Cocoa apps to OS X Intel, and did you notice we don't sell OS 9 bootable Macs any more?
Steve in 2006: It's much easier to port Cocoa apps to OS X Intel, you don't need to keep OS 9 compatibility, honest!
Steve in 2007: WTF is wrong with you people, stop developing for OS 9 already.
does it run linux?
if so.. cool..
otherwise, I sheet on it!!
</linux_zealot_mode>
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
The line in the 'about' box said 'Pentium 4-processor', and the '-' was in the wrong place - it should have said 'Pentium-4 processor', but it *was* a pre-production machine for developers only... this audience is supposed to have a clue...
Looks to me like there's no hyphen at all.
...and that's all there is to it.
Dark Castle.
;)
Bolo.
Early versions of MacWrite/MacPaint.
Fool's Errand (and its sequels).
NetTrek 3.
Zork.
Or anything that used to be shipped on a 400k, 800k or 1.4mb floppy(ies). Photoshop 1.0, QuickTime 1.0...
Etc., etc.
For those who grew up on Macs, these have nostalgic meaning. It would be nice to be able to run them, on a whim. I know it must seem silly, but I was a nerdy kid and spent a lot of my life on Macs and promoting Macs
Hopefully there will be an emulation solution for this stuff. I know that back when I was at college, people were using a Mac emulation environment on Wintel just to play Snood (which has since gotten a Wintel version). Perhaps that will get a new lease on life. I know there is a solution called vMac, but I don't think it's been updated in some time...
Oh really? Now that sounds like the dying gasp of another zelot. Having had Steve Jobs finally tell you it's okay to condem the processor, you still claim everything else Mac is better than the PC.
What exactly is ahead hardware wise? PCI slots? Nvidia video cards? AGP slot (oops). USB keyboards and mice? Audio? Just what other everything are you talking about? The power switch?
And how much of that will make the transition to an Intel Mac? Jobs is going to be using Intel chipsets in conjunction with his Intel CPU's. Same thing Dell uses.
You, Sir, are still a zelot, and one grasping at crumbs. Mac hasn't even gotten to an onboard RAID controller, although they'll get one with Intel finally.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
>How much do you want to bet a bunch of those developers drop support for PPC Macs far sooner than the
>aforementioned "3-5 year" period and claim that the games demand the "performance" of the faster Intel
>machines. We already saw that when Doom 3 was released for the Mac. It supported only the very fastest
>Macs while leaving many other current and/or new Macs out in the lurch.
Does he think we just sit around and say "Lets just not support the rest of these macs because we want to screw the user base!"
We work with Apple, ATI, and Nvidia to make everything run as well as possible. Doom 3 had AltiVec code in it, and there were driver changes to make things work better. The bottom line is that the compiler / cpu / system / graphics card combinations available for macs has just never been as fast as the equivalent x86/windows systems. The performance gap is not a myth or the result of malicious developers trying to make your platform of choice look bad.
Yes, it is always possible to make an application faster, but expecting developers to work harder on the mac platform than on windows is not reasonable. The xbox version of Doom required extensive effort in both programming and content to get good performance, but it was justified because of the market. In hindsight, we probably should have waited and ported the xbox version of the game to the mac, which would have played on a broader range of hardware. Of course, then we would have taken criticism for only giving the mac community the "crippled, cut down version".
John Carmack
Historically, Apple has led in technology innovations: GigE, 802.11g, USB instead of serial (how's your PS/2 keyboard?), Firewire, Firewire800, standard optical audio I/O (sharing a connector with the analog I/O, which is nice), standard line-level audio inputs, optical mice, self-illuminating and adjusting keyboards, touchwheels, self-crossing ethernet. Just because many of those innovations are now on PCs doesn't make them any less of an innovation.
You, Sir, are still a zelot, and one grasping at crumbs. Mac hasn't even gotten to an onboard RAID controller, although they'll get one with Intel finally.
Really? So, I can't RAID multiple hard drives in my Mac, without needing any add-on hardware or software? I wonder what it's doing, then.
-T
>>> All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?"
You mean like Linux.
Perhaps if IBM had shown us a portable G5 or a 3+GHz system... I would be morning their absence.
IBM is showing you a 3-core 3.2 GHz "G5" and a "G5" with 8 integrated DSPs, either of which could have been used in a Powermac if Apple was actually interested in them.
Freescale is showing you a G4 that'll run as fast as a 3 GHz Pentium 4 and cooler than a Pentium M and its bridge chips... because it's an integrated CPU with multiple independent memory and I/O ports.
Mourn that.
optical mice, self-illuminating and adjusting keyboards
Um, I'm pretty sure Microsoft were the ones who came out with the first modern optical mice. The puck mice Apple was using in 1999 sure weren't optical.
And those keyboards are nowhere near as good as the ones the IBM Thinkpad was already using... and the LED at the top of the Thinkpad's screen does a MUCH better job of letting you work in the dark.
1. Software vendors will abandon support for PPC machines as soon as it makes business sense to do so.
Of course, but here's the thing : in the very, very, very vast majority of cases, it won't make sense. Comparing the situation to NeXT is a bit silly ( unless you'd like to compare numbers of installed users, see my point yet? ). If someone decides to stop supporting PPC, it means their product has somehow become Intel-specific ( how? ) and they have a small PPC install base, _and_ don't want the existing PPC customers. That should be pretty rare, really. I'd like to see the numbers of NeXT vendors that dropped 68k support and kept Intel support, anyway; I don't think that number is as high as this guy claims.
2. Software vendors will charge you money for Intel (or PPC) versions of software when it makes business sense to do so.
They'll happen either as upgrades or as new versions of software. You'd pay for those anyway. Yes, people buying Intel macs and wanting native performance will end up buying lots of new software. Duh. Guess what happens with every OS switch? Of course, if performance is acceptable, you can probably put off that software purchase for quite a while... initial reports show Rosetta getting pretty decent performance, so this could be less of an issue. Even if it is, is it a reason to not buy a Mac today? It sounds like more of a reason to not buy an Intel Mac if you already own a PPC Mac.
3. Apple has shown it drops support for old products regularly because it makes business sense to do so.
Like every other company on the planet? Yet, with the tools in place to make builds for PPC a single checkbox away, it should be some time before simply using that check box doesn't make business sense. Let's see... when exactly did NeXT stop supporting 68k hardware, since that's what he's comparing this to? Was there ever an NeXTStep for Intel release without a matching 68k release? Ok, I know... there weren't many of the first, but it was pretty easy for them to keep 68k support, and they did.
4. Macs tended to have a far longer life-span than the average PC.
Yea... and this changes how ? Right now, a dual G5 is right up there with a top-of-the-line PC ( well, except maybe for the graphics card, maybe ) and will still compare to that same PC... his prediction is that in 2 years today's PCs will be obsolete? Wow. Stunning.
5. The new Intel machines promise to be much faster than current machines.
Huh. That's the reason for the switch right there in a nutshell, isn't it?
6. People do not buy computers only for how it will serve them today, but for how capable it will be in serving them for their desired term of use.
uh... as compared to _other_ computers available to buy _today_. If I _can_ put off buying a computer, I'm going to; tomorrow will always provide faster computers at lower prices. If I can't ( say, I'm a student starting college this fall... or a business which just hired a new employee... or I just need a computer to handle my digital photos ), well, I'm likely to buy one now rather than wait a year. Better ones will be here in the future, but that's not terribly relevant today. If I want to run OS X, this doesn't deter me from buying a PPC mac unless I can wait anyway. In which case, I was going to maybe wait anyway for a year. For that relatively small group of users that can wait for a year, sure, Apple will parlay those users into pent-up demand for their first Intel machines. That's somehow bad for Apple?
7. Potentially no Classic support.
I thought he was looking for reasons why people won't buy more PPCs? If you want Classic support, you'll run out and stockpile PPC Macs. Believe me, though... few people want it. This publishing industry he's talking about don't represent that many computers... and it does represent a business that sets up systems and never, ever replaces the
There've certainly been Bitter, Obstinate Zealots around in the Mac community for a while now. They're the ones who've railed against every move that Apple has made that shakes their world view. The amount of flamage directed from the "old guard" at OS X went on for years. Putting the application title in the menu makes the system completely unusable! What idiot came up with the Dock? Where's my control strip? If the trash can isn't on the desktop it's no good! And -- my God -- the Finder isn't perfectly "spatial" anymore! Wah! Wah! Wah! Fitt's Law! Fitt's Law! Fitt's Law!
... that's blind zealotry.
Jesus Christ, people, give it a rest.
You know what? Giving Apple the benefit of the doubt that they've actually, y'know, put some thought into this decision and aren't just doing it because they think x86 chips will look prettier in those brushed aluminum cases isn't blind zealotry. Saying that, yes, you'll be willing to look at Intel Macs when they come out isn't blind zealotry. But rending your clothes and beating your chest and screaming, "No! Never! I'll keep my PowerMac until you pry my cold, dead fingers from my mouse, and goddammit, my mouse has only one button!"
Mr. Kheit, for your long and distinguished service in saying "Hell No, We Won't Go" to every single change Apple has made, I award you the Big Red Clown Nose of Bozo Punditry.
(And, don't worry, Dvorak fans! I have faith he'll reclaim it soon.)
Hmm, had no idea about the timeframe there. The first PowerPC chips were excellent in their day... I remember our school getting the first batch of PPC processors in the form of "Power Macintosh 7500's" and the performance gain was enormous over the LC's that they replaced. No one complained about the PPC chips after we saw the huge leap in productivity.
Keep in mind the date of that market share drop coincides with Windows 95's release. Windows 95 is really what killed Mac, because the main reason for using the Mac was a far superior user experience over DOS and early versions of Windows. With 95 out there, the user experience was "good enough" and offered a lot of things an average user would have bought a Mac for. So the creatives kept moving on with Macs, mainly due to having $3000 invested in software and fonts that wouldn't work on the PC, and most new users just went with '95.
Back in 1995 you could buy a couple of different Macs at OfficeMax. When Steve took over again the Mac's disappeared from common retailers like OfficeMax, which also helped to kill off buying. There was also so much talk of Apple dying that no one wanted to make a huge investment in something that was going to be dead in a year.
So basically what I'm saying is that during that time period there was a lot happening besides an architecture change to kill Mac popularity. Going from 68000 to PPC was great if you needed the performance and were committed to the Mac platform.
There are two types of Mac fans:
. html
The first is the more sincere user who is having a hard time figuring out what to think about the move.
The other says this was unquestionably a good move, and Jobs is, once again, steering the company right. (Forget the fact that these are the same people who defended PPC as vastly superior to x86 just a month ago.)
An example of the second type would be a guy I knew who at our company who has a habit of overstepping his bounds. He got really upset at us for buying Spruce DVD authoring systems because they were NT-based, and not going with Sonic, which was Mac-based. When Apple bought Spruce to make DVD Studio Pro 2, he told me, "You know, in retrospect Spruce was the way to go because Apple wouldn't purchase a dead-end company."
(This guy also told me regarding one of our vendors, "They're expensive, but they're coming along.")
As an example of the second type of Machead, here's a recent email thread I had with a recovering Mac zealot:
>>> This is an interesting theory that answers your random complaints...
>>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609
>>>
>>> -b. smith
>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>
>> To cite a Slashdot post on the issue:
>> When a company with 30B USD market cap becomes a part of a company with 170B USD market cap it's called an acquisition, not a "merger."
>>
>> --j
>>
>>
>
> I think the guy went over the edge... but it was an interesting theory.
>
> Although, it seems like the vast majority of the Mac Community is supporting Jobs' move. Does this guy have too much power over our hearts and minds? You would say yes.
>
> -b. smith
>
>
Ah, my son. The moment you asked that question, you took your first step into a larger world.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Firstly, your subject line is patently false, per your link. PowerPC was introduced in 1994, not 1996
. .........2.5. ......4.0
Let's look closer at those numbers (per your link.)
Year...Share.....units (millions)
1991....11.2.........2.1
1992....12.
1993....10...........3.3 - PowerPC announced
1994....9.4..........3.8 - PowerPC shipped
1995....9............4.5
1996....5.1...
2004.....2.0..........3.5
Apple's market share peaked two years before PowerPC. It was in decline for two years before PowerPC. From the looks of things, PowerPC gave the Mac a temporary boost in unit sales, even though market share continued to decline. I would say, based solely on the numbers, that PowerPC had no discernible effect on the Mac's viability in the market.
There have been a multitude of slashdot stories posted all filled with angst ridden comments. But the simple fact is this move, while it may hurt in the short term simply had to be done, or the consequences would have been worse in the long term.
Quite simply IBM was not competetive, had very little driving it to be competetive with general desktop CPU's. To hang on in hopes of better days ahead would have been easy destructive way out.
Now Apple will NEVER again have to worry about having to fall behind on the CPU curve. It can tap the dominant x86 rivalry to always get the best chips going.
There are added bonuses of common architecture for code porters, and better migration paths (dual boot/wine) for windows escapees.
I have never purchased an Apple Product before, so I don't think I am subject to the reported Steve Jobs RDF, but I am keen on this move and the possability of getting an x86 Mac.
The enviro that will stop working with Rosetta is Classic. Carbon != Classic and will continue run as long as it meets the other requirements for Rosetta.
I am quite confident that nobody* has been developing for Classic since 'round 2001. That doesn't mean that certain-people-that-won't-be-seen-dead-changing-th eir-software-in-any-way-ever (frequent in the publishing industry) still run Classic apps. Moreover, even if there actually were Classic/OS 9 apps developed right now these users still would not use them for the same reason.
* I do know of a few audio apps. But they've been simultaneously released for OS X so it's beside the point here.
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?
Well, I'm a Mac zealot, and I've convinced 4 or 5 people who were fed up with there shit-riddled Windows boxes to switch to Macs. They've never been happier, and tell their friends about it. So...it helps.
The only people Mac zealots piss off are PC guys who know, in their heart of hearts, that OS X is waaaay better than anything that will ever ooze its way out of Redmond.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Apple's original, flim-flam video explaining why Intel CPUs sucked arse. And the (deleted) web page at Apple explaining, in more details, why Intel CPUs sucked arse.
Da Blog
I wish all these crazy computer-as-religion types would grow up and see the computer for what it really, truly is: a tool.
Computers are JUST TOOLS that help you accomplish useful tasks. That's it, guys. They're not religious artifacts, they're not fetish items, they're just the equivalent of a good set of socket wrenches.
You should choose the best tools available to you at the point when you're buying them, and you should try and squeeze some mileage out of them (this means, don't buy new tools every couple of years! Mechanics don't replace all their wrenches every two years, do they?).
Mac O/S is an excellent tool. So is Linux. The two are essentially interchangeable, given that Mac O/S is somewhat better at working with media files, and Linux is somewhat better for software development, especially web development.
Of course, whereas Mac O/S and Linux are roughly equivalent to Craftsman or Snap-On, well... Microsoft is kind of like the cheapo tools from Taiwan you see on Canal Street. They work, but they break a lot, and they don't have as fine a finish. Still, I suppose you might find a use for them.
Whatever! Back to the point! Relax, everybody! This shit isn't life and death, it's not even Red, white or Sangria! REEEEELLLLAAAAXXXXX!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Current Macintosh users and would be switchers should buy now more than anything. The reason is simple that Mac OS X (ppc) is fully matured. All major apps and drivers have been fully develop with little bugs. Moreover, with universal binaries, most developers will support ppc for at least till 2009-2010. Apple will be completely switched over by 2007 but a majority of mac users won't. So, there is no reason to believe developers will drop ppc support anytime soon. In contrast, I worry about the early adopters of X86-macs. Will all your devices work and will your software supplier have universal bninaries by then? Will Rosetta run your software well till it is? My guess is no. I was an early adopter in the Mac OSX transition, and it was not pretty. My system was only partially useful until 10.2 was released ( a good 2 years). I could accept it because it was just the OS, but I would not be happy to do that with a $1000+ computer.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
"All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform."
To answer that question, simply look at the extremely slow adoption rate of desktop Linux, which has more crazed zealots than any OS ever has or likely ever will.
I understand your point, I think, but I'm not commenting on that, just a point of info--
This stone age font--did you copy it into the font folder in the os9 system folder or one of the several OSX font dirs?
One of the nifty backward compatibility features of osx is that it uses any classic font (true type or postscript) that is in the classic system folder (though if there is an OSX version, it'll use that first). No need to translate it to unicode or whatever you tried to do. Classic need not be running. I use one named combinumerals that started life as a windows truetype, which i translated into a mac truetype. I also use a couple ps fonts that I got from adobe years ago. All merely copied into the OS9 fonts folder. Simple.
If it's a ps font, you'd want to have the ps font file and at least one bitmap size file, or better, a font suitcase with several sizes and faces.