I don't know the details of the situation but I do agree that you do need to be able to take some heat from those who disagree with your opinions.
What you also need to be able to do is accurately guage the cost of "winning" or "losing" a battle like that and whether the fight is worth it in the end.
Several years ago I worked on a large project for a year and a half where virtually nothing was accomplished due to various groups fighting over what the "right" solutions were. The fact was that any solution would have better than what was occurring.
One of the issues was NeXTStep vs Windows 3.1 for a certain group of users. Even though technically superior, I eventually withdrew my support for NeXTStep because it became clear that the project needed more than grudging compliance from the technical staff that opposed NeXTStep in order for the project to succeed.
My opinions from that point forward suddenly carried a lot more weight because I was seen as someone who was above the platform wars.
I eventually left that project for another group because I wanted to do NeXTStep development, but I know my decision was the correct one. Forcing NeXTStep into that situation would have guaranteed its failure and would have cost me significant political clout.
Re:Oh Kripes, bring on the MAC whiners....
on
OS X
·
· Score: 1
Can I piece together a decent machine for less than what Apple charges for it's stuff - yup! And that's part of the point - I can PIECE it together if I wish and EVEN upgrade it. Neat concept huh?
Apple sells computers. That's how they make money. They want OS X to be another reason to buy their hardware instead of somebody elses. I don't think they'd survive on OS sales alone. Not when you get Windows on new computers *for free*.
Sure you can still build a computer for less than what Apple will charge you for one of theirs. You won't be able to run OS X. That's your choice and I'm sure you and many others are perfectly happy going that route.
What bothers me about your post is that it seems to perpetuate this old notion that Macs aren't upgradeable. G4 towers have open bays for drives. There are PCI and AGP slots. There are several companies selling processor upgrades. What else do you want?
I'm willing to bet you can get at the guts inside a Mac tower much easier than any PC you've ever built (any that have a cover anyway). It has a very well designed case.
I upgraded the processor in my old PowerMac 7500 and not a single tool was required.
Even the cube, often scoffed at because "it's not upgradeable" is easy to open. RAM is a breeze to install. Firewire drives can be added externally or the internal drive can be replaced. This covers the kinds upgrades that a typical user would ever perform before deciding they want a new computer.Sure, some people need more flexibility. That's what the towers are for.
Re:out for a few days? - value of OS 9
on
OS X
·
· Score: 1
Actually, we only sell 9.1 this way anymore--and since only machines that came out in January of 2001 come with 9.1 preinstalled, this is pretty common. That is, none of the Dualie Gigabit G4s, and none of the Summer 2000 iMacs (Ruby, Sage, Snow) came with 9.1 Even if they aren't really interested in X at this point, they might be later--and the 3 CD set is only $30 more than 9.1.
As I said, I doubt that the fact that OS X comes with OS 9.1 is a selling point for very many people. All the machines you mention came with OS 9. The upgrade from 9 to 9.1 is a *free* download. Anybody who'd buy OS X because they want to upgrade from OS 9 to OS 9.1 is nuts.
Anybody who's got a machine running OS 8 or older probably doesn't have enough horsepower to be happy with OS X's performance on their box. There are exceptions. There are many tricked out older machines out there, but I'm guessing lots of them have already been upgraded to 9.
Don't get me wrong. I think there's plenty of reasons for the right users to get OS X. I just don't think a free OS 9.1 CD is one of them.
Re:out for a few days? - value of OS 9
on
OS X
·
· Score: 1
In other words, they are selling the beta for $129 because they had promised OSX was coming out in March come hell or high water.
An OS 9.1 CD is included for free, but I doubt many are buying OS X because they get OS 9 thrown in. Most machines new enough to run OS X well will most likely have OS 9 already.
On the other hand, a CD with some exceptional developer tools is also included for free and NeXT used to charge a fortune for those.
For me, the $118 was well worth it. OS X as a whole is much more stable than OS 9, the BSD subsystem satisfies the Geek in me, and there's enough native apps to keep me happy. Plus it just plain looks great;-)
Apple did need to get something out the door, and while it would have been nice to have more native apps at launch, it is sort of a chicken and egg thing.
If you're MS, you can launch a new OS and everybody and their brother will have apps ready for it. The market for Mac software isn't that big and since most of the Mac user base will be running OS 9 or less for a while, some developers aren't as motivated to get OS X apps out as fast. There's been a steady stream so far though.
Depending on what you want to do with your computer, $130 for OS X can be a great deal. If you're happy with OS 9's stability, going to be running mostly classic apps, and don't give a rip about *nix, then $10 is too much.
One more thing, I just want to make sure I understand you. OS X runs on top of OS 9 to provide legacy support? That seems awkward to me. Maybe its just me.
OS X doesn't run on top of OS 9.
If you want to run "classic" Macintosh applications from within OS X, you need to have a working installation of OS 9.1 installed on your computer, otherwise you don't need OS 9.
The akward part comes when you try to start the first "classic" application. This can take extra time because the classic environment must be loaded as well. To help eliminate this problem, some people have the classic environment loaded automatically at startup and just leave it running.
The other awkward part is that classic apps look like classic apps and don't have the aqua look and feel. Not that much different than what you experience when you run a Windows 3.1 app in Win 9.x/NT/2000
You can argue whether or not it's the goal of linux to bring UNIX to the common user. Some in the linux community would certainly like that, others could care less.
Apple certainly didn't create OS X because they wanted to bring UNIX to the masses. Their own OS development was stumbling so they bought NeXT which was crumbling.
In fact, many old-guard Mac users are suspicious of the fact that there's UNIX somewhere in OS X, and eeeeek! - a command line!
But, both Mac and Linux folk should see this as a good thing. It exposes the pluses of *nix to a larger audience and gives Mac users access to a large body of open source work.
And, if you don't like MS, well now the *nix community suddenly just got larger, and so did the number of Mac developers. Redmond can't be pleased.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure about the revo, but there is an mp3 player that works on my Mako (revo plus).
http://www.geocities.com/zavorine/epoc/mp3.htm
I don't know the details of the situation but I do agree that you do need to be able to take some heat from those who disagree with your opinions. What you also need to be able to do is accurately guage the cost of "winning" or "losing" a battle like that and whether the fight is worth it in the end. Several years ago I worked on a large project for a year and a half where virtually nothing was accomplished due to various groups fighting over what the "right" solutions were. The fact was that any solution would have better than what was occurring. One of the issues was NeXTStep vs Windows 3.1 for a certain group of users. Even though technically superior, I eventually withdrew my support for NeXTStep because it became clear that the project needed more than grudging compliance from the technical staff that opposed NeXTStep in order for the project to succeed. My opinions from that point forward suddenly carried a lot more weight because I was seen as someone who was above the platform wars. I eventually left that project for another group because I wanted to do NeXTStep development, but I know my decision was the correct one. Forcing NeXTStep into that situation would have guaranteed its failure and would have cost me significant political clout.
Apple sells computers. That's how they make money. They want OS X to be another reason to buy their hardware instead of somebody elses. I don't think they'd survive on OS sales alone. Not when you get Windows on new computers *for free*.
Sure you can still build a computer for less than what Apple will charge you for one of theirs. You won't be able to run OS X. That's your choice and I'm sure you and many others are perfectly happy going that route.
What bothers me about your post is that it seems to perpetuate this old notion that Macs aren't upgradeable. G4 towers have open bays for drives. There are PCI and AGP slots. There are several companies selling processor upgrades. What else do you want?
I'm willing to bet you can get at the guts inside a Mac tower much easier than any PC you've ever built (any that have a cover anyway). It has a very well designed case.
I upgraded the processor in my old PowerMac 7500 and not a single tool was required.
Even the cube, often scoffed at because "it's not upgradeable" is easy to open. RAM is a breeze to install. Firewire drives can be added externally or the internal drive can be replaced. This covers the kinds upgrades that a typical user would ever perform before deciding they want a new computer.Sure, some people need more flexibility. That's what the towers are for.
As I said, I doubt that the fact that OS X comes with OS 9.1 is a selling point for very many people. All the machines you mention came with OS 9. The upgrade from 9 to 9.1 is a *free* download. Anybody who'd buy OS X because they want to upgrade from OS 9 to OS 9.1 is nuts.
Anybody who's got a machine running OS 8 or older probably doesn't have enough horsepower to be happy with OS X's performance on their box. There are exceptions. There are many tricked out older machines out there, but I'm guessing lots of them have already been upgraded to 9.
Don't get me wrong. I think there's plenty of reasons for the right users to get OS X. I just don't think a free OS 9.1 CD is one of them.
An OS 9.1 CD is included for free, but I doubt many are buying OS X because they get OS 9 thrown in. Most machines new enough to run OS X well will most likely have OS 9 already.
On the other hand, a CD with some exceptional developer tools is also included for free and NeXT used to charge a fortune for those.
For me, the $118 was well worth it. OS X as a whole is much more stable than OS 9, the BSD subsystem satisfies the Geek in me, and there's enough native apps to keep me happy. Plus it just plain looks great ;-)
Apple did need to get something out the door, and while it would have been nice to have more native apps at launch, it is sort of a chicken and egg thing.
If you're MS, you can launch a new OS and everybody and their brother will have apps ready for it. The market for Mac software isn't that big and since most of the Mac user base will be running OS 9 or less for a while, some developers aren't as motivated to get OS X apps out as fast. There's been a steady stream so far though.
Depending on what you want to do with your computer, $130 for OS X can be a great deal. If you're happy with OS 9's stability, going to be running mostly classic apps, and don't give a rip about *nix, then $10 is too much.
One more thing, I just want to make sure I understand you. OS X runs on top of OS 9 to provide legacy support? That seems awkward to me. Maybe its just me.
OS X doesn't run on top of OS 9.
If you want to run "classic" Macintosh applications from within OS X, you need to have a working installation of OS 9.1 installed on your computer, otherwise you don't need OS 9.
The akward part comes when you try to start the first "classic" application. This can take extra time because the classic environment must be loaded as well. To help eliminate this problem, some people have the classic environment loaded automatically at startup and just leave it running.
The other awkward part is that classic apps look like classic apps and don't have the aqua look and feel. Not that much different than what you experience when you run a Windows 3.1 app in Win 9.x/NT/2000
Unfortunate title for the Article.
You can argue whether or not it's the goal of linux to bring UNIX to the common user. Some in the linux community would certainly like that, others could care less.
Apple certainly didn't create OS X because they wanted to bring UNIX to the masses. Their own OS development was stumbling so they bought NeXT which was crumbling.
In fact, many old-guard Mac users are suspicious of the fact that there's UNIX somewhere in OS X, and eeeeek! - a command line!
But, both Mac and Linux folk should see this as a good thing. It exposes the pluses of *nix to a larger audience and gives Mac users access to a large body of open source work.
And, if you don't like MS, well now the *nix community suddenly just got larger, and so did the number of Mac developers. Redmond can't be pleased.