How far can you really get with OS X and the 128MB these Powerbooks ship with?
I agree that it realistically ought to be 256, but Apple typically sells its stock configurations with low RAM to enable their VARs to offer free or dirt-cheap RAM "upgrades." Go to any vendor other than Apple itself and I'll pretty much guarantee you'll find the base configurations there come with RAM upgrades either for free or for an install fee.
Basic rule of thumb: don't buy direct from Apple unless you have to.
Apple will never seduce Windows users while their investment in hardware cannot be transported over.
Considering that most non-tech-savvy consumers never upgrade the OS that comes installed on their systems, I'd say you're wrong here. If most PC buyers "upgrade" to entirely new systems -- and they do -- Apple's model makes perfect sense.
Had Apple decided to stop making hardware and just sold software, perhaps we would not be in the trouble we are now in regarding MS vs DOJ etc.
An old lament. Yes, had Apple listened to Bill Gates back in the 80s and licensed the Mac OS, things would be very different. But that didn't happen, and today it would be suicide for Apple to compete with Microsoft in the x86 OS market.
You want the Mac OS, you're gonna have to get a Mac. Simple as that.
Microsoft may be evil, but Apple could be accused of having done nothing to stop it, when perhaps they were the only ones who could have.
Apple naively (and, to be fair, greedily) thought that building a superior (if expensive) product would be enough to ensure victory in the market place. Turns out businesses were far more interested in cheap commodity hardware running a POS operating system than in expensive proprietary hardware running a really good OS.
Why wasn't Apple making money off the clones? Why weren't the clone makers paying Apple for the R&D, was there no licensing agreements?
Apple's original license agreement, negotiated during the Sculley era I believe, gave the company a pitifully small fee per copy, so no, Apple pretty much didn't make anything out of it. Apple was able to renegotiate the deal with the rollout of System 8, but by then it was obvious that the cloning program was simply too little too late.
In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department,
First of all, the vast majority of Apple employees have no idea what is going on in the company at large. And Apple historically regards its marketing people as little more than a necessary nuisance; marketing people are often the last to find out about anything.
Unless it comes from an engineer, be very skeptical. Otherwise just be reasonably skeptical.
the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market.
Apple probably figures Unix users are resourceful enough to fill their own needs, instead of stomping their feet and complaining.
Apple has about 20 or so million users who still haven't upgraded to OS X. It is simply good business sense to get the majority of the user base migrated before staking out new territory. And your anonymous Apple employee got it wrong. Apple is not just catering to their own users; they're trying to woo Windows users too. Even a small percentage of this market could mean millions of new Apple customers. It is good business (hey, there's that phrase again) to begin making overtures to the Windows market and to leave the Unix market, which is a much savvier and more self-reliant (not to mention smaller) class of users, to itself for now.
He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath.
So all that effort to update the BSD layer and add gcc 3.1 was just to make Windows users jealous?
Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 12 years.
Apple didn't have a proper Unix-based OS until 2001. Apple was shrewd enough to figure that most Unix-heads weren't going to be migrating in droves to System 7, and so concentrated on the markets where it was strong: publishing and multimedia.
Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse
Apple could be ready to ship a 3-button mouse next week and your contact wouldn't know a thing. See above.
I can't believe people still insist on making an issue of the freakin' mouse. Even if Apple never ships one (which I don't consider a certainty, as the system requirements for Shake include a 3-buttoner), you can buy one for under $30. Or just plug in the one you're currently using; OS X will recognize it without any additional drivers.
And not to be churlish, but it seems like a lot of users have successfully transitioned to OS X even in spite of the bad ol' CTRL button.
Slashdot Mirror
by Apples own admission a few months ago, Linux has nearly double the desktop market share of OS X.
Evidence, please?
How far can you really get with OS X and the 128MB these Powerbooks ship with?
I agree that it realistically ought to be 256, but Apple typically sells its stock configurations with low RAM to enable their VARs to offer free or dirt-cheap RAM "upgrades." Go to any vendor other than Apple itself and I'll pretty much guarantee you'll find the base configurations there come with RAM upgrades either for free or for an install fee.
Basic rule of thumb: don't buy direct from Apple unless you have to.
Apple will never seduce Windows users while their investment in hardware cannot be transported over.
Considering that most non-tech-savvy consumers never upgrade the OS that comes installed on their systems, I'd say you're wrong here. If most PC buyers "upgrade" to entirely new systems -- and they do -- Apple's model makes perfect sense.
Had Apple decided to stop making hardware and just sold software, perhaps we would not be in the trouble we are now in regarding MS vs DOJ etc.
An old lament. Yes, had Apple listened to Bill Gates back in the 80s and licensed the Mac OS, things would be very different. But that didn't happen, and today it would be suicide for Apple to compete with Microsoft in the x86 OS market.
You want the Mac OS, you're gonna have to get a Mac. Simple as that.
Microsoft may be evil, but Apple could be accused of having done nothing to stop it, when perhaps they were the only ones who could have.
Apple naively (and, to be fair, greedily) thought that building a superior (if expensive) product would be enough to ensure victory in the market place. Turns out businesses were far more interested in cheap commodity hardware running a POS operating system than in expensive proprietary hardware running a really good OS.
Why wasn't Apple making money off the clones? Why weren't the clone makers paying Apple for the R&D, was there no licensing agreements?
Apple's original license agreement, negotiated during the Sculley era I believe, gave the company a pitifully small fee per copy, so no, Apple pretty much didn't make anything out of it. Apple was able to renegotiate the deal with the rollout of System 8, but by then it was obvious that the cloning program was simply too little too late.
Won't it be better to code much more useful stuff like education applications or scientific libraries ?
Which you are no doubt doing yourself, when you're not posting insightful comments like that one.
Christ, let people have their fun.
In an on-going email exchange I am having with an Apple employee (whom I won't name) in their marketing department,
First of all, the vast majority of Apple employees have no idea what is going on in the company at large. And Apple historically regards its marketing people as little more than a necessary nuisance; marketing people are often the last to find out about anything.
Unless it comes from an engineer, be very skeptical. Otherwise just be reasonably skeptical.
the Apple marketing person directly stated to me that Apple was catering to their historic Mac customers, and is purposely ignoring the Unix market.
Apple probably figures Unix users are resourceful enough to fill their own needs, instead of stomping their feet and complaining.
Apple has about 20 or so million users who still haven't upgraded to OS X. It is simply good business sense to get the majority of the user base migrated before staking out new territory. And your anonymous Apple employee got it wrong. Apple is not just catering to their own users; they're trying to woo Windows users too. Even a small percentage of this market could mean millions of new Apple customers. It is good business (hey, there's that phrase again) to begin making overtures to the Windows market and to leave the Unix market, which is a much savvier and more self-reliant (not to mention smaller) class of users, to itself for now.
He also claimed that Apple would soon start paying more attention to the Unix market. I won't hold my breath.
So all that effort to update the BSD layer and add gcc 3.1 was just to make Windows users jealous?
Apple has been ignoring Unix users for more than 12 years.
Apple didn't have a proper Unix-based OS until 2001. Apple was shrewd enough to figure that most Unix-heads weren't going to be migrating in droves to System 7, and so concentrated on the markets where it was strong: publishing and multimedia.
Also note that my Apple contact indicated that Macs would never ship with a 3-button mouse
Apple could be ready to ship a 3-button mouse next week and your contact wouldn't know a thing. See above.
I can't believe people still insist on making an issue of the freakin' mouse. Even if Apple never ships one (which I don't consider a certainty, as the system requirements for Shake include a 3-buttoner), you can buy one for under $30. Or just plug in the one you're currently using; OS X will recognize it without any additional drivers.
And not to be churlish, but it seems like a lot of users have successfully transitioned to OS X even in spite of the bad ol' CTRL button.