I don't think it will change. Apple is already moving off to greener pastures (IBM). Once IBM can lower the requirements of a G5 so that they are suitable for notebooks, and cheap enough for consumer machines, I expect the G4 to be dropped completely. In addition, Apple will probably use the next revision of the G3 with Altivec, which IBM is developing, for the iBooks.
I heard several people today complaining that their phones weren't working, and I can only assume that they, too, were using Cingular. None of them had any idea what was wrong, either.
Except that it's far easier to upgrade the OS than the hardware. In fact, when higher density RAM chips appear in the near future (2 GB DIMMs are already beginning to appear), and the ceiling jumps to 16 GB, all that is needed to have a process with more than 4 GB is an OS update, while a system with a hardware limitation is effectively obsolete.
I'm really not trying to be a troll here, but if a CS department requires a specific type of operating system (and probably the software that runs on said OS) in order to teach, then it's probably not worth the money to attend. Sure, learning to program with Microsoft's code du jour might help in the short term, but nothing beats teaching fundamental computer science principles in the long term.
What happens when the next big thing comes along and all the CS grads are stuck with C# as their sole reference point?
The computer I'm speaking of, the PowerMac 7100, was released in 1994. It wasn't until 1999 that OS X Server shipped, which was the first OS the machine couldn't run, but that was a server OS. That's 5 years. Consider, also, that OS 9 was updated several times before it removed 7100 support (it runs up to 9.1), some time in 2000-2001. That's 6-7 years.
Now consider the original G3, released in 1997, a full 3 years before the OS X beta was released. OS X beta does run on G3s, as does the 10.0 release, 10.1 and 10.2. Only 10.3 removes support for the original G3, which, when it ships will be more than 6 years after the introduction of the computer. That's 6 years.
Now, for consumer machines like the iMac, it is true that support ends faster, however, it's a consumer machine and consumers tend to dump their machines and replace them. An original iMac still got 4 years out of its useful life, which isn't shabby at all.
Most of your argument about recent lifespan of Apple computers has to do with the release of OS X, a huge change in how Macs operated. There were bound to be some ripples and snares in the whole process, as could be suspected in such a dramatic change. However, now that the messy work has been finished, I expect Macs' useful lives to continue to be as long as in the past.
Wow, this is totally wrong
on
G5s Start Shipping
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Macs are hardly known for their long shelf life (i.e. builtin obscelesence) so it seems that the best strategy is to wait for a machine which actually delivers on its promises (and throws in some extra Ghz in the meantime) and not some half baked go-between.
Macs are definitely know for long shelf life. In fact, it's one of the Macs strongest arguments. I personally know someone still using a 9 year old Mac as her production machine, simply because there was no real necessity to upgrade. She hopes to be moving to a G5 now, but 9 years is almost unheard of in the computing world. In fact, this lifespan is one of Apple's problems. The move to OS X has been slow because people are happy with their current computers and don't want to adopt a new OS yet while their computer has life left.
No, it wasn't. There are several ways you can tell, first and most prominent being the lack of ventilation of the case front. Also, the missing fans in front of the CPU blocks, and position of RAM.
Sure, call me an Apple fanboy, but I read both MacAddict and MacWorld's G5 cover stories today and I believe I have the case and logic board structure at least temporarily ingrained in my mind.
Trolling is all relative. It's kind of like a garden, if you want a certain flower in your garden, it stays. Otherwise, it's a weed that sucks the life from the other plants you want growing.
...Apple. Look at what Apple did with OS X. Apple took an Open Source OS and pinned it up with a proprietary front-end. The system benefits from all of the Open Source advancements in hardware control, while at the same time, the user has all the benefits of a modern, easy-to-use interface.
Perhaps the article should have pointed out that the commoditization of Open Source largely involves the things the user never sees. What hasn't evolved yet is a fundamentally easy-to-use Open Source GUI for the whole slew of commodity parts in the back-end.
Other companies have taken a similar path with commodity software, Red Hat for instance. However, their business plan involves capitalization on commodity products, not in the interface department, but rather in the support department. In theory, these two branches aren't that far separated. Interface and support both help the user accomplish the same thing, that is, getting work done on the computer.
I think we're nearing the turning point where we decide there aren't that many tasks we haven't managed to code on the computer. In comparison, we have a much larger area to cross in making things easier for the user. It would make perfect sense, business-wise, to assume that the area that is most open for development is the area that is most profitable. Therefore, I imagine this is the next area that software, internet, and computer manufacturers will flourish.
Cyberdyne Systems has announced a new microchip design with revolutionary human-like properties. The government has already begun courting the company for use of the chip in defense projects, such as the aforementioned unmanned bombers. Cyberdyne hoped the chip would have been finished by 1997, but fell behind after a tragic explosion in their lab and loss of the initial prototype. Code-named SkyNet, the government hopes the processor will be driving all defense computer within the next few years.
Actually he was referring the renaming of USB 1.1 as USB 2.0 Full-Speed whereas the current USB 2.0 will remain USB 2.0 but gain the Hi-Speed title following the name.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it will change. Apple is already moving off to greener pastures (IBM). Once IBM can lower the requirements of a G5 so that they are suitable for notebooks, and cheap enough for consumer machines, I expect the G4 to be dropped completely. In addition, Apple will probably use the next revision of the G3 with Altivec, which IBM is developing, for the iBooks.
I heard several people today complaining that their phones weren't working, and I can only assume that they, too, were using Cingular. None of them had any idea what was wrong, either.
Except that it's far easier to upgrade the OS than the hardware. In fact, when higher density RAM chips appear in the near future (2 GB DIMMs are already beginning to appear), and the ceiling jumps to 16 GB, all that is needed to have a process with more than 4 GB is an OS update, while a system with a hardware limitation is effectively obsolete.
Slashdotters with girlfriends? My world is crumbling! Ahhhhhh!
I'm really not trying to be a troll here, but if a CS department requires a specific type of operating system (and probably the software that runs on said OS) in order to teach, then it's probably not worth the money to attend. Sure, learning to program with Microsoft's code du jour might help in the short term, but nothing beats teaching fundamental computer science principles in the long term.
What happens when the next big thing comes along and all the CS grads are stuck with C# as their sole reference point?
Except the Mac and Linux users in charge of those systems... ;)
You can see it here. Same colleges different order. ;)
Just look at how well Symantec is doing! Up almost three dollars today.
It's not vendor lock-in if someone else has the key. So yeah, it is a security measure. ;)
The computer I'm speaking of, the PowerMac 7100, was released in 1994. It wasn't until 1999 that OS X Server shipped, which was the first OS the machine couldn't run, but that was a server OS. That's 5 years. Consider, also, that OS 9 was updated several times before it removed 7100 support (it runs up to 9.1), some time in 2000-2001. That's 6-7 years.
Now consider the original G3, released in 1997, a full 3 years before the OS X beta was released. OS X beta does run on G3s, as does the 10.0 release, 10.1 and 10.2. Only 10.3 removes support for the original G3, which, when it ships will be more than 6 years after the introduction of the computer. That's 6 years.
Now, for consumer machines like the iMac, it is true that support ends faster, however, it's a consumer machine and consumers tend to dump their machines and replace them. An original iMac still got 4 years out of its useful life, which isn't shabby at all.
Most of your argument about recent lifespan of Apple computers has to do with the release of OS X, a huge change in how Macs operated. There were bound to be some ripples and snares in the whole process, as could be suspected in such a dramatic change. However, now that the messy work has been finished, I expect Macs' useful lives to continue to be as long as in the past.
Macs are definitely know for long shelf life. In fact, it's one of the Macs strongest arguments. I personally know someone still using a 9 year old Mac as her production machine, simply because there was no real necessity to upgrade. She hopes to be moving to a G5 now, but 9 years is almost unheard of in the computing world. In fact, this lifespan is one of Apple's problems. The move to OS X has been slow because people are happy with their current computers and don't want to adopt a new OS yet while their computer has life left.
You appear to be a Microsoft Software Engineer reading user feedback. Would you like to:
/, the only place where paranoia is considered a good thing...
No, it wasn't. There are several ways you can tell, first and most prominent being the lack of ventilation of the case front. Also, the missing fans in front of the CPU blocks, and position of RAM.
Sure, call me an Apple fanboy, but I read both MacAddict and MacWorld's G5 cover stories today and I believe I have the case and logic board structure at least temporarily ingrained in my mind.
Didn't Midway do NBA Jam as well? That was a great game.
Trolling is all relative. It's kind of like a garden, if you want a certain flower in your garden, it stays. Otherwise, it's a weed that sucks the life from the other plants you want growing.
Did you just say Richard Simmons is hot? Anything else you'd like to share with us? ;)
...Apple. Look at what Apple did with OS X. Apple took an Open Source OS and pinned it up with a proprietary front-end. The system benefits from all of the Open Source advancements in hardware control, while at the same time, the user has all the benefits of a modern, easy-to-use interface.
Perhaps the article should have pointed out that the commoditization of Open Source largely involves the things the user never sees. What hasn't evolved yet is a fundamentally easy-to-use Open Source GUI for the whole slew of commodity parts in the back-end.
Other companies have taken a similar path with commodity software, Red Hat for instance. However, their business plan involves capitalization on commodity products, not in the interface department, but rather in the support department. In theory, these two branches aren't that far separated. Interface and support both help the user accomplish the same thing, that is, getting work done on the computer.
I think we're nearing the turning point where we decide there aren't that many tasks we haven't managed to code on the computer. In comparison, we have a much larger area to cross in making things easier for the user. It would make perfect sense, business-wise, to assume that the area that is most open for development is the area that is most profitable. Therefore, I imagine this is the next area that software, internet, and computer manufacturers will flourish.
I guess a certain mod hasn't seen Terminator...
Cyberdyne Systems has announced a new microchip design with revolutionary human-like properties. The government has already begun courting the company for use of the chip in defense projects, such as the aforementioned unmanned bombers. Cyberdyne hoped the chip would have been finished by 1997, but fell behind after a tragic explosion in their lab and loss of the initial prototype. Code-named SkyNet, the government hopes the processor will be driving all defense computer within the next few years.
Your Mac called. It says you left your sense of humor behind with it. ::rolls eyes::
Actually he was referring the renaming of USB 1.1 as USB 2.0 Full-Speed whereas the current USB 2.0 will remain USB 2.0 but gain the Hi-Speed title following the name.
No, fortunately. Here's an analogy. InDesign is to Quark as Quark was to Pagemaker.
Mod parent up!!! lol! (Where are points when you need them...)
- ???
- Get investigated by SEC
- Profit!
or:- Profit!
- ???
- Get investigated by SEC
Any insight?