I agree that Apple should create an EOL policy. But I wonder if the reason they don't is that they're afraid it would somehow tell their customers it's OK not to upgrade right away. (I know, this seems contradictory to what I said about Microsoft's EOL policy, but it's just using EOL a different way to generate sales...)
Apple is pretty good at generating buzz over their OS X upgrades, after all. Maybe even hinting that an upgrade is so cool that you can't live without it is bad to them?
I believe that Microsoft is not using its EOL policy to benefit their end users. Rather, it's a big spiky stick they're using to spur their customer base into buying upgrades they don't otherwise want. I'm not 100% certain of this, but my recollection is that they codified the policy about the same time they announced Software Assurance....
In our production environment, we're still running Windows NT 4 on most of our servers and workstations. And frankly, we're pretty happy with it. If Microsoft didn't have a date for Windows NT's end of support, I probably wouldn't bother with my current migration project.
Of course, no software company should be expected to support old versions of software forever. But really, I wonder if Microsoft would have a clear EOL policy if their customers weren't balking at "upgrades."
What kind of screwed-up Ouija board are they using to make decisions over there, anyway? I realize SCO hasn't made much sense for months and months now, but not taking money from the people dumb enough to give it to them? That's just bizarre....
Most of the patches to Apple OS X also require a reboot. Even for patches to things like iCal, iTunes, and what not. It's one of the more disappointing things about OS X. You'd think that a BSD-based OS wouldn't require so many reboots. Maybe they just wanted to carry on the old Mac tradition of "you have just touched your computer; do you wish to reboot?"
That being said, there are FAR fewer patches to install on OS X than on Windows.
I figured it was something like that. I think Outlook 8 was the last Mac client Microsoft did, too. So the new Mail will be the "best" solution for Exchange for now.
Really, a better solution would be to wean people off of MS Exchange. Funny how end users hold onto Exchange and Outlook with a death grip. You could take away their Windows, even their MS Office, but don't you dare take away their Outlook!!
If they actually sue everyone who is running Linux, they might have to raise their "license fees" even more to pay all the lawyers.
They haven't even asked for a single injunction yet, have they? How can anyone in the markets take them seriously if they make no move to actually back up their bluster?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is pretty good at generating buzz over their OS X upgrades, after all. Maybe even hinting that an upgrade is so cool that you can't live without it is bad to them?
In our production environment, we're still running Windows NT 4 on most of our servers and workstations. And frankly, we're pretty happy with it. If Microsoft didn't have a date for Windows NT's end of support, I probably wouldn't bother with my current migration project.
Of course, no software company should be expected to support old versions of software forever. But really, I wonder if Microsoft would have a clear EOL policy if their customers weren't balking at "upgrades."
What kind of screwed-up Ouija board are they using to make decisions over there, anyway? I realize SCO hasn't made much sense for months and months now, but not taking money from the people dumb enough to give it to them? That's just bizarre....
That being said, there are FAR fewer patches to install on OS X than on Windows.
Really, a better solution would be to wean people off of MS Exchange. Funny how end users hold onto Exchange and Outlook with a death grip. You could take away their Windows, even their MS Office, but don't you dare take away their Outlook!!
Support for Microsoft Exchange is built into Mail and Address Book to make it easy to access Exchange email and sync address book entries;
Does anyone know if this means full MAPI support for Exchange Server? I'm guessing not.
If they actually sue everyone who is running Linux, they might have to raise their "license fees" even more to pay all the lawyers.
They haven't even asked for a single injunction yet, have they? How can anyone in the markets take them seriously if they make no move to actually back up their bluster?