Dealers views

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 59
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    Hey thanks ed... Yeah I know we need to get on it fast... sux cuz our Lan Admin is a windoze guy and he just doesn't understand, but seeing the steaming grin on his face when I showed him OS X was well worth it heh.



    However I think they would pull a move like this. Customers still stuck in the past really aren't customers anymore at all. Didn't they pull this move back when system 7 came out? somethen about cuz 6 couldn't see over 512k of memory? I havn't been on a mac classic in awhile heh. Can you load OS 8 on a dual? Things should only go forward for them OS X is great think of the possibilities you wouldn't have without it? It'd be an ok move.



    Craig
  • Reply 22 of 59
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,412member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>Steve to developers @ WWDC in May.



    "OS9 is dead to you" followed by words to the effect ...even though users will be able to continue using the Classic environment.



    Pretty straightforward. OS9 is going away very soon as a separate OS.





    The workflows argument against doing this has a small amount of merit, but that is pretty quickly overshadowed by the fact that no matter where a user goes from OS9, there will be changes. You either embrace those changes or hold on to your old machines. Simple as that.



    Making a new box not boot OS9 does absolutely nothing to change the current workflow situation and forces no changes on a user unless they want to make changes. There will just be a little more thought going into upgrade decision timing.



    But from a pure business standpoint, if you need better(and faster) technology, you aren't likely to be a completely inflexible organization. Something drove that need, and it was probably external change behind the wheel already.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If a company needs to expand and buy more hardware, and they are stuck with an OS9 workflow then they are going to be seriously pissed if new Apple hardware can't boot the old OS.



    Yes Apple doesn't want new software developed for the old OS, but that doesn't mean they are going to deliberately break all the old stuff. That would just be stupid. The only way a new Apple machine wouldn't support the old OS would be if there was a very significant change to the machine architecture that OS9 just can't deal with via its HAL. 64-bit PPC, a new AltiVec version, or x86, but that's about it.
  • Reply 23 of 59
    jccbinjccbin Posts: 476member
    RANT:



    I'm sorry, but most of the "specialized" work flows I've seen in the publishing industry are nothing more than some consultant taking a company for a proprietary software ride - at high cost.



    Can anyone say BaseView (a very expense FOXpro (YES!!!) database app that runs advertising systems)?



    What a rip off (up to $12,000 a seat).



    So much of modern software can do exactly what those systems do for less cost and easier training/transitions.



    Having made a stupid purchasing mistake is not a valid reason to complain. Pay the piper or stay where you are. Compete or be driven out of business.



    All that said, it is the developers' faults for not moving to X, not Apple's in attempting to move on. Take your anger at Apple and redirect that to the Xtension makers and Scripters who took you for a ride to begin with.



    Or, realize that you've got two-three years to replace the systems you have now. No rush, really.



    Yeah.



    END RANT



    I feel for you. I do. But please get angry with your developer, not Apple.
  • Reply 24 of 59
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 25 of 59
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    woah... if I'd of known about baseview i wouldn't have wasted a year making my own Foxpro POS for our little agency <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> oh well see unlike other people who script crap, it was as if I was forced too, and moving all this crap to OS X is gonna be hard. I need to find out how to move it fast so I can force the migration down managements throat.



    Craig
  • Reply 26 of 59
    I just got off the phone to my dealer. He said there WILL be new powermac's by the 27th. No hesitation.
  • Reply 27 of 59
    bandalaybandalay Posts: 116member
    Nope.



    " The new PowerMac configurations will launch with a "single, single, dual" lineup in the same way they have now, but with non-G4 processors (read G5...)



    The only catch is that the chip supplier informed Apple earlier last week that they couldn't sufficiently meet demand for the new chips in time for August availability. Given the snafus at the beginning of year regarding the new iMacs not showing up at retail stores, Apple policy now states that hardware products must be shipping in sufficient numbers to stock all retail stores, to avoid the PR headaches.



    As a result, even if the new hardware, which I have been told has Nvidia graphics cards across the line, is announced this month alongside the Jaguar release, the newest PowerMacs will not be publicly available until the end of September."



    [ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: bandalay ]</p>
  • Reply 28 of 59
    bogiebogie Posts: 407member
    Gentlemen and ladies if any still hang around here,



    Its been a while since I have frequented AI with any regularity. So I know none of you and I doubt anyone knows me, I beg back from the days Mark was a mod ... the first time.



    Anyways, my thought is that Apple is very likely to do this [release a Mac that does not support Mac OS 9.x as startup software]. Market turn over is slow as many of you have mentioned. And developer turn over is also slow. How does a company influence this? Carefully yes, Apple does not want to alienate anyone, but at the same time, they must push, otherwise who is to say developers will ever move from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X? The same is to be said of customers.



    Now many of you mentioned that some customers have work based around Mac OS 9. And this Mac OS X only policy would disturb their upgrade cycles, no doubt in my mind. However, ask yourself why those customers have not moved to Mac OS X already and you will come to find that its not because they prefer Mac OS 9 but that they require it for compatibility. OK, so who provides this compatibility for Mac OS 9 and who will provide it for Mac OS X? Developers right?



    So where does this leave us? It indicates that Apple will have to continue to pressure developers to bring up their products to Mac OS X. Once that is across the board then customer transition is for the most part a matter of time. And it will take some time, people move slowly into big changes. But what if Apple didn't start this Mac OS X startup only on new Macs?



    If they didn't then a developer could continue to write Mac OS 9 software only [such is the case in terms of custom applications and plug-ins]. Now the developer could continue to do this forever [say forever equals the next two years as someone said earlier]. Then expect that customers will not move for at least 1-3 years after that. This leads us to the conclusion that the majority of Apple customers will not move to Mac OS X for at least 3-5 years. That is a long time from now since Mac OS X is 18 months or so old.



    For Apple to speed up customer transition it has to influence developer choices. The declaration that the Mac OS X ship has sailed about a year ago was not the beginning of this message, but it was when Apple started to be more blunt. The Mac OS 9 funeral was very blunt and was clearly to send the same message, "stop releasing Mac OS 9 software."



    Well, what else is left for Apple to do? Developers will continue to develop software for Mac OS 9 for sometime, but they will slow their efforts in accordance with the speed at which their Mac OS 9 market shrinks. The biggest influence Apple has over the size of the potential Mac OS 9 market is the introduction of new Macs to that market as adding more Mac OS 9 Macs will maintain and increase the Mac OS 9 market size. Therefore, to shrink the Mac OS 9 market and thereby pressure developers further to drop Mac OS 9 support, Apple will need to drop Mac OS 9 startup support on Macs. The sooner they do this the sooner all applications [including custom software] will move to Mac OS X.



    No one is saying it will be quick, it won't, no one is saying it will be easy, it will in fact be hard on customers and Apple, as well as developers [especially smaller ones who will be the last to change due to costs]. But the sooner Apple starts this policy, the sooner the change will take place, and the sooner it will be over.



    If Apple never made a Mac that would not boot Mac OS 9 you can bet that few developers would make Mac OS X only software, and few users would use only Mac OS X.



    Sometimes people need some pushing. Anyways, will it happen? Yes. Will it happen in less than two years? You bet. Will it happen in less than six months? I wouldn't be surprised.



    Just some thoughts from one of the old guys who was here when the bondi blue look at AI was still new.
  • Reply 29 of 59
    The bondi blue AI was awful. Then the black one....yuck. And the PPC roadmap page that didn't change for 2 years.....lol that was my fave.



  • Reply 30 of 59
    By the way I have hated the French since WWII. We should have made them switch to speaking English before we saved their hairy asses from the Germans. That and the total and outright ban of all berets!
  • Reply 31 of 59
    I work in a studio that is Mac OS 9 only. The reasons for this are:



    1. Feedback coming from the other studio managers that I know, is that Mac OS X is crap in a commercial environment - all of the studio managers that I know have had to remove it from their machines. These people are not technically savy - they have a job to do, and they just want to do it and then go home and see their families.



    2. If we were "forced" to upgrade to Mac OS X, we would have to buy new versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand and InDesign for everyone in the office.



    3. We would also have to buy new hardware for everyone in the office, because IMHO 400MHz G4s aren't fast enough to run Mac OS X in a commercial environment. We would also have to buy a new office printer and other peripherals, as they're aren't any drivers out there.



    So if we're having to buy new hardware and applications for everyone - and learn a new OS whilst we're at it - why don't we just "switch" to PC. Same applications out there, but with fast hardware to back it up.



    I guess this is where that 80% of Apple's installed base is right know - looking for alternatives should Apple leave them high and dry.



    Of course, if Apple released fast new hardware that allowed us to migrate slowly, we'd remain "loyal" and buy it when the time came.
  • Reply 32 of 59
    olliolli Posts: 39member
    [quote]Originally posted by FlashGordon:

    <strong>By the way I have hated the French since WWII. We should have made them switch to speaking English before we saved their hairy asses from the Germans. That and the total and outright ban of all berets!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So you are at least 70 years old ? Shouldn't you go golfing or so instead of wandering on AI?
  • Reply 33 of 59
    mattbrmattbr Posts: 27member
    [quote]Originally posted by FlashGordon:

    <strong>By the way I have hated the French since WWII. We should have made them switch to speaking English before we saved their hairy asses from the Germans. That and the total and outright ban of all berets!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    what does that have to do with anything ?

    there hasn't been any talk of france in this thread, now, has there... x()



    The french-speaking swiss are not french (well, some of them are dual-nationals, but still).

    short geography lesson : switzerland is a small country in the middle of europe (and therefore is not sweden ), and given the regional borders, there are 4 official languages spoken here, french, italian, german, and a weird mix of italian, latin and german called retho-rumansch.

    the french-speaking swiss are not french, even though they are more francophiliac than, say the german-speaking part. Given the language differences, the lingua franca in between the different language zones is english, although a bit of the younger and more educated part of the population therefore understand three if not four or five languages.

    the US did not liberate switzerland. we were happily collaborating with everyone, plundering gold and letting convoys through to the concentration camps. we haven't needed military help in a few hundred years, as the last few wars we fought were among ourselves.

    one last thing : our wine is crappy, and we don't wear berets.



    [ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: mattbr ]</p>
  • Reply 34 of 59
    zoranszorans Posts: 187member
    [quote]by Roonster

    I work in a studio that is Mac OS 9 only. The reasons for this are:



    1. Feedback coming from the other studio managers that I know, is that Mac OS X is crap in a commercial environment - all of the studio managers that I know have had to remove it from their machines. These people are not technically savy - they have a job to do, and they just want to do it and then go home and see their families.

    <hr></blockquote>



    I have seen this to be the case initially with the release of OS X, although now I would beg to disagree. Probably the best start would be to set one machine up as a test-rig using OS X and try different configs with it, especially with a copy of Jaguar (OS X 10.2) as soon as its released. A lot of people can't be bothered to "try" to make something work, so they plod along wondering why certain ways they have been doing things just don't "click".



    [quote]

    2. If we were "forced" to upgrade to Mac OS X, we would have to buy new versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand and InDesign for everyone in the office.

    <hr></blockquote>



    You would find most if not all should still be accessible in Classic, although if you did up the ante and had some new hardware wouldn't you "want" to be able to fully utilise that Dual-processor?



    [quote]

    3. We would also have to buy new hardware for everyone in the office, because IMHO 400MHz G4s aren't fast enough to run Mac OS X in a commercial environment.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Same answer would be here, Jaguar (OS X 10.2). Your 400MHz G4 should still be just as useable as it is now, and when you finally decide to upgrade hardware you can just keep running.



    [quote]

    We would also have to buy a new office printer and other peripherals, as they're aren't any drivers out there.

    <hr></blockquote>



    I was led to believe that the printer problem of which you speak is addressed to some great degree in OSX 10.2 (Jaguar), was I mistaken?



    [quote]

    So if we're having to buy new hardware and applications for everyone - and learn a new OS whilst we're at it - why don't we just "switch" to PC. Same applications out there, but with fast hardware to back it up.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Same thing applies. If you want "new" software, you going to have to buy new software. But i'm still sure you should be able to use a lot of what you still have and eventually do the upgrades in software incrementally.



    Is anyone else out there that has gone through this process that can perhaps add some insight, what works and what don't.



    [quote]

    Of course, if Apple released fast new hardware that allowed us to migrate slowly, we'd remain "loyal" and buy it when the time came.

    <hr></blockquote>



    I'm not really sure you have actually really "looked" at a slow migration yet. As it stands all Macs still dual-boot into OS X and OS9, so you should be able to see what works and what doesn't work in the Classic environment. Then you could slowly start easing into new software that would better take advantage of the hardware and underlying software in the new OS.



    Good luck to you, and I hope someone can contact you with experience in doing what may be required.
  • Reply 35 of 59
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    [quote]We would also have to buy new hardware for everyone in the office, because IMHO 400MHz G4s aren't fast enough to run Mac OS X in a commercial environment. <hr></blockquote>



    A 400MHz G4 would run 10.2 quite happily if:
    • It has plenty RAM

    • It can use Quartz Extreme

    Still, Jaguar ain't free.



    I'm fairly certain people said this sort of thing ten years ago:

    [quote]If we were "forced" to upgrade to PowerPC<hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 36 of 59
    It is fine to talk about the need for a push to OSX - of course it will happen completely - but let's be realistic about timelines.



    I work in music on a mac and OSX drivers for my PCI cards DO NOT EXIST yet.



    I work in music on a mac and an OSX version of my host application DOES NOT EXIST yet.



    Do you think Apple does not want to sell me a computer this quarter? Of course they do.



    By years end most of the audio world will have beta versions of OSX software. I could see Apple making a decent arguement at that point for phasing out OS9 quickly - but there has to be software for everybody first.



    I just don't think Apple will alienate any camps. That said, I think the change to totally OSX hardware will be in February. Seems to coincide with the long-term rumors of a next generation computer also.



    I would have no arguement as long as I can actually go out and buy software to work on it!

  • Reply 37 of 59
    wfzellewfzelle Posts: 137member
    [quote]Originally posted by Bogie:

    <strong>Anyways, my thought is that Apple is very likely to do this [release a Mac that does not support Mac OS 9.x as startup software]. Market turn over is slow as many of you have mentioned.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple says that this is the fastest turn-over that has ever been. Does anyone seriously believe that all those people still using early G4's, G3's, 4400's, 7500's, etc will move to OS X before they either buy new hardware or they get a version of OS X that runs reasonably fast on their hardware?



    Let's examine what will happen if the new Macs don't run OS 9. User A still runs OS 9 on a G3/233. It doesn't run OS X with decent speed, so he never tried it. He has been saving up for a new G4 and will try OS X on it, but wants to be able to run OS 9 as well (for the stuff that doesn't run on OS X or to run it permanently if OS X doesn't cut it for him). Then Apple comes out with OS X-only Macs. Suddenly the risk of buying a new machine and trying to move to OS X increases tenfold. What if a crucial piece of software (that doesn't (yet) have a replacement) doesn't run on OS X? What if he doesn't like the current version of OS X? What will happen if his SCSI burner isn't supported?



    So user A decides to stay with OS 9 which works for him and never tries OS X. Oh yes, I forgot to mention that the sales of Macs will plummet and Apple will make a big loss.



    [quote]<strong>And developer turn over is also slow.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In what universe? I think it's going quite well. Most problems exist when Apple doesn't deliver the tools to do the job. See the problems Retrospect had before Apple finally allowed a proper backup/restore. See the problems Roxio had with unsupported hardware, missing driver support and bugs in the OS. See the problem audio developers have because the beautiful API's that were promised are still MIA (after 18 months).



    [quote]<strong>Now many of you mentioned that some customers have work based around Mac OS 9. And this Mac OS X only policy would disturb their upgrade cycles, no doubt in my mind. However, ask yourself why those customers have not moved to Mac OS X already and you will come to find that its not because they prefer Mac OS 9 but that they require it for compatibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Some do actually prefer OS 9 for having many features that OS X doesn't. But that aside, you simply cannot ask companies to switch to OS X in one big whoop. Let them dual-boot. Let them run some of the new Macs they bought with OS 9 and some with OS X. If OS X is really the best OS, they will switch to it. If it ain't, Apple should improve the OS, not bully users to OS X (or Windows ).



    [quote]<strong>OK, so who provides this compatibility for Mac OS 9 and who will provide it for Mac OS X? Developers right?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple is the first too blame. They should make sure that you can do everything on OS X that you can do on OS 9. If you cannot, Apple shouldn't be forcing people, they should listen to consumers and improve the OS.



    [quote]<strong>So where does this leave us? It indicates that Apple will have to continue to pressure developers to bring up their products to Mac OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wrong. Most developers are already moving to OS X and the ones that aren't (Quark) are getting some heavy competition from competing products (InDesign). Of course, they is also quite a bit of software that is abandoned and never will move to OS X. Some of it won't run on OS X. If a new Mac doesn't dual-boot, people that use this software might not buy a new Mac.



    [quote]<strong>Well, what else is left for Apple to do? Developers will continue to develop software for Mac OS 9 for sometime, but they will slow their efforts in accordance with the speed at which their Mac OS 9 market shrinks. The biggest influence Apple has over the size of the potential Mac OS 9 market is the introduction of new Macs to that market as adding more Mac OS 9 Macs will maintain and increase the Mac OS 9 market size.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The biggest influence Apple has is to improve OS X so users will actually want to move to it and will ask/threaten developers to create OS X-native apps. Don't forget that an OS X-native app can be OS 9-native as well. Developers will move to Carbon long before the majority of users run OS X. They don't have to abandon OS 9 users before they can profit from the OS X users.



    [quote]<strong>Therefore, to shrink the Mac OS 9 market and thereby pressure developers further to drop Mac OS 9 support, Apple will need to drop Mac OS 9 startup support on Macs. The sooner they do this the sooner all applications [including custom software] will move to Mac OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The OS 9 market will shrink far faster when there finally is a version of OS X that runs with decent speed on the most Macs it supports. Your solution is far less effective then an improved OS X, has grave risks and pisses loyal users off.



    [quote]<strong>If Apple never made a Mac that would not boot Mac OS 9 you can bet that few developers would make Mac OS X only software, and few users would use only Mac OS X.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    MacOS X only? Why? Are you one of those Cocoa zealots? What's wrong with Carbon exactly?
  • Reply 38 of 59
    Originally posted by Stoo



    [quote]A 400MHz G4 would run 10.2 quite happily if:



    *\tIt has plenty RAM

    *\tIt can use Quartz Extreme<hr></blockquote>



    The machine I'm running has 640MB of RAM, and Classic on 10.1.5 is slow.



    It also won't support QE because the graphics card isn't up to scratch. I believe you need a minimum of a GeForce2 MX, and AGP 4x (although I could be wrong - please let me know if I am).



    Have you used 10.2, or are you just assuming that 10.2 will run quickly on a 400MHz G4?



    I'm thinking about buying a 17" iMac for home. I guess that'll give me an idea of whether 10.2 will be suitable for commercial use.
  • Reply 39 of 59
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    No, I haven't used 10.2. I was making a guess, based on the comments on 10.2 I've seen. Anyone else know about 10.2 performance on earlier G4s? Should have said "I'd expect": have to wait until it's available to tell. I used a 6300 until recently, so "quite happily" may be quite different for me.



    From Apple's Jaguar pages:

    "Quartz Extreme functionality is supported by the following video GPUs: NVIDIA GeForce2 MX, GeForce3, GeForce4 MX, or GeForce4 Ti or any AGP-based ATI RADEON GPU. A minimum of 16MB VRAM is required."
  • Reply 40 of 59
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    Some of you people are completely clueless when it comes to prepress workflows. These things change over periods of years, not a few months - or someone says "I've got a neat idea". Things have to integrate, slowly. And at some point you get the balance right and the switch can occur.



    But, when studios have hundreds of thousands of pounds invested in the workflow, things don't change overnight. They need to wait until they can get drivers for their printers and scanners, they have to wait until all their plug-ins work...



    And there's no use raging on about developers sorting it out, some of these apps and devices have been effectively abandoned by their developers. These things still work, but to replace them may cost tens of thousands.



    Additionally, anyone who thinks the Classic layer offers flawless compatibility is living on another planet - some classic apps can't even see server disks mounted on the X desktop!



    Either way, there will be no new desktop Macs that won't boot 9.x within the next two years.
Sign In or Register to comment.