" 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."
OS 10.1.5 runs pretty smoothly on my tibook 400 /w 384 MB Ram. The skimpy video ram is the only prob. I would like to get a new powermac though. I have found that upgrading to a new OS is always a hassle for anyone. Am I the only person that had huge driver problems when Windows 2000 came out. It took a few years before it was even halfway sorted out. The same with OS X. If your equipment is running fine right now on OS 9, why upgrade to faster hardware in the first place. Migration to a new OS is always expensive - but so is progress in general right? There are always the fast adopters and the people that say nope its not good enough, that find every reason in the world not to commit. Remember Apple isn't forcing anyone to buy new hardware. (Unlike Microsoft and their new software licensing scheme /w software).
I have been running 10.2 (build 6C115) on my G4/450 with 1.5GB of ram and a OEM Radeon 7500 since it was seeded and it runs ok with quartz extreme. I have a Rage128 running a second monitor without QE support and there is a noticeable difference in interface speed.
I just today tried to install 10.2 on my DP800 at work for a comparison and it will NOT boot on a DP machine. We tried it on 4 different DP Quicksilver's. (3 DP800's and a DP1Ghz) All 4 machines are running dual displays with 1 nvidia card and one ATI card, and we found with the ATI card pulled from the machine it runs fine. But with both installed we get the new kernal panic screen 100% of the time. So 6C115 is can not be GM, hopefully there is a lot of last minute optimizing going on at Apple right now.
[QB]I just today tried to install 10.2 on my DP800 at work for a comparison and it will NOT boot on a DP machine. We tried it on 4 different DP Quicksilver's. (3 DP800's and a DP1Ghz) All 4 machines are running dual displays with 1 nvidia card and one ATI card, and we found with the ATI card pulled from the machine it runs fine. But with both installed we get the new kernal panic screen 100% of the time. So 6C115 is can not be GM, hopefully there is a lot of last minute optimizing going on at Apple right now.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
That sounds more like a bug fix than an optimization.
The comments about why people aren't moving to OSX (especially to a version that isn't out yet!) are obviously made by people who have never seen a full-time heavy production environment. Shops that can't afford to ever "go down" take a long time to migrate their systems -- they won't even consider 10.2 an option until its been out a couple of months and has been run through extensive testing. There are still lots of systems out there running Windows3.1 (or Win95, or Win98) for goodness sake! All sorts of places have all sorts of very valid reasons not to "upset" their software environment, especially with something as radical as going to an entirely new OS... and yet they still need new machines, if only to replace units which have failed. This is the "real world" of computer business user -- limited budgets and a serious aversion to the risky nature of $%^#ing with something that already works.
Apple shouldn't be forcing the users to update, they should be convincing the users to upgrade because it'll make them happier. Users should be forcing developers to update their software because they want to update to the new OS.
Ah, AI. People are still as argumentative as ever. Its easy to claim "well its possible that ..." or "you just have no clue ..." than to hear someone out and discuss it. There hasn't been a discussion on this discussion board since it became available as far as I can tell, unless by discussion you mean argument or rant. Well, at least it hasn't changed.
On a related note, I read the responses to what I posted, for the most part I think people just looked for bits they could rant about, some missed my point either on purpose or not. Anyways, fact is Apple will do it, you will live with it one way or another [yes, switching away from Macintosh or not buying a new one does count as "another" and no I don't care if you do either], and in the end it will speed up the Mac OS X transition.
Regarding the people complaining about how Mac OS X is still slow or sucks or anything else. Find something better to complain about, Mac OS X is the best there is and 10.1 and 10.2 are demonstrations that more improvements will follow just as they did in the past. Go wash your car or something and complain about gas prices.
And on a side note I did kinda like the bondi blue with the black, but the never changing road map did piss me off or how about the codenames that were updated once a year or so and when they were new ones didn't show up as much as old ones were changed ... I remember when the IXMicro news broke about how Apple basically put them out of business by buying Power Computing and returning their OEM order for graphics cards in G3s. Crazy times.
<strong>Ah, AI. People are still as argumentative as ever. Its easy to claim "well its possible that ..." or "you just have no clue ..." than to hear someone out and discuss it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I responded to you with arguments, but you won't argue with me. Pot, kettle, black?
[quote]<strong>On a related note, I read the responses to what I posted, for the most part I think people just looked for bits they could rant about, some missed my point either on purpose or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think I misread you. If I did, please point it out.
[quote]<strong>Anyways, fact is Apple will do it, you will live with it one way or another [yes, switching away from Macintosh or not buying a new one does count as "another" and no I don't care if you do either], and in the end it will speed up the Mac OS X transition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, who cares about all those whiny fellow Mac-users that want to get work done? Who cares about the risk to Apple. A few of your favorite apps are still not native on OS X. The horror, the horror.
[quote]<strong>Regarding the people complaining about how Mac OS X is still slow or sucks or anything else. Find something better to complain about, Mac OS X is the best there is and 10.1 and 10.2 are demonstrations that more improvements will follow just as they did in the past. Go wash your car or something and complain about gas prices.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, you are saying that we aren't entitled to our own opinions? We cannot complain about the thing you like because it would make you feel bad or something? Have you talked to a shrink about your problems?
Or are you willing to argue that OS X isn't slower or lacks features in comparison to OS 9. Oh wait, it doesn't bother you. I guess that settles it then, Bogie, master of the universe. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Or are you willing to argue that OS X isn't slower or lacks features in comparison to OS 9. Oh wait, it doesn't bother you. I guess that settles it then, Bogie, master of the universe. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Are you kidding??? The 'features X lacks over 9' vs. 'features 9 lacks over X' will pretty clearly show the OS's for what they really are.
D</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not kidding. There are some very nice things in OS 9 that aren't in OS X. Are they hard to implement? No. Do they hurt new users or clash with the interface? Not that I'm aware off. So why isn't there a customizable Apple menu, why isn't there window shading, why were pop-up folders missing for so long?
I know that I can get most of that with hacks, but many others may not. And I seriously wonder why Apple expects us to buy utilities to get these things that should be in there already. And don't get me started on the problems I still have with my external CD-RW, the fact that the dock is a monster that tries to do far too much and isn't replaceable or customizable enough, the changes to the GUI that mostly value looks over usability (bouncing icons, aaargh) and the awful use of extensions (optional is ok, using them instead of type/creator is wrong) and all the problems that will supposedly be fixed with Jaguar.
Don't get me wrong, as a poweruser I like many other features of OS X very much and I would probably switch to it (instead of using it now and then) if my computer were faster (or OS X ), but I can't see the immediate reason to switch right now for most users. There are some serious downsides and not that many advantages for most of them.
Steve buried OS 9 last WWDC. Seriously, developer lag is 12 months to two years (Photoshop, anyone?). Some of the lag is due to Apple not being quite finished with OS X yet - I'm thinking of the audio layer, problems between Cocoa and Carbon (viz. OmniWeb and Java), etc. Metadata vanished, I think, because Apple wants to wipe the slate clean and do it right. Why else bring the BeFS developer on board? But that means, from the perspective of someone who relies on file metadata, that a fundamental part of the OS still isn't finished.
Now, as Programmer mentioned, companies and organizations with time- and mission-critical workflows (like most prepress and publishing environments) are not early adopters. They will not upgrade to something promising. They will upgrade to something proven when the need arises, and no sooner. If they look at 10.2, it will be after the stream of point releases has dried up, and then it will be installed on a test mule and tested for compatibility. So there's a customer lag over and above the developer lag.
This is not "living in the past." It's not FUD about OS X. It's what you do when tinkering, troubleshooting and retraining is not an option - or, if it's an expensive option. Publishing deadlines in particular are famous for being irrational and insane. So if a 233MHz G3 running 8.6 works reliably, it stays until a replacement is available that has been tested and proven to function seamlessly as a replacement.
This is from someone who has wholeheartedly embraced OS X, and who is excited about what it is and what it will be. But switching my home machine, and my (sadly neglected) projects to OS X is one thing. Switching, say, Time magazine is another entirely - they can't skip an issue or two to upgrade their systems! You have to respect that.
As someone mistakingly said chips don't care what OS is running on top, but thats a backwards view.
The OS most definately care what chips are in the computer, othewise it CANT talk to them (newer sound or I/O can force an update to Mac OS, its happened over and over again).
So the question is not whether the computer will run OS 9 it is will Mac OS 9 properly run on the computer WITHOUT significant updates to drivers and low level modules (QuickTime).
If Apple cuts of OS 9 with the next G4 how is this stabbing people in the back. As with iTools everyone is misquoting what Steve said (one unique email *ADDRESS* for life, not FREE COSTS for LIFE). No where in my G4 box did it say "Runs Mac OS 9 indefinately" to my recollection.
If your shop runs OS 9 and the next G4 doesn't then BUY THE DAMN JUST OBSOLETED G4s at a DISCOUNT and SHUT THE HOLY HELL UP.
Apple is not a life insurance company. They sell a product, not upgrades. If that product obsoletes something THATS THE IDEA. You WANT or NEED a new G4 not because of its new or different drive locations or white color but because it has better performance than what you got or has new technology (BlueTooth, FireWire 2).
Otherwise buy a friggin' PCI card to get USB 2.0 or faster ATA or FiberChannel and SHUT UP.
Man you people really are thick headed. You act as though since you purchased ONE friggin product from a multibillion internation corporation they owe you something more for life, now THAT is stupid.
Things change and you have to upgrade everything thru life, face it. Were lucky to have phones that don't have dials and people b!tched about that. If new ABS brake systems come out you can't upgrade your old ones (you can but it will cost a fortune) you only get them with a new car. Or you can drive your old car for ever, if you want to add stuff on as you go. But if your car needs high-octane leaded gas to run on you ain't gonna get it (I've got a car like that).
<strong>At some point Apple must cut off OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes. It's just a matter of when.
I'd say 2 years at the absolute minimum, more likely 3 or 4.
[quote]<strong>So the question is not whether the computer will run OS 9 it is will Mac OS 9 properly run on the computer WITHOUT significant updates to drivers and low level modules (QuickTime).
If Apple cuts of OS 9 with the next G4 how is this stabbing people in the back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple did a lot of work under the hood in OS 8.5 through OS 9. It now runs on a small kernel, and it uses discrete, upgradeable chunks of code called "enablers" to talk to the hardware. These don't have to be comprehensive - for example, VPC uses a similar concept to emulate a PC, and the video chipset the Windows apps see is some old, bog standard part rather than the chipset you actually have. Apple could do this just as well on OS 9 - no matter what happens to the hardware, unless it's truly drastic, they only have to tweak the kernel and write a new set of enablers. They set it up to be cleanly and easily kept in maintenance mode, in other words.
As to why they're stabbing people in the back - that's a needlessly dramatic metaphor. People use computers to do work. Some work is time-critical, and, as it happens, a lot of people doing time-critical work are also huge customers of Apple's. Sometimes they only buy new machines to replace machines that die, or are no longer up to the task - not because of new features, or because they need the speed (often, a new machine will end up replacing an old one indirectly, by bumping an older workstation that, in turn, replaces a dead/obsolete one). Apple can tempt these customers with new technologies - and the customers will look at them - but if Apple pushes them to migrate to something they can't use to do the work they need to do, they'll push back. This is the lesson that Microsoft is currently learning: The user is more important than the computer; the work done is more important than the platform. At the end of the day, a Mac is a tool, and if you can no longer use it, you discard it for something you can use.
This is hard, cold reality.
Now, in the case of these crucial markets, migration to OS X is contingent on a whole lot of things that are beyond Apple's control, such as when or whether a dizzying assortment of applications from educational CD-ROMs to Quark to Tanaka's OSAX to serial controllers written in HyperCard with custom XCMDs (I'm not kidding) can run on the new system, or be easily and provably replaced with something equivalent. Until the particular toolset a person or school or company uses can be replaced - preferably painlessly, because people have work to do - they will not budge, and forcing them to will simply earn their resentment.
Granted, Apple has done this before, and they've earned their share of resentment among a lot of people. It can be carried to irrational extremes - I know a teacher who refuses to buy anything Apple because they abandoned support for the Apple ][ series! - but for the most part it's simply the natural, obvious reaction of people who need a certain set of tools to do their work, and who do not appreciate any attempts to take those tools away for whatever reason.
Before y'all go getting whiney about OS 9 support. Perhaps you should stop and think about Microsofts progression through their OS'es. How many apps had to be rewriten to run in 98, Me, NT, XP? I think that demonstrates what kind of crap a consumer is willing to put up with. Apple has gone to extraordinary lengths to ease the upgrade slope for the customer. Before you start claiming numbers of users who won't switch to X don't forget to subtract those machines that aren't capabe of switching anyway.
If the customer wants to purchase an Apple they will switch. Because that is what comes on the new machine. I can't recall all the times I've asked a PC user what OS is on their machine and the response is.." I don't know.. The latest one, I think. I just bought it."
<strong>Before y'all go getting whiney about OS 9 support. Perhaps you should stop and think about Microsofts progression through their OS'es. How many apps had to be rewriten to run in 98, Me, NT, XP? I think that demonstrates what kind of crap a consumer is willing to put up with. Apple has gone to extraordinary lengths to ease the upgrade slope for the customer. Before you start claiming numbers of users who won't switch to X don't forget to subtract those machines that aren't capabe of switching anyway.
If the customer wants to purchase an Apple they will switch. Because that is what comes on the new machine. I can't recall all the times I've asked a PC user what OS is on their machine and the response is.." I don't know.. The latest one, I think. I just bought it."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a big difference here, however... if a shop is using Win98 they have a plentiful number of sources of machines which can still run the older OS, even several OS' later. Up until fairly recently it was even possible to buy a new machine and install Win3.1 on it. Since Apple is the only source of new Macs, when they cut off their new machines from using their old OS, that's it and there is no alternative.
There is a real and significant amount of time needed to allow all shops using Macs to migrate to the new system software, especially when its as signficant as the 9.x -> X transition. In many cases they're not even going to consider it before Jaguar is available because in a lot of ways X just hasn't been ready for various kinds of production work. That means the migration of many shops hasn't even begun yet. If Apple treats them well and does things that help the transition then they will move in a reasonable time frame... if Apple does something like cutting off the old OS on this year's machines then they run the risk of alienating these big clients and losing them to The Dark Side. Is it worth doing this just to try and accelerate the migration a little? I don't think so, and I'm going to be surprised if Apple thinks so.
A much more effective way to bring people to OSX is to pull them with enticements, rather than pushing them. After all, if you are pushing something you tend to have less directional control and whatever you are pushing might go somewhere you don't want it to.
Ok, what I am hearing is basically Apple will not ship machines that boot into os9, I take this to mean that the version of os9 being shipped with new machines will be of a form unable to stand on its own. That is to say the os9 that ships with 10.2 wont be a complete stand alone os, it will be more along the lines of an app.
Excellent post, Amorph, and you're right about the enablers... with one critical exception: 64-bit.
MacOS 9 is utterly *not* 64-bit clean, nor are the apps that run on it.
Expect a clean break with MacOS 9 *at the very latest* when Apple moves to a 64-bit CPU and mobo architecture. At that point, you're just SOL if you want to boot into 9.
<strong>Excellent post, Amorph, and you're right about the enablers... with one critical exception: 64-bit.
MacOS 9 is utterly *not* 64-bit clean, nor are the apps that run on it.
Expect a clean break with MacOS 9 *at the very latest* when Apple moves to a 64-bit CPU and mobo architecture. At that point, you're just SOL if you want to boot into 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true -- the 64-bit processor will have a 32-bit compatibility mode (this is a well-defined feature of the PPC 64-bit architecture). The enabler for such a processor in MacOS9 would just put the chip into 32-bit mode and leave it there. Heck, Apple could do this for MacOSX until a 64-bit version of the OS is available.
There is even precident for this -- back in the early days of the Mac there was a transition from 24-bit addressing to 32-bit addressing. When the first full 32-bit capable machines arrived, the hardware was put into a mode where the upper 8-bits of the address was ignored. Eventually the software learned to get along with 32-bit clean addresses and the facility was removed from the OS.
The switch is a problem. Investment in the software versions you don't really need (at least, right now), personnel's stubbornness to the extent of nihilism, clumsy outdated workflows etc.
For example, I work at a prepress bureau. Most of my colleagues are not computer experts. Worse yet, most of them are not experts in any field - just 'mouse operators'. When they see OS X, they all do the following:
1) ask where the trash is;
2) say they don't know how to switch to another app without the menu in the top right corner of the screen;
3) scream 'Where the hell is Chooser?!';
4) conclude that OS X sucks.
And the people are not morons! They just hate to learn to use a new tool because they hate to do a thing without being paid. Is this Apple's problem?
The second part of the problem is our customers. They all seem to work either in QuarkXPress for Mac or Pagemaker for Windows. They will never switch to inDesign just because they heard it sucks. They also heard that OS X sucks. Windows sucks. Work sucks. These people are victims of progress: I can't imagine they would survive in the Stone Age once they think stone sucks.
The third part. Several years ago one trained android was paid to program and set up a customer-tracking system for our company. He was fired later (though should have been killed for what he'd done). As a result, we have an ugly buggy system which just doesn't work with OS X machines. I offered to write a new system for OS X from scratch, but was told that our company won't pay for another presumably buggy system plus our employees "don't support OS X". When I heard this, I just couldn't resist to say they need to have their ROMs flashed.
Is this Apple's problem too?
I think our company is a crappy customer of Apple's. Apple will find it hardly possible to support every such customer.
Comments
<strong>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 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
just wanted to say that you have a funny signature.
oh, no... another thing:
WTF are you talking about??! where do you have that quote/info from?
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> *smells a big pile of poo*
I just today tried to install 10.2 on my DP800 at work for a comparison and it will NOT boot on a DP machine. We tried it on 4 different DP Quicksilver's. (3 DP800's and a DP1Ghz) All 4 machines are running dual displays with 1 nvidia card and one ATI card, and we found with the ATI card pulled from the machine it runs fine. But with both installed we get the new kernal panic screen 100% of the time. So 6C115 is can not be GM, hopefully there is a lot of last minute optimizing going on at Apple right now.
[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: synapse ]</p>
[QB]I just today tried to install 10.2 on my DP800 at work for a comparison and it will NOT boot on a DP machine. We tried it on 4 different DP Quicksilver's. (3 DP800's and a DP1Ghz) All 4 machines are running dual displays with 1 nvidia card and one ATI card, and we found with the ATI card pulled from the machine it runs fine. But with both installed we get the new kernal panic screen 100% of the time. So 6C115 is can not be GM, hopefully there is a lot of last minute optimizing going on at Apple right now.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
That sounds more like a bug fix than an optimization.
The comments about why people aren't moving to OSX (especially to a version that isn't out yet!) are obviously made by people who have never seen a full-time heavy production environment. Shops that can't afford to ever "go down" take a long time to migrate their systems -- they won't even consider 10.2 an option until its been out a couple of months and has been run through extensive testing. There are still lots of systems out there running Windows3.1 (or Win95, or Win98) for goodness sake! All sorts of places have all sorts of very valid reasons not to "upset" their software environment, especially with something as radical as going to an entirely new OS... and yet they still need new machines, if only to replace units which have failed. This is the "real world" of computer business user -- limited budgets and a serious aversion to the risky nature of $%^#ing with something that already works.
Apple shouldn't be forcing the users to update, they should be convincing the users to upgrade because it'll make them happier. Users should be forcing developers to update their software because they want to update to the new OS.
On a related note, I read the responses to what I posted, for the most part I think people just looked for bits they could rant about, some missed my point either on purpose or not. Anyways, fact is Apple will do it, you will live with it one way or another [yes, switching away from Macintosh or not buying a new one does count as "another" and no I don't care if you do either], and in the end it will speed up the Mac OS X transition.
Regarding the people complaining about how Mac OS X is still slow or sucks or anything else. Find something better to complain about, Mac OS X is the best there is and 10.1 and 10.2 are demonstrations that more improvements will follow just as they did in the past. Go wash your car or something and complain about gas prices.
And on a side note I did kinda like the bondi blue with the black, but the never changing road map did piss me off or how about the codenames that were updated once a year or so and when they were new ones didn't show up as much as old ones were changed ... I remember when the IXMicro news broke about how Apple basically put them out of business by buying Power Computing and returning their OEM order for graphics cards in G3s. Crazy times.
<strong>Ah, AI. People are still as argumentative as ever. Its easy to claim "well its possible that ..." or "you just have no clue ..." than to hear someone out and discuss it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I responded to you with arguments, but you won't argue with me. Pot, kettle, black?
[quote]<strong>On a related note, I read the responses to what I posted, for the most part I think people just looked for bits they could rant about, some missed my point either on purpose or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think I misread you. If I did, please point it out.
[quote]<strong>Anyways, fact is Apple will do it, you will live with it one way or another [yes, switching away from Macintosh or not buying a new one does count as "another" and no I don't care if you do either], and in the end it will speed up the Mac OS X transition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, who cares about all those whiny fellow Mac-users that want to get work done? Who cares about the risk to Apple. A few of your favorite apps are still not native on OS X. The horror, the horror.
[quote]<strong>Regarding the people complaining about how Mac OS X is still slow or sucks or anything else. Find something better to complain about, Mac OS X is the best there is and 10.1 and 10.2 are demonstrations that more improvements will follow just as they did in the past. Go wash your car or something and complain about gas prices.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, you are saying that we aren't entitled to our own opinions? We cannot complain about the thing you like because it would make you feel bad or something? Have you talked to a shrink about your problems?
Or are you willing to argue that OS X isn't slower or lacks features in comparison to OS 9. Oh wait, it doesn't bother you. I guess that settles it then, Bogie, master of the universe. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
<strong>
Or are you willing to argue that OS X isn't slower or lacks features in comparison to OS 9. Oh wait, it doesn't bother you. I guess that settles it then, Bogie, master of the universe. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
"lacks features in comparison to OS 9?"
Are you kidding??? The 'features X lacks over 9' vs. 'features 9 lacks over X' will pretty clearly show the OS's for what they really are.
D
<strong>"lacks features in comparison to OS 9?"
Are you kidding??? The 'features X lacks over 9' vs. 'features 9 lacks over X' will pretty clearly show the OS's for what they really are.
D</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not kidding. There are some very nice things in OS 9 that aren't in OS X. Are they hard to implement? No. Do they hurt new users or clash with the interface? Not that I'm aware off. So why isn't there a customizable Apple menu, why isn't there window shading, why were pop-up folders missing for so long?
I know that I can get most of that with hacks, but many others may not. And I seriously wonder why Apple expects us to buy utilities to get these things that should be in there already. And don't get me started on the problems I still have with my external CD-RW, the fact that the dock is a monster that tries to do far too much and isn't replaceable or customizable enough, the changes to the GUI that mostly value looks over usability (bouncing icons, aaargh) and the awful use of extensions (optional is ok, using them instead of type/creator is wrong) and all the problems that will supposedly be fixed with Jaguar.
Don't get me wrong, as a poweruser I like many other features of OS X very much and I would probably switch to it (instead of using it now and then) if my computer were faster (or OS X
Now, as Programmer mentioned, companies and organizations with time- and mission-critical workflows (like most prepress and publishing environments) are not early adopters. They will not upgrade to something promising. They will upgrade to something proven when the need arises, and no sooner. If they look at 10.2, it will be after the stream of point releases has dried up, and then it will be installed on a test mule and tested for compatibility. So there's a customer lag over and above the developer lag.
This is not "living in the past." It's not FUD about OS X. It's what you do when tinkering, troubleshooting and retraining is not an option - or, if it's an expensive option. Publishing deadlines in particular are famous for being irrational and insane. So if a 233MHz G3 running 8.6 works reliably, it stays until a replacement is available that has been tested and proven to function seamlessly as a replacement.
This is from someone who has wholeheartedly embraced OS X, and who is excited about what it is and what it will be. But switching my home machine, and my (sadly neglected) projects to OS X is one thing. Switching, say, Time magazine is another entirely - they can't skip an issue or two to upgrade their systems! You have to respect that.
As someone mistakingly said chips don't care what OS is running on top, but thats a backwards view.
The OS most definately care what chips are in the computer, othewise it CANT talk to them (newer sound or I/O can force an update to Mac OS, its happened over and over again).
So the question is not whether the computer will run OS 9 it is will Mac OS 9 properly run on the computer WITHOUT significant updates to drivers and low level modules (QuickTime).
If Apple cuts of OS 9 with the next G4 how is this stabbing people in the back. As with iTools everyone is misquoting what Steve said (one unique email *ADDRESS* for life, not FREE COSTS for LIFE). No where in my G4 box did it say "Runs Mac OS 9 indefinately" to my recollection.
If your shop runs OS 9 and the next G4 doesn't then BUY THE DAMN JUST OBSOLETED G4s at a DISCOUNT and SHUT THE HOLY HELL UP.
Apple is not a life insurance company. They sell a product, not upgrades. If that product obsoletes something THATS THE IDEA. You WANT or NEED a new G4 not because of its new or different drive locations or white color but because it has better performance than what you got or has new technology (BlueTooth, FireWire 2).
Otherwise buy a friggin' PCI card to get USB 2.0 or faster ATA or FiberChannel and SHUT UP.
Man you people really are thick headed. You act as though since you purchased ONE friggin product from a multibillion internation corporation they owe you something more for life, now THAT is stupid.
Reality is a b!tch.
<strong>At some point Apple must cut off OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes. It's just a matter of when.
I'd say 2 years at the absolute minimum, more likely 3 or 4.
[quote]<strong>So the question is not whether the computer will run OS 9 it is will Mac OS 9 properly run on the computer WITHOUT significant updates to drivers and low level modules (QuickTime).
If Apple cuts of OS 9 with the next G4 how is this stabbing people in the back.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple did a lot of work under the hood in OS 8.5 through OS 9. It now runs on a small kernel, and it uses discrete, upgradeable chunks of code called "enablers" to talk to the hardware. These don't have to be comprehensive - for example, VPC uses a similar concept to emulate a PC, and the video chipset the Windows apps see is some old, bog standard part rather than the chipset you actually have. Apple could do this just as well on OS 9 - no matter what happens to the hardware, unless it's truly drastic, they only have to tweak the kernel and write a new set of enablers. They set it up to be cleanly and easily kept in maintenance mode, in other words.
As to why they're stabbing people in the back - that's a needlessly dramatic metaphor. People use computers to do work. Some work is time-critical, and, as it happens, a lot of people doing time-critical work are also huge customers of Apple's. Sometimes they only buy new machines to replace machines that die, or are no longer up to the task - not because of new features, or because they need the speed (often, a new machine will end up replacing an old one indirectly, by bumping an older workstation that, in turn, replaces a dead/obsolete one). Apple can tempt these customers with new technologies - and the customers will look at them - but if Apple pushes them to migrate to something they can't use to do the work they need to do, they'll push back. This is the lesson that Microsoft is currently learning: The user is more important than the computer; the work done is more important than the platform. At the end of the day, a Mac is a tool, and if you can no longer use it, you discard it for something you can use.
This is hard, cold reality.
Now, in the case of these crucial markets, migration to OS X is contingent on a whole lot of things that are beyond Apple's control, such as when or whether a dizzying assortment of applications from educational CD-ROMs to Quark to Tanaka's OSAX to serial controllers written in HyperCard with custom XCMDs (I'm not kidding) can run on the new system, or be easily and provably replaced with something equivalent. Until the particular toolset a person or school or company uses can be replaced - preferably painlessly, because people have work to do - they will not budge, and forcing them to will simply earn their resentment.
Granted, Apple has done this before, and they've earned their share of resentment among a lot of people. It can be carried to irrational extremes - I know a teacher who refuses to buy anything Apple because they abandoned support for the Apple ][ series! - but for the most part it's simply the natural, obvious reaction of people who need a certain set of tools to do their work, and who do not appreciate any attempts to take those tools away for whatever reason.
[ 08-09-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
If the customer wants to purchase an Apple they will switch. Because that is what comes on the new machine. I can't recall all the times I've asked a PC user what OS is on their machine and the response is.." I don't know.. The latest one, I think. I just bought it."
[ 08-11-2002: Message edited by: Plague Bearer ]</p>
<strong>Before y'all go getting whiney about OS 9 support. Perhaps you should stop and think about Microsofts progression through their OS'es. How many apps had to be rewriten to run in 98, Me, NT, XP? I think that demonstrates what kind of crap a consumer is willing to put up with. Apple has gone to extraordinary lengths to ease the upgrade slope for the customer. Before you start claiming numbers of users who won't switch to X don't forget to subtract those machines that aren't capabe of switching anyway.
If the customer wants to purchase an Apple they will switch. Because that is what comes on the new machine. I can't recall all the times I've asked a PC user what OS is on their machine and the response is.." I don't know.. The latest one, I think. I just bought it."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a big difference here, however... if a shop is using Win98 they have a plentiful number of sources of machines which can still run the older OS, even several OS' later. Up until fairly recently it was even possible to buy a new machine and install Win3.1 on it. Since Apple is the only source of new Macs, when they cut off their new machines from using their old OS, that's it and there is no alternative.
There is a real and significant amount of time needed to allow all shops using Macs to migrate to the new system software, especially when its as signficant as the 9.x -> X transition. In many cases they're not even going to consider it before Jaguar is available because in a lot of ways X just hasn't been ready for various kinds of production work. That means the migration of many shops hasn't even begun yet. If Apple treats them well and does things that help the transition then they will move in a reasonable time frame... if Apple does something like cutting off the old OS on this year's machines then they run the risk of alienating these big clients and losing them to The Dark Side. Is it worth doing this just to try and accelerate the migration a little? I don't think so, and I'm going to be surprised if Apple thinks so.
A much more effective way to bring people to OSX is to pull them with enticements, rather than pushing them. After all, if you are pushing something you tend to have less directional control and whatever you are pushing might go somewhere you don't want it to.
MacOS 9 is utterly *not* 64-bit clean, nor are the apps that run on it.
Expect a clean break with MacOS 9 *at the very latest* when Apple moves to a 64-bit CPU and mobo architecture. At that point, you're just SOL if you want to boot into 9.
<strong>Excellent post, Amorph, and you're right about the enablers... with one critical exception: 64-bit.
MacOS 9 is utterly *not* 64-bit clean, nor are the apps that run on it.
Expect a clean break with MacOS 9 *at the very latest* when Apple moves to a 64-bit CPU and mobo architecture. At that point, you're just SOL if you want to boot into 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true -- the 64-bit processor will have a 32-bit compatibility mode (this is a well-defined feature of the PPC 64-bit architecture). The enabler for such a processor in MacOS9 would just put the chip into 32-bit mode and leave it there. Heck, Apple could do this for MacOSX until a 64-bit version of the OS is available.
There is even precident for this -- back in the early days of the Mac there was a transition from 24-bit addressing to 32-bit addressing. When the first full 32-bit capable machines arrived, the hardware was put into a mode where the upper 8-bits of the address was ignored. Eventually the software learned to get along with 32-bit clean addresses and the facility was removed from the OS.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
For example, I work at a prepress bureau. Most of my colleagues are not computer experts. Worse yet, most of them are not experts in any field - just 'mouse operators'. When they see OS X, they all do the following:
1) ask where the trash is;
2) say they don't know how to switch to another app without the menu in the top right corner of the screen;
3) scream 'Where the hell is Chooser?!';
4) conclude that OS X sucks.
And the people are not morons! They just hate to learn to use a new tool because they hate to do a thing without being paid. Is this Apple's problem?
The second part of the problem is our customers. They all seem to work either in QuarkXPress for Mac or Pagemaker for Windows. They will never switch to inDesign just because they heard it sucks. They also heard that OS X sucks. Windows sucks. Work sucks. These people are victims of progress: I can't imagine they would survive in the Stone Age once they think stone sucks.
The third part. Several years ago one trained android was paid to program and set up a customer-tracking system for our company. He was fired later (though should have been killed for what he'd done). As a result, we have an ugly buggy system which just doesn't work with OS X machines. I offered to write a new system for OS X from scratch, but was told that our company won't pay for another presumably buggy system plus our employees "don't support OS X". When I heard this, I just couldn't resist to say they need to have their ROMs flashed.
Is this Apple's problem too?
I think our company is a crappy customer of Apple's. Apple will find it hardly possible to support every such customer.