1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. comp.sys.mac.system

  • Re: Panther: Some Informal & Subjective Impressions of this *Pre-Release*OS

    From Steven Fisher@sdfisher@spamcop.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 00:48:08
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    clw@oblivion.world wrote:

    There is no end to this. A new OS every six months at 130.00 and need a
    new machine to realize all the "benefits"!

    Three points spring to mind immediately:

    1. "There is no end to this": I really hope not. I'd love to see new
    versions of Mac OS X with new features forever.

    2. "A new OS every six months": Jaguar was released back in August; I
    doubt Panther's going to be released before August. So that'll be at
    least a year. Puma and Jaguar were also released a year apart.

    3. "need a new machine to realize all the benefits": The alternative is
    to never upgrade the hardware, isn't it? Or to never take advantage of
    it. Either is pretty stupid. In 1987, would you have argued "This new
    System supports color! Why should I need a new machine to see color??"

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From seebs@seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 01:15:42
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <c94Na.380107$Vi5.9616421@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
    Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
    2. "A new OS every six months": Jaguar was released back in August; I
    doubt Panther's going to be released before August. So that'll be at
    least a year. Puma and Jaguar were also released a year apart.

    It's just like Windows, only the upgrades are $130 instead of $99.

    3. "need a new machine to realize all the benefits": The alternative is
    to never upgrade the hardware, isn't it?

    No, the alternative is to have many benefits quite usable on hardware one or two years old.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
    C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Thom White@thom@softhome.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 09:40:22
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Seebs wrote:

    In article <c94Na.380107$Vi5.9616421@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
    Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

    2. "A new OS every six months": Jaguar was released back in August; I >>doubt Panther's going to be released before August. So that'll be at
    least a year. Puma and Jaguar were also released a year apart.


    It's just like Windows, only the upgrades are $130 instead of $99.

    And you don't think that OS X is $31 better than Windows.

    At the equivalent of 18.50 GBP, I'd say it was well worth the extra.

    Thom

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steven Fisher@sdfisher@spamcop.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 09:09:39
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Seebs wrote:

    No, the alternative is to have many benefits quite usable on hardware one or two years old.

    You just changed "all benefits" as per the original poster (that I
    quoted) to "most benefits." That would explain your confusion on this
    topic. Nobody disagrees that whatever benefits are applicable to the
    hardware in question should work; and, in fact, this is what Apple is doing.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From seebs@seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 17:39:03
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <be3ehm$p9sd$2@ID-151657.news.dfncis.de>,
    Thom White <thom@softhome.net> wrote:
    Seebs wrote:
    It's just like Windows, only the upgrades are $130 instead of $99.

    And you don't think that OS X is $31 better than Windows.

    This comparison is entirely confused, and does not address the relevant
    issues.

    A more informative comparison would be to compare, say, a machine running Windows 98 to a machine running Windows XP, and then compare a machine running OS X 10.1 to a machine running OS X 10.2. Are the changes between
    sub-versions of OS X as major?

    Going from Windows 95 to Windows 98 for $99 made a HUGE difference in the stability of the machine. It provided USB support. It did lots of things.
    The computer was unequivocally $99 better.

    Going from OS X 10.1 to OS X 10.2 provided me with the ability to use custom paper sizes, only they don't actually work, and made it impossible to get useful kernel panic messages, because the kernel panic stuff is no longer displayed, and you can't tell the machine to display it, and my machine
    doesn't *have* a reset button, so it gets power cycled and the message is
    lost. They also fixed a very annoying bug in the rendering of monospaced fonts. Whatever else has changed isn't affecting me much, but it's certainly not an upgrade of the sort that 95-98 was, or that 98-XP was.

    The *UPGRADE* is not better.

    If one were to buy OS's for standard hardware, and we were to grant the $200 full-version Windows price as a "reasonable" price, then I would happily grant that OS X would probably be worth close to the $500 or so more that I
    currently pay for reasonably-comparable hardware.

    Note the real point of the comparison: If you had to buy a full version of Windows every time you wanted to upgrade, it would be much harder to justify. However, they always have upgrades from previous versions.

    Note also that the big upgrades were '95, '98, and XP (which was around 2002). Even if we include ME (in 2000), Windows is coming out with a new version
    every two years. So, even if we *DO* pay full price for new versions, we're spending $200 on Windows and $260 on MacOS... and Microsoft actually offers upgrade pricing.

    Apple's currently closer to a subscription-based OS than Microsoft is,
    although Microsoft may make the leap to full subscription-based service
    sooner than Apple will.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
    C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From seebs@seebs@plethora.net (Seebs) to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 17:40:21
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <nvbNa.355959$ro6.8608701@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>,
    Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:
    Seebs wrote:
    No, the alternative is to have many benefits quite usable on hardware one or >> two years old.

    You just changed "all benefits" as per the original poster (that I
    quoted) to "most benefits." That would explain your confusion on this
    topic. Nobody disagrees that whatever benefits are applicable to the >hardware in question should work; and, in fact, this is what Apple is doing.

    What you said was:

    3. "need a new machine to realize all the benefits": The alternative is >>>to never upgrade the hardware, isn't it?

    That was what I was responding to. You provided a dichotomy of choices, and
    it was a false dichotomy.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
    C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/ --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steven Fisher@sdfisher@spamcop.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Friday, July 04, 2003 18:11:43
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Seebs wrote:


    What you said was:


    3. "need a new machine to realize all the benefits": The alternative is >>>>to never upgrade the hardware, isn't it?


    That was what I was responding to. You provided a dichotomy of choices, and it was a false dichotomy.

    And you replied with:

    "No, the alternative is to have many benefits quite usable on hardware
    one or two years old."

    Note the use of "many" instead of "all." Misquoting to prove a point
    that wasn't even being discussed. Way to go, Seebs.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From russotto@russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) to comp.sys.mac.system on Tuesday, July 08, 2003 12:29:08
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    In article <3f04d53e$0$1096$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>,
    Seebs <seebs@plethora.net> wrote:
    In article <c94Na.380107$Vi5.9616421@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
    Steven Fisher <sdfisher@spamcop.net> wrote:

    3. "need a new machine to realize all the benefits": The alternative is
    to never upgrade the hardware, isn't it?

    No, the alternative is to have many benefits quite usable on hardware one or >two years old.

    With Apple supporting Bluetooth over USB and now certain third-party
    802.11g cards, it appears there are few benefits not useable on one or
    two year old hardware, except those actually dependent on the
    hardware.

    Older than that is a different matter.
    --
    Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
    of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
    a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steven Fisher@sdfisher@spamcop.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 00:42:51
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    Seebs wrote:

    I wasn't misquoting, dipshit. I was pointing out a *THIRD ALTERNATIVE*.

    One that Apple is already doing, you ignorant flaming asshole.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113
  • From Steven Fisher@sdfisher@spamcop.net to comp.sys.mac.system on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 17:48:46
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

    foo wrote:

    ...except you lose software support by not buying Apple's latest
    releases. I can still run Office XP on WinNT 4 from 1996. Many of
    Apple's products, even just today, *require* 10.2.

    Right, sure. Good luck with IE 7.

    --- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113