|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Think Perspective Follow-up
After the posting of "Think Perspective," I was flooded with e-mails from readers. This follow-up is to clarify my point, and to bring up the readers' questions and comments. I have left out names, but all quotes are in fact legitimate quotes from responses I received.
Clarification of one major pointMacOS X is the next home-user version of the Macintosh Operating System. It will sit on top of the Mach kernel, and features BSD 4.4, and other goodies. It will be equipped with the Yellow Box API's (OpenStep) and Carbon API's (new, improved, reduced set of current Mac API's). This product is due sometime next year, and currently will only be supported on Power Macintosh G3 hardware and higher. MacOS X Server is the NeXTSTEP-derived operating system that Apple has been developing since acquiring NeXT, and until recently was referred to by it's code name - Rhapsody. It is a UNIX-based operating system which sits on top of the Mach kernel and other goodies. It is equipped with the Yellow Box API's and contains a Blue Box, which allows MacOS applications to run in a MacOS environment. This product is due in only a couple of months, and should be supported on all hardware which was being produced by Apple at the time of it's initial announcement. The two systems are really quite different. They are both technically superior to the current MacOS, but they are based on different software architectures. The G3-only policy merely applies to the first, not the second. Apple hasn't gone out of their way to clear this up, and this has caused much confusion within the Mac community.
Who wrote me?
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point 1: What about my 85/86/95/9600?!?"Your article on OSX incompatibility fails to mention the most important issue and the reason that people like myself are so upset at Apple: The 86/9600." Well…Apple made the statement that it was motherboards, not processors, they weren't supporting with this move. This begs for a clarification of "optimized for G3 processors". My two thoughts on this are: 1. Apple might be making a strategic move by saying that at this time only G3's will be supported. If Apple should come through with 85/86/95/9600 support, then many will hail Apple is wonderful and reliable. If they should announce support for these computers and fail, Apple will be left with many unhappy customers that won't upgrade their hardware just to spite Apple. 2. If support for these very expensive high-end machines isn't made possible directly by Apple at MacOS X's release, there's still hope. A couple of readers and I speculated that someone (maybe daughtercard manufacturers, maybe Apple itself, maybe some excellent programmers) should be able to find a way to write an enabler for these systems to run OS X. This would make the issue moot, and while this might not be directly supported by Apple, I don't think that many users are going to get much help with MacOS X on the phone with Apple. :) |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point 2: What about trust?!?"If I were a stock holder who was only interested in obtaining profit, I'd expect Apple managment to make this decision since it seems like it will make more money for Apple. It makes good business sense. But as an "educated" consumer, I feel betrayed by Apple." "Apple broke a promise. A promise that influenced my buying practices. Why should I buy a new Mac when 1) they have done this and 2) I have NO idea what key Open Step technologies will be incorporated in MacOS X. (OpenGL, for example)." |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point 3: What about trust, Part 2The one thing that still really jazzes people is the failure of Copland. To many, Apple just woke up one day and decided that they weren't gonna finish it. While that isn't really what happened, there was no apology really. Just a simple explanation that it wasn't what they had hoped. This lack of remorse in the eyes of many has made them distrustful of Apple and it's dealings. "When I bought my Powermac, I bought it with the understanding that it was supported by the now defunct Copland. Apple told the world that these machines [would] have preemptive multitasking, protected memory, and a modern Virtual memory. Now Apple is telling the world that these machines will not." |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, where do we go from here?The consensus of the responses touched on a couple of things that could assuage their anger and questions. The first is a more open dialogue between Apple and the would-be customers for MacOS X. Many feel jilted by Apple's latest business practices, and they feel that their viewpoint and requests are being ignored by Apple. The second is a more public stance of what will actually be in the OS. Not a complete feature set in advance, but as much basic information as can possibly be delivered. Perhaps monthly announcements by Apple as to how the MacOS X project is progressing, and the actual intended use of MacOS X Server. All those things which are poorly addressed by mystique. Departmental and company purchasing initiatives and personal purchases are poorly served by a lack of commitment to the public and private sectors. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All content - ©1998-2009 - Mark J. Hershenson |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
The MacOS Xclave is hosted by green-ant.com.
