[X4U] Apple QC slipping?

[Ed Gould]

On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Randy B. Singer wrote:

>
> On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:29 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
>
>> When you take basic functionality of an OS and essentially tell  
>> the users to go scratch people (including myself) get upset.  
>> Quality control is part of *COMPATIBILITY* AT least one major  
>> manufacturer takes such items seriously. From design to  
>> implementation it is part of the QC process. Compatibility between  
>> releases of OS (and or hardware) is really important because like  
>> I said 100's of millions of dollars of investment (company assets  
>> are involved) if those assets no longer work they cannot be on the  
>> books as assets. 100's of millions is no small bowl of nuts it is  
>> a piece of the pie and every CEO looks at all the important  
>> financial numbers. 100's of millions is NOT chump change to any  
>> corporate entity.
>
> I agree with Aron that backwards compatibility and quality control  
> aren't at all the same thing, no matter how you stretch the  
> definition of quality.
>
> Backwards compatibility is high on Apple's list.  That's why they  
> paid quite a bit of money to Transitive to use their technology to  
> create Rosetta.  Rosetta works surprisingly well for an emulator,  
> and it's seamless.
>
> But if you are still complaining about the loss of OS 9  
> compatibility, I think that it's time to get over it.  OS 9 was  
> discontinued about 8 years ago, which is a huge amount of time in  
> the personal computer world.  I'm surprised that Apple continued to  
> support the use of OS 9 programs, in the form of Classic, for as  
> long as it did.
>
> One of the huge reasons that Microsoft was so hamstrung in getting  
> out Vista is because they are trying to support too much legacy  
> code.  Every industry analyst is saying that Microsoft has to ditch  
> the legacy code and start over and create a new lean and fast  
> operating system if they don't want to see their market share  
> continue to shrink.  Apple, because they don't have to support a  
> lot of legacy code, is not only able to keep on quickly updating OS  
> X, but they are also able to migrate OS X to other platforms  
> efficiently, like the iPhone.
> http://kohcan.notlong.com
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=8160
> http://eteenie.notlong.com
> Vista is a pig of an OS.  OS 9 was getting to be a pig too. While  
> it was a shame to have to upgrade all of our old software, we are  
> very lucky that OS X is lean and mean.
>

Randy:

I guess we agree to disagree. Other manufactures take pride when they  
have compatibility. That tells the customer that their investment is  
sound and will be around for a LONG time.  It is one thing to tell  
all your users hey go out and spend a lot of money to replace  
functioning application for no real reason other than we don't care  
about you. It is another reason say if some basic part of the machine  
will no longer work because say technology changes. To make this  
simple, 64 bit processors (for Apple) are not really needed if they  
were then Apple long ago would have made systems with larger memory  
compacity. They have stubbornly set a max memory limit on most of  
their processors. *IF* they are doing this (and I am suggesting they  
are) then 64 bit is NOT needed in any stretch of the imagination. Any  
64 bit offering would be wasting the consumers money. If on the other  
hand the systems they (Apple) offered larger memory insertion then it  
would be a reasonable thing to do (64 bit). Its the same with any OS  
(not just Apple) the need must be there *OR* the marketing hype  
people are doing an outstanding performance. I can only compare Apple  
to one other manufacturer and they are *SLOWLY* beginning to offer 64  
bit OS's even then they are 99 percent compatible with their old  
systems. They aren't out banging the drum to dump the old they are  
providing a migration path. How it will end up is anyones guess at  
this time but rest assured if their past is anything like the present  
they will honor and make it work *RIGHT* for the majority of the old  
code. Companies are not going to out and spend 100's of millions of  
dollars just to be on the current "cutting edge" just to be there.  
The current Apple customer does not have money to burn like some  
corporate companies.

Backwards compatibility is *EVERYTHING* and a happy customer means  
great quality control.

Ed