[X4U] Apple QC slipping?

[David Ledger]

Been 1/4 following this while ill, so here's my 2c now my (clinical) 
temperature is down. My opinion temperature was never up, but I'd 
like to know where Ed is coming from.  It then bounced, so I've split 
it in two (This bit shouldn't class as top-posting).

Part 1

At 17:04 -0600 16/12/08, Ed Gould wrote:
>The "quality" (as far as hardware goes) seems "OK" to me. The 
>software is a different issue. I do not care for the INTEL decision 
>while it might be "OK" for some it is basically a corporate sell out 
>of all MAC owners AFAIAC. When faced with a similar issue at least 
>one manufacture went out and "invented" a better way and the company 
>is much better for it. Apples sellout to INTEL was a techies 
>shortsightedness and we will all pay for it soon, IMO.

In what way a sell out? It's the Mac that's an Apple product, not the 
CPU chip. The PPC one was IBM/Motorola, not Apple. The latter had 
given up on it and the former was (and is) only developing it further 
in those versions that are far too expensive for desktop use (and 
with a performance to match). I'd be interested to know which 
"manufacture" and what they "invented". The only other desktop grade 
processor I'm aware of that post-dates the Pentium is Itanium, which 
is also made by Intel, and one chip costs the price of a good MacBook 
Pro.

At 23:13 -0800 16/12/08, Randy B. Singer wrote:
>But who knows...Apple recently purchased a processor manufacturing 
>company, P.A. Semi, that specializes in 64-bit processing, so its 
>always possible that Apple will switch processors again.
>http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/23/apple-buys-pasemi-tech-ebiz-cz_eb_0422apple.html

As the article points out, they design iPhone level processors. A bit 
less capable than the current Intel chips. An order of magnitude in 
the design department.

At 13:16 -0600 17/12/08, Ed Gould wrote:
>I think you are missing the issue of OS9 apps not running anymore on 
>the new machines (10.5 and up). That is a major issue as far as I am 
>concerned a real show stopper (to me).

You obviously use some rare piece of software for which there is 
insufficient demand to make developing an OS X version viable. 
Personally, one task I have on my list is to dig up an OS X driver 
for my $900 slide scanner before my G4 dies.

>I am somewhat familiar with the 64 bit issue on another machine and 
>I guess I agree the switchover is going to be extremely painful. The 
>other machine I am familiar with has adopted temporarily an 
>environment that allows 32 bit and 64 bit application to co-exist it 
>is not clear what will happen if the 64 bit only environment is 
>going to do.  The manufacturer has not made it clear but I suspect 
>that it will not be pretty and they may loose some of their base as 
>they are loosing companies quicker now.

Please say who. It can't be HP as they have been running 32 and 64 
bit apps together for many years. I thought Sun did the same.

>It is bad enough to have re-invent the wheel when you have a company 
>that has 100's of millions of dollars tied up but when you spread 
>the amount around to millions of people the customer base will 
>desert them if they are not extremely careful.

You know of a company that has "100's of millions of dollars" tied up 
that will be adversely affected by Apple's change of O/S and/or chip? 
I'm surprised Apple has one customer that spends so much with them. A 
company that has that much tied up in IT kit will only have a very 
small percentage of it affected by Apple's changes - even if they are 
an Apple-on-the-desktop company. What it would cost them would be 
much less than the support costs for a Wintel desktop environment.

You seem to be one of the tiny number affected, but you haven't deserted yet.

At 09:16 -0600 18/12/08, Ed Gould wrote:
>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.

8 years *is* a long time. ... In Apple's main target marketplace 
(excluding Xserve) 5 years is 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.

So you would be happier if I could say "I can't use my slide scanner 
anymore because Apple lagged behind and went under" rather than "I 
can't use my slide scanner anymore because its drivers got left 
behind"

David

Part 2 follows

-- 
David Ledger - Freelance Unix Sysadmin in the UK.
HP-UX specialist of hpUG technical user group (www.hpug.org.uk)
david.ledger at ivdcs.co.uk
www.ivdcs.co.uk