On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: > I'm looking at things from this viewpoint now: Any Apple software > technology will have an expected lifetime of about 5-10 years (max) > and 1-2 forced hardware upgrades. I'd consider that unacceptable for > any business with needs beyond QuickBooks.
There was a brief, and very inviting moment, that maybe we were going to get something different from Apple in server and enterprise. It's understandable that we're disappointed that it was temporary. But this wasn't their first foreray into servers and it wasn't their first mass exit where they just dropped the ball, turned and yelled, "SQUIRREL?!" It's kinda like being dumped three or four times in a row by the same person - ya know, time to get a clue. > Where I think Apple is _FAIL_ is simple: Why can't I run older > software in a VM on current Apple hardware? I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying with new hardware that requires 10.7, that you can't virtualize 10.6 server on that hardware? That would be ... slightly interesting to see what snotty thing I'd come up with if that were true. My complaint is being unable to legally run 10.6 server in VM on non-Apple hardware. As in, a real server. > Where I think Apple is big-time fail, is this: Why is the software > underpriced, and the hardware overpriced? Why the lock-in factor? Is > it to compete with MicroSoft's lock-in factor? (And why does it seem > like every other software upgrade requires a hardware upgrade?) I bitch plenty about Apple, but at least I vaguely understand that they sell an experience, which happens to be made up of hardware + software + various X factors (the ideological and mystical subtexts around product development, delivery and announcement; the Apple stores; the whole ecosystem, albeit now dominated by iPhone, iPad, iTunes, iPods). Apple doesn't sell you a laptop. If you want a laptop you go to Amazon or Best Buy or the local PC shop and build something. If you want an experience, and a particular one at that, you buy from Apple. It's not just about the laptop. In the year 2011 it is STILL the case that even though anyone could copy at least the concept of Apple's sleek clean industrial hardware design, effectively no one does. They all look like llama puke in comparison. They still largely do not get the experience mentality and maybe their customers don't either. It isn't quite commodity hardware, but way closer to commodity than the PowerPC stuff was. Yet we do pay a bit of a premium for it. It's for the experience. And it is different. I don't think my complaints are all that remarkable or unreasonable or lengthy: 1. Printing and color management is still broken, overly complicated, and worse now than ever before to the point that the best* way to get good color prints without going insane is just either get a RIP or print from Windows. Seriously the problems don't happen on Windows, never have, and that's a huge elephant in the room (in that it's a clue the problem is squarely Apple's). 2. jhfs+ needs to be retired, we need a better file system, yesterday. In this I'll include the lack of good logical volume management, a technology available to both enterprise and linux hobbyists now for ~15 years. On the one hand Apple has the XSan file system and on the other hand they have jhfs+. It's a huge gap. 3. Previously mentioned inability (EULA compliance) to run 10.6 in VM on real servers (not Apple hardware, which are not real servers). That's basically it for Mac OS gripes. > > Where I think the government is a fail: Why is any corporation lock-in > allowed, given that it restricts consumers, and at face seems to > violate various anti-trust/anti-monopoly/free competition laws on the > books? Competition law is probably out of scope because well before a legitimate conversation on competition law occurs, one has to establish a common frame of reference on vastly more basic things like property, and whether free markets can even exist (they don't ask any economist). A government can sometimes create incentives to improve competition, sometimes it can't. But sometimes competition results in worse efficacy and innovation. And besides that, since when does the U.S. government exhibit any consistency whatsoever on antitrust? Certainly in the area of servers, primarily what is under discussion, there is competition. And in any enterprise context distinctly Apple is not it so antitrust doesn't appear to apply. But I'm no lawyer. I'm just annoyed Apple wouldn't at least give us the ball they dropped while they go chase after squirrel. > My reason for using Apple's OS at this point is simple: It stinks less > than Microsoft's OS, and (gui-wise) is more usable than Linux. > Microsoft's is a lost hope, and if Linux die-hards start treating the > gui seriously, that will win. Ehh. Linux distros have their own issues outside of GUI that makes it pretty rough on normal people. Chris _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
