(First, I apologize for misreading the date of the thread I bumped as december, not november).
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM, objectwerks inc <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't disagree with some of the sentiment, but there are factual problems > with this post > > On Dec 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote: >> Any sort of persistent storage support went bye-bye > > CoreData Really? I'm a 10.5.8 person. I took a look at CoreData when it first came out (10.6), and got some feedback from others: 1. An EOF wannabe missing major features 2. No database support 3. Serious limitations. Are these issues now solved? I'm not expecting #1 to be fully solved, but can it talk to an SQLite database as a minimum? >> (And why does it seem >> like every other software upgrade requires a hardware upgrade?) > > A lot less so than microsoft. <Snip> Ok, so a new machine can run three OS's (two upgrades) instead of two. I got my Mini with 10.4, upgraded to 10.5, and now it's stuck. My mother got her laptop with 10.4, gave it to me, I upgraded to 10.5, and now it's stuck. My Mother's current machine, btw, is a Dell running Windows XP. I advised her against moving to Vista because of the problems, and we never took a serious look at 7. But historically? Machines that ran Win 95 could go to Win 98 and then XP (if you were sane and skipped ME; if you installed ME, you were advised to reformat for XP.) And XP is still semi-current. People still list XP as the compatibility requirement for software. I haven't seen any commercial program that requires something newer. So a machine made in 1997 is still semi-current 14 years later. If it was a fast enough pentium class then, it's the same speed and still working today. The only issue you'd run into is system memory; that Dell has 768MB and still works fine. (The only thing that needed that much memory was World of Warcraft.) A friend of mine did component by component upgrades of a self-made machine over that period, from a 386 motherboard to a pentium class (I don't know which one), upgrading one piece at a time over years. Nothing ever stopped working, all commodity parts from many suppliers that all worked together. >> 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? > > Lock-in? Exactly what are you talking about? Are you whining that Apple > controls the OS? Any OS you choose will have "lock-in" of some sort. I have a problem; I respond to trolls, and take them seriously. I'll do most of it off-list, however -- expect to see a response on my blog in about 2 weeks. As for the immediate "Lock-in": 1. Apple has decided that my iOS device, that I purchased, that I own, can only run software installed via the AppStore. It's my device, but they want to control what I do. (Assuming I buy one, anyways; haven't yet). 2. IBM got into trouble for requiring that the computer and OS be sold as a unit. They had to split that up. Microsoft got into trouble for requiring that the computer maker had to purchase and sell a license for every machine they sold. Despite a victory in the courts, the marketplace made it moot for consumers who still cannot (in reality) get a machine without a Microsoft license without a special order. The justice department did not follow up to make that consumer victory real. Now Apple is doing the same thing -- requiring an OS purchase even if you want to run Linux -- and getting away with it. For the iOS devices, this is semi-sensable -- they are not sold as general purpose computing devices. But the equivalent -- requiring the appstore for all purchases, requiring Apple's cut for everything -- is still there. 3. If I decide to use Microsoft's OS, I've got umpteen different makes and models of hardware to choose from. Ditto for Linus's OS. Ditto for FreeBSD, or OpenBSD. Apple's OS has been shown to run on umpteen different makes and models, but is only permitted to run on about 6. All from one company. Any attempt to do otherwise is met with a lawsuit that starts with the assumption, "We have the right to restrict how you use something that we sold you for your use". You can't say that an automaker requires you to use their motor oil, or their service stations, to maintain your car. You can't say that a printer maker requires you to use their inks in their printers. You can't say that Ford could sell motor oil and require that it only be put into Ford cars. Yet somehow, even after IBM and Microsoft both lost their cases, Apple gets away with it. 4. If I want to use an Apple software technology, I'm required to use an Apple hardware technology. They make about 6 slots; what if what I want doesn't fit one of them? Yes, the mid-range to medium-high market is fairly well covered, but I can get a perfect match elsewhere. I can't get a "low-end" machine without going to older unsupported hardware. 5. Even with the Apple hardware, and Apple software, there can be a driver bug; Apple won't fix it. (ATI video drivers on older hardware.) Customers have no recourse. 6. When a third party actually tried to create drop-in compatible replacement for EOF, that could run anywhere (based on GnuStep), Apple threatened to sue. Result: No 100% compatible replacement for EOF in Objective C that I've seen yet. (This reply went longer than I thought it would, sorry). > And as a strict constitutionalist, are you really calling for the government > to do something about some bogus lock-in? Really? The reply to this was way too long and off topic. Expect it to be polished and on my blog in mid-January. > You realize most of us buy Apple BECAUSE of the "lock in", or as I call it, > tightly integrated hardware and software. That said, all Macs run Windows > really well, and Linux for that matter. There is a difference between "Tightly integrated hardware and software", and "never mind that you can get it to run elsewhere, we won't let you; never mind that you want to do X, we won't let you; never mind that you might want to run Linux on our hardware, you still have to buy an OS that you don't want to use". Yes, I like the idea that the system is designed for a particular hardware. But the reality is different: if I want 72 DPI on screen, so what I see is what I get, then I'm looking at 800x600 and parts of the OS/supplied software fails (some panels won't fit.) If I want "What I see is what I get", and a higher resolution, I'm out of luck. I have to use 72 DPI display, because trying to use a higher resolution fails as everything is mapped to pixel count instead of point size. Maybe a 154 DPI screen and the new 2x resolution API will work better. >> 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. Actually, when the new 10.7 airs came out, people were saying that 10.6 would not run at all, even in a VM. Now, my complaint is being unable to legally run 10.6 user in VM on *APPLE* hardware. As in, a Rosetta compatible upgrade. As in, a work-around for the limitations of 10.7's new "features". > 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. Because, oddly, Apple will sue you and tell you that you should have made your tablet non-rectangular, non-clean looking, and a host of other stupidities. See the current (Samsung, I think?) legal fight over iOS interface / iPad design patents. > 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. WOW. Color management/matching used to be one of Apple's best points. Printing and "perfect match to what you see" started with Apple. > 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 ... And besides that, since when does the U.S. > government exhibit any consistency whatsoever on antitrust? Consistency: Exactly my issue. Free market existence: While a perfect free market, just like a perfect democracy, cannot exist, you can get much, much closer to it than we have today. We even have laws that are supposed to require competition and free markets. They are not enforced. > Ehh. Linux distros have their own issues outside of GUI that makes it pretty > rough on normal people. Well, are you still required/expected to recompile the kernel to match your hardware configuration, or does it finally adjust to your hardware at bootup / configuration time? Does it auto-detect hardware plugged in, and setup drivers automatically, or do you have to run a config program to scan the buses and reconfigure drivers? I'm assuming you're not required to pass boot args to get the kernel to run anymore, right? (OK, Linux wasn't quite that bad in 2.4. I think my last real usage of Linux was 2.0; 2.4 could scan the buses at bootup, but you still had to run a user level config program to get the drivers set up right. And, apparently, some systems did need boot args.) === Just a quickie: How are people treating Network-attached storage (NAS) as different from Storage area networks (SAN)? What do you see as the difference? Looking over "SAN vs. NAS" at Google, the difference seems to be that a SAN is a single network attached controller that talks to many drives, while a NAS is many networked attached controllers each attached to a single drive. Is that it? ... OK, so in the past, they used different cables; now they both use 10 GB ethernet. One uses IP/TCP, the other uses IP/FibreChannel and IP/iScsi. One has many single points for "what is a file?" (one per drive), the other lets each system using it (each? or only one?) have a different idea of what is a file. And if I understand it correctly, _N_AS can be multiple drives used by a _n_etwork (multiple machines), while _S_AN is multiple drives used by a _s_ingle machine. But speed wise, if they are both over 10 GB ethernet, aren't they both the same? (Why can't people date their technical articles, so we can tell how recent/relevant an IO speed comparison is?) -- Political and economic blog of a strict constitutionalist http://StrictConstitution.BlogSpot.com This message may have been spell checked by a laptop kitten. _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
