On Dec 26, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote:
> (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
lesser goals
> 2. No database support
sqllite
> 3. Serious limitations.
like what?
>
> 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?
SQLite *is* the data store for CoreData
>
>>> (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.
I got my mini with I believe 10.4, and it is at 10.6 now. Can't go past 10.6
since it is Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo)
Your issue is that PPC support was eventually dropped. Talk to the MS PPC
users about OS support
>
> 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.
Not really. MS has basically ceased support for XP long ago except for maybe
really killer security issues.
The fact that a trillion people are still running XP does not make it current,
any more than people running 10.4 or 10.5 are current.
> People
> still list XP as the compatibility requirement for software. I haven't
> seen any commercial program that requires something newer.
Take a look.
>
> 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.
Lots of new software won't run on it correctly as it requires faster CPU or
more memory (or even a newer OS)
>
> 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.
Yeah, me to (see this thread)
> 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).
No, they don't want to control what you do. They want to control the software
market for iOS devices in order to make sure that he UX (user experience)
remains what Apple envisions the US should be. You are free to load any
software from that market, and if you want to jailbreak, from other markets.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
> 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.
The situation is totally different. With the Mac Apple does not have a
defining control of the market and is a "niche" player and they are not
manipulating contracts forcing OTHERS to sell their product in conjunction with
another product.
> 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.
In no way an equivalent. See the above explanation. Apple is not forcing
others to sell Apple product in conjunction with product from elsewhere.
> 3. If I decide to use Microsoft's OS, I've got umpteen different makes
> and models of hardware to choose from.
And yet, if you choose MS OS, all your apps only run on MS OS and the OS only
runs on "wintel".
> 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.
But they can refuse warranty service if you use parts or oil that does not
meet their specs.
> 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.
The situation is not the same.
Apple does not force you to use Apple Stores for maintenance or help. You can
go to any place to get your computer repaired. Apple does not force you to use
Apple built cables. You can use any RAM you want from any source to upgrade
the computer.
>
> 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.
>
I guess if you want to use Apple stuff, you have to buy Apple stuff. Same way
if you want to use MS OS, you have to buy MS OS.
> 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.
And they do on MS? Lots of HW out there on MS with bugs and the vendors don't
give a crap (I have a bunch)
>
> 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.
link? Apple can't sue for copying the API. They can only sue if you copy
their code or their protected IP. If you clean room make your own version,
they can't sue (AFAIK)
>
> (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.
It is a YES or NO question
>
>> 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".
>
Because the Apple value proposition is the User Experience. You are totally
missing that point. Apple actually spends a ton of money to craft the UX of
their products. Why would they allow use of their product that destroys that
UX?
(btw, I don't know of any individual user that uses OS X on a hackintosh system
with a legally purchased OS X that Apple has gone after -- they have only gone
after companies who have tried to steal their stuff and make a product out of
it)
> 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.
link?
>
> 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".
Agreed it would be nice if it was Apple sanctioned, but I KNOW you KNOW how to
make it work, and I doubt Apple cares what you individually do as a user to run
your legal 10.6 on your legal Apple HW under 10.7.
>
>> 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.
Copying the item is different than copying the concept. People can make their
own sleek industrial design that does not look like an Apple product, but very
few people do. It is just easier to copy it for real.
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-admin mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
