On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Tanya Love <[email protected]> wrote: > Really? Well that shows how limited my Mac knowledge is, I always thought > that you had to keep whatever you got with it! I didn't even know that you > could upgrade the RAM and hard drive! > > Me thinks I need to do lots more research!
I was deeply involved with Apple as an external developer from 1984 on and then worked for Apple from 1991, shortly after the first PowerBook introduction, to 2004. I sat in laptop development teams representing Developer Relations during the first decade of my involvement there. RAM and hard drives have *always* been user upgradeable, on all of them, although some have been easier to do the upgrade than others. They've always used industry standard components for these items too. The same has been true for nearly all of the desktop systems since the first Macintosh II in 1987. The myth of non-upgradeability has to do with cpu and logic board upgrades. Apple had a couple of upgrade programs for these components during the '80s and '90s, but they turned out to not be cost effective for the customers (or for Apple). Their computing systems are designed with most everything people normally want to add as included, and the highly integrated design (from board design to case to components to operating system) means that when you want to upgrade something, you have to upgrade most everything. With other manufacturers' computing systems which were basically incomplete in their base configuration, upgradeability usually means 'adding the bits that you didn't get when you bought it'. Cpu and logic board upgrades usually mean basically replacing the entire component (logic board, cpu, clock, graphics card, drive adapter, etc) in what is a not-too-tightly-integrated box of bits, and then hoping that it all works and that you can find drivers that run it. They keep the boxes simple and basic because they don't put any time or money into integration, which lets them sell them cheap. They don't develop their own operating system or offer a suits of integrated software products either. Each approach has its plusses and minuses. Apple is the largest volume single computer vendor in the world, though, in the market space of personal computers, the largest single vendor of mobile computing devices (laptops, phones, music players together), and the only top to bottom integrated solution vendor in this space. By current sales, they're a $50+ Billion dollar company with massive profitability and growth, as well as $9-15 Billion in cash in the bank. Most of the innovative new things that have become de rigeur, a part of our everyday lives, across entire computing/communications/electronic landscape of modern living have either come directly out of Apple or were first adopted by Apple. To say their approach is unsuccessful is an obviously ridiculous assertion. Yes, I use Apple systems, been using them (along with many others) since 1983-4. They do what I need in a way I find satisfying and productive, and get in the way less of the time, for me. Their warts are warts I can live with more easily than the warts I find in other systems. Nothing's perfect. My goal is to do Photography, not to mess around with equipment. "Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." Pick what gets in the way less of the time, for you, and accept what it does and doesn't do. Then do Photography. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
