[way OT] ... Intel? Maybe not.
On 2005.6.8, at 01:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sherm. For those who don't know me, I'm the perl maintainer at Apple, and I admit I keep a low profile on this list. But I wanted clear up a few things: Well, Ed, I'm not Sherm, and I don't have any claim to fame, but I wish you could clear up why Steve would do something as insane as inserting Apple into the x86 monoculture. I'd have no complaints if Apple were offering Mac OS X86 boxes as a second line. I don't buy the megahertz myth, so I have no problem paying a little higher price for the PowerPC Mac Mini compared with an x86 of similar clock, even with the FSB rate a tenth of the CPU clock instead of a half. On the contrary, low average power on the Mac Mini fits it into the Japanese power budget just fine. The most frustrating part of Mac OS X is the lack of product range. For instance, I'd love a PPC box the size of the Mac Mini at half the spec and loaded only with Darwin, but with an extra NIC, for $300. (I'd by three at $200 each, but I'm trying to make a point here.) The current speed/power is only a serious detriment to a bunch of critics who won't be buying Macs anyway. (And, just between you and me, but I don't see why Steve is so enamored of Pentium M, especially without seeing whether iNTEL can actually push that piece of junk up to 64 bits.) Anyway, if you by any chance have a communication path up high enough to reach whoever decided that PowerPC had to be dropped, I'd appreciate it if you could be so kind as to pass on a request to keep the PowerPC line going as long as it doesn't just totally bleed red ink across multiple quarters. -- Joel Rees The master plan in open source is simple: The user figures out what he or she needs and does it.
Re: [way OT] ... Intel? Maybe not.
I'm just a lowly engineer, so such decisions are way above me. I can only hope that the decision makers know what they are doing. If you believe that Apple can create products at the same price as a pc knockoff company down the street, you are going to be constantly disappointed. Apple does not build hardware; it builds systems. That includes the software. Our overhead (such as my paycheck ;-) is always going to be higher because we have to pay for all the development costs. And because are systems require unique parts, created at a much lower volume than in the pc world, our hardware costs are also going to be higher. We hope that the additional price our customers pay is justified by the fit-n-finish that we put into the systems. As you say this OT, so I should not comment further on this. Edward Moy Apple On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Joel Rees wrote: On 2005.6.8, at 01:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sherm. For those who don't know me, I'm the perl maintainer at Apple, and I admit I keep a low profile on this list. But I wanted clear up a few things: Well, Ed, I'm not Sherm, and I don't have any claim to fame, but I wish you could clear up why Steve would do something as insane as inserting Apple into the x86 monoculture. I'd have no complaints if Apple were offering Mac OS X86 boxes as a second line. I don't buy the megahertz myth, so I have no problem paying a little higher price for the PowerPC Mac Mini compared with an x86 of similar clock, even with the FSB rate a tenth of the CPU clock instead of a half. On the contrary, low average power on the Mac Mini fits it into the Japanese power budget just fine. The most frustrating part of Mac OS X is the lack of product range. For instance, I'd love a PPC box the size of the Mac Mini at half the spec and loaded only with Darwin, but with an extra NIC, for $300. (I'd by three at $200 each, but I'm trying to make a point here.) The current speed/power is only a serious detriment to a bunch of critics who won't be buying Macs anyway. (And, just between you and me, but I don't see why Steve is so enamored of Pentium M, especially without seeing whether iNTEL can actually push that piece of junk up to 64 bits.) Anyway, if you by any chance have a communication path up high enough to reach whoever decided that PowerPC had to be dropped, I'd appreciate it if you could be so kind as to pass on a request to keep the PowerPC line going as long as it doesn't just totally bleed red ink across multiple quarters. -- Joel Rees The master plan in open source is simple: The user figures out what he or she needs and does it.
Re: [way OT] ... Intel? Maybe not.
At 10:36 am -0700 8/6/05, Edward Moy wrote: We hope that the additional price our customers pay is justified by the fit-n-finish that we put into the systems. The beachballs in Tiger are terrific! If I'd paid the full price for the upgrade I'd be seriously considering demanding my money back. JD
Re: [way OT] ... Intel? Maybe not.
On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:27 PM, John Delacour wrote: At 10:36 am -0700 8/6/05, Edward Moy wrote: We hope that the additional price our customers pay is justified by the fit-n-finish that we put into the systems. The beachballs in Tiger are terrific! If I'd paid the full price for the upgrade I'd be seriously considering demanding my money back. JD I am hating Tiger, it is so slow many places, I will reload Panther this weekend. The spotlight thing is nice but the performance overhead is unacceptable. Joe.
Re: [way OT] ... Intel? Maybe not.
How does directing this sort of thing at someone who worked on a tiny little bit of Tiger, which you guys seem to use personally, help anything at all? Unless you have complaints about perl on Tiger, these comments seem inappropriate. If anything, I'd be thankful to have an engineer who works on perl for Apple on this list. Personally, Tiger works great for me, and I'd like to thank everyone involved in working on it. Ian On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Joseph Alotta wrote: On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:27 PM, John Delacour wrote: At 10:36 am -0700 8/6/05, Edward Moy wrote: We hope that the additional price our customers pay is justified by the fit-n-finish that we put into the systems. The beachballs in Tiger are terrific! If I'd paid the full price for the upgrade I'd be seriously considering demanding my money back. JD I am hating Tiger, it is so slow many places, I will reload Panther this weekend. The spotlight thing is nice but the performance overhead is unacceptable.
[not really so way OT] ... Intel? Maybe not.
Sorry to catch you between my irritations and Steve. This isn't aimed at you, this is aimed at the decision makers at Apple. I'm just hoping someone upstairs will see this in this archive. On 2005.6.9, at 02:36 AM, Edward Moy wrote: I'm just a lowly engineer, so such decisions are way above me. I can only hope that the decision makers know what they are doing. From where I stand, they seem not to see the forest for the trees. Maybe Dvorak should be banned reading on the Apple campus. One thing is guaranteed, he is always wrong. And when he is right, he is dead wrong. Giving in to the monoculture mindset is the last thing Apple should do. If you believe that Apple can create products at the same price as a pc knockoff company down the street, you are going to be constantly disappointed. Apple does not build hardware; it builds systems. Two nics on a Mac Mini screams, Systems! Tweak the Mac Mini a little and it would be the perfect platform for any number of intelligent routers, and, yes, Apple is selling a router right now, so we know routers are on Apple's roadmap. Routers are a key point in any real systems solution, and routers that the customer can tweak would be a huge plus. Intelligent router means things like perl built in, by the way, so it isn't that far off topic. And, no, a wonderful OS is not a systems solution unless Apple can turn the corner here. You guys seemed to be turning straight into monoculture's defensive line, and those guys are huge and are going to tear you to pieces. That includes the software. Our overhead (such as my paycheck ;-) is always going to be higher because we have to pay for all the development costs. Not all, not be any means. Apple needs to learn to use their user community more effectively, and one thing that is not effective is suddenly saying, Hey, all you guys that were trying to avoid the monoculture by working with us, sorry, but you have to join us in the monoculture now. And because are systems require unique parts, created at a much lower volume than in the pc world, our hardware costs are also going to be higher. Fine. But Apple has a nice capital reserve, and that reserve has not been shrinking. Nor has Apple been losing position in the market, for all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth on the part of the pundits. We hope that the additional price our customers pay is justified by the fit-n-finish that we put into the systems. You can't add fit-n-finish without help from the customers. (That is one way of describing the entire meaning of the open source community.) As you say this OT, so I should not comment further on this. And neither should I have, but sometimes etiquette has to go by the board. Apple seems to be going backwards from the listen to the customer attitude that brought them this far. IBM may be paying too much attention to the game console market right now, and that may hurt Apple temporarily, but moving all the eggs to the iNTEL basket is a serious strategical error. Edward Moy Apple On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:48 AM, Joel Rees wrote: On 2005.6.8, at 01:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sherm. For those who don't know me, I'm the perl maintainer at Apple, and I admit I keep a low profile on this list. But I wanted clear up a few things: Well, Ed, I'm not Sherm, and I don't have any claim to fame, but I wish you could clear up why Steve would do something as insane as inserting Apple into the x86 monoculture. I'd have no complaints if Apple were offering Mac OS X86 boxes as a second line. I don't buy the megahertz myth, so I have no problem paying a little higher price for the PowerPC Mac Mini compared with an x86 of similar clock, even with the FSB rate a tenth of the CPU clock instead of a half. On the contrary, low average power on the Mac Mini fits it into the Japanese power budget just fine. The most frustrating part of Mac OS X is the lack of product range. For instance, I'd love a PPC box the size of the Mac Mini at half the spec and loaded only with Darwin, but with an extra NIC, for $300. (I'd by three at $200 each, but I'm trying to make a point here.) The current speed/power is only a serious detriment to a bunch of critics who won't be buying Macs anyway. (And, just between you and me, but I don't see why Steve is so enamored of Pentium M, especially without seeing whether iNTEL can actually push that piece of junk up to 64 bits.) Anyway, if you by any chance have a communication path up high enough to reach whoever decided that PowerPC had to be dropped, I'd appreciate it if you could be so kind as to pass on a request to keep the PowerPC line going as long as it doesn't just totally bleed red ink across multiple quarters. -- Joel Rees The master plan in open source is simple: The user figures out what he or she needs and does it. -- Joel Rees Getting involved in the neighbor's family squabbles
