Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #155584 > unrolled thread

Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> - 2015-12-24 14:37 +0100
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Alan Ralph <usenet@alanralph.fastmail.uk> - 2015-12-24 15:38 +0000
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> - 2015-12-24 08:30 -0800
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-24 13:27 -0500
      Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-25 08:27 +0100
        Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-25 20:22 -0500
      Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-25 15:47 -0400
        Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products - Emacs Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-25 20:28 -0500
          Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products - Emacs Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-27 00:08 -0400
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 05:50 +1100
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2015-12-24 20:54 -0600
      Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-24 19:02 -0800
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-25 11:18 +0000
      Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-25 12:13 +0000
    Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-12-27 08:10 -0800
      Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-12-27 16:30 +0000

#155584 — Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products

I don't want to start a flame war against Apple (for sure they're not
the first and not the last company to consider 6 years old products
"vintage" and unsupported), it's just that... you know, I've been
thinking about what the average user does with his machine and how it
has barely changed in the last decade. Yes websites have way more bells
and whistles, user interfaces are now laden with sugar (transparencies
and smartphone-like effects of dubious utility) but you still fire up a
browser and it takes a few seconds to load. You open up Word or
LibreOffice and that loading bar and sluggish interface is still there
just like it was in Word 95. "The complexity of software seems to
outpace improvements in hardware, giving us the sense that we're running
in place" said Jaron Lanier (http://bit.ly/1OE1mKx).

Pretty much every PC manufacturer is shipping machines with insanely
high performing processors even compared to what they had a few years
ago. The most basic Mac Mini retails at the ridiculously low price of
569 EUR (here in Italy at least, but I guess Apple Store prices are the
same more or less throughout the world) and comes with a low-end i5 in
which the graphics department only can run circles around dedicated
graphic cards of a few years ago. Same goes for the iMac. And yet
there's a 2.5" 5400 rpm drive inside both computers, totally killing the
user experience and making the machine infinitely slower and I/O bound.

So:
 * when did we stop delivering performance? I remember watching a 1993
presentation in which a 486 DX2 was compared against a Pentium. The
benchmark was... PowerPoint slides per second. And the Pentium
delivered. You could feel it. Today you can't. The blazing fast
processors we're shipping to end users are killed by non-existing I/O
performance. The top of the line i7 processor on a rotational disk would
be put to shame by the Core Duo + SSD I'm running in this laptop in
everyday usage.

 * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
colorful interface?

End of rant :-)

Have nice holidays everyone.

Lau

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#155586

On 2015-12-24 13:37:55 +0000, Laurent Delacroix said:

> I don't want to start a flame war against Apple (for sure they're not
> the first and not the last company to consider 6 years old products
> "vintage" and unsupported), it's just that... you know, I've been
> thinking about what the average user does with his machine and how it
> has barely changed in the last decade. Yes websites have way more bells
> and whistles, user interfaces are now laden with sugar (transparencies
> and smartphone-like effects of dubious utility) but you still fire up a
> browser and it takes a few seconds to load. You open up Word or
> LibreOffice and that loading bar and sluggish interface is still there
> just like it was in Word 95. "The complexity of software seems to
> outpace improvements in hardware, giving us the sense that we're running
> in place" said Jaron Lanier (http://bit.ly/1OE1mKx).

Well, that gives me another two year before my 2011 iMac becomes 
'obsolete' in Apple's eyes.

Many of those speed-bumps are the effects of developer's past sins - 
both at the OS and application levels - catching up with them, 
requiring more and more layers of protection to keep computers of all 
sizes both secure and (relatively) reliable.

The performance hit of the UI 'sugar' isn't so much at the system level 
- modern GPUs, even the integrated variety, are more than up to 
handling that side of thing - but between the chair and the keyboard, I 
fear. Particularly so since 'flat design' became the big thing in UI 
design. Make those icons and menu suffiently obscure and/or 
hard-to-find, and all that CPU power is left idling whilst the user 
works out what to touch / click to do the job.

> Pretty much every PC manufacturer is shipping machines with insanely
> high performing processors even compared to what they had a few years
> ago. The most basic Mac Mini retails at the ridiculously low price of
> 569 EUR (here in Italy at least, but I guess Apple Store prices are the
> same more or less throughout the world) and comes with a low-end i5 in
> which the graphics department only can run circles around dedicated
> graphic cards of a few years ago. Same goes for the iMac. And yet
> there's a 2.5" 5400 rpm drive inside both computers, totally killing the
> user experience and making the machine infinitely slower and I/O bound.

I got an external SSD just over a year ago, and moved OS X onto it. The 
difference in startup and app loading times was stark, and makes me 
wonder how many developers actually use machines with spinning hard 
disks for their dev work nowadays.

> So:
>  * when did we stop delivering performance? I remember watching a 1993
> presentation in which a 486 DX2 was compared against a Pentium. The
> benchmark was... PowerPoint slides per second. And the Pentium
> delivered. You could feel it. Today you can't. The blazing fast
> processors we're shipping to end users are killed by non-existing I/O
> performance. The top of the line i7 processor on a rotational disk would
> be put to shame by the Core Duo + SSD I'm running in this laptop in
> everyday usage.

My first few PC cycles were 486SX/25, 486DX2/66, Pentium/166+MMX, back 
when I did my own PC open-heart surgery. Subsequent purchased machines 
went Pentium3/500, Centrino 1.4GHz (laptop), Pentium4/3.0GHz, Core2 
6600 (2.4GHz), and now Core i5/2.7Ghz on the iMac.

I think SSDs will become prevalent, even dominant, but that is just 
buying time (pun intended) to offset the effect of all this bloat.

>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
> colorful interface?

I think it's equal parts planned obsolescence - why spend all that 
extre money and time supporting all those older platforms and devices? 
- and device reliability - we need to sell more device, so let's save 
money by not making products that'll last more than a few years before 
breaking down. Losts two PCs to hardware failure - thankfully, all data 
was backed up - before moving to the Mac side in 2012. Similarly for my 
parents last year.

The iMac is still chugging along fine, even on El Capitan, but both my 
3rd gen iPad and iPhone 4S are no longer as quick as they used to be, 
now that they're on iOS 9. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I upgraded, the 
new features have definitely improved my usage of both devices, but 
know from past experience (bought original iPad back in late 2010) that 
eventually they'll either be unusable or unsupported.

> End of rant :-)

Well ranted, sir. :)

> Have nice holidays everyone.
> 
> Lau

-- 
Alan Ralph - Wearer Of Many Hats!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155587

On 12/24/15 5:37 AM, Laurent Delacroix wrote:

>   * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place"

The computer industry is aware of this, they hit the limit on power/MHz
a decade ago, and have been moving the world away from the desktop, 
where price/performance was a race to the bottom, ever since.

We're also reaching the practical limits of magnetic disk recording. 
Read about 'shingled recording' to see what people are having to do
to get a few more terabytes onto your desktop disk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155588

Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> writes:

> So:
>  * when did we stop delivering performance?
...
>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
> colorful interface?
>
> End of rant :-)

So how come, when I read these rants do I feel left out?

I'm still running the exact same Fvwm interface I designed 20 years ago.
Slightly tuned up, but at the core, still exactly what I want.

At the same time, Linux has made leaps and bounds.
The most obvious place I see that is in boot times which
systemd has dropped to seconds.  Sound works better but mostly
Linux just continues to work.

I replaced my system disk with a 128G SSD.
That's a really nice improvement getting Firefox startup time
to pretty much instant, and even Libreoffice and Gimp come up
reasonably quick.

So, no complaints here.

I'm seeing pretty much the same interface, with improvements in speed
and function.

Oh yeah, my favorite tool Emacs gets better too.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155608

In article <n5hda3$v5$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen  <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> writes:
>
>> So:
>>  * when did we stop delivering performance?
>...
>>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
>> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
>> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
>> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
>> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
>> colorful interface?
>>
>> End of rant :-)
>
>So how come, when I read these rants do I feel left out?
>
>I'm still running the exact same Fvwm interface I designed 20 years ago.
>Slightly tuned up, but at the core, still exactly what I want.

I caved in and have gnome/ubuntu on a few machines But on my trusty
travel laptop I keep running xfce4.

>At the same time, Linux has made leaps and bounds.
>The most obvious place I see that is in boot times which
>systemd has dropped to seconds.  Sound works better but mostly
>Linux just continues to work.

I am down to around 45 seconds for a full cold start, 12 of which
are spent in the bios.

>I replaced my system disk with a 128G SSD.
>That's a really nice improvement getting Firefox startup time
>to pretty much instant, and even Libreoffice and Gimp come up
>reasonably quick.
>
>So, no complaints here.
>
>I'm seeing pretty much the same interface, with improvements in speed
>and function.

And a _lot_ of improvement on battery life. Yes, I run arm, with
the samsung chromebooks and a linux reinstall. 10 hours usable work
time on a $200 laptop.
>
>Oh yeah, my favorite tool Emacs gets better too.

The build times stay constand though. 90 seconds for make -j n where
n is the number of processors.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155612

Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:

> In article <n5hda3$v5$1@dont-email.me>, Dan Espen  <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> writes:
>>
>>> So:
>>>  * when did we stop delivering performance?
>>...
>>>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
>>> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
>>> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
>>> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
>>> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
>>> colorful interface?
>>>
>>> End of rant :-)
>>
>>So how come, when I read these rants do I feel left out?
>>
>>I'm still running the exact same Fvwm interface I designed 20 years ago.
>>Slightly tuned up, but at the core, still exactly what I want.
>
> I caved in and have gnome/ubuntu on a few machines But on my trusty
> travel laptop I keep running xfce4.
>
>>At the same time, Linux has made leaps and bounds.
>>The most obvious place I see that is in boot times which
>>systemd has dropped to seconds.  Sound works better but mostly
>>Linux just continues to work.
>
> I am down to around 45 seconds for a full cold start, 12 of which
> are spent in the bios.
>
>>I replaced my system disk with a 128G SSD.
>>That's a really nice improvement getting Firefox startup time
>>to pretty much instant, and even Libreoffice and Gimp come up
>>reasonably quick.
>>
>>So, no complaints here.
>>
>>I'm seeing pretty much the same interface, with improvements in speed
>>and function.
>
> And a _lot_ of improvement on battery life. Yes, I run arm, with
> the samsung chromebooks and a linux reinstall. 10 hours usable work
> time on a $200 laptop.
>>
>>Oh yeah, my favorite tool Emacs gets better too.
>
> The build times stay constand though. 90 seconds for make -j n where
> n is the number of processors.

I guess you mean Emacs build times.
If that includes the whole package, that's a major speed up.
Lots and lots of new packages.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155611

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> writes:
> 
>> So:
>>  * when did we stop delivering performance?
> ...
>>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
>> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
>> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
>> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
>> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
>> colorful interface?
>>
>> End of rant :-)
> 
> So how come, when I read these rants do I feel left out?
> 
> I'm still running the exact same Fvwm interface I designed 20 years ago.
> Slightly tuned up, but at the core, still exactly what I want.

And I'm running twm on a P4 CPU desktop.  Nothing I want to do --
email, news, web, DVD movies, image editing -- overloads the
hardware. Oh, and dialup net access.  Which is becoming a bit of a
pain because so many sites now implement even basic HTML functionality
as js [1] (not to mention extra K- or even M-bytes of js to do frivolous
stuff the "web designer" thinks is cool.)

Yes, I also have a new(ish) multi-core laptop.  Required many hours to
defeat its attempts to drag me into the "modern" era.

> At the same time, Linux has made leaps and bounds.  The most obvious
> place I see that is in boot times which systemd has dropped to
> seconds.  Sound works better but mostly Linux just continues to
> work.

Yes, although my Slackware distro doesn't yet support the "Microsoft
Precision TouchPad" clickpad, a device intended, AFAICT, to make the
touchpad environment familiar pasture for the smart-phone set.

> Oh yeah, my favorite tool Emacs gets better too.

I have to differ here.  I do nearly everything except (graphical) web
browsing in Emacs.  But I'm still porting a very old version into
every upgrade because it's increasingly hard to figure out how to turn
off (or configure to my liking) all the cute improvements, most
especially various sorts and colours of highlighting.  Yes, I grok
simple Lisp but just don't have the gumpties to burrow deeply enough
into EL to have my way.  So I probably forego some improvements or
features that I would actually use because even rms/gnu is sucked into
his/its own version of interface glitz.

</RANT>

[1] An <IMG... tag with the URL of the image in a "data..." attribute
    and no "src=..." attribute?  What is this?  And the last time I
    visited Forbes, there was no actual content on the page.
    Everything substantive was delivered with js.  Feh.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155613 — Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products - Emacs

Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>> Oh yeah, my favorite tool Emacs gets better too.
>
> I have to differ here.  I do nearly everything except (graphical) web
> browsing in Emacs.  But I'm still porting a very old version into
> every upgrade because it's increasingly hard to figure out how to turn
> off (or configure to my liking) all the cute improvements, most
> especially various sorts and colours of highlighting.  Yes, I grok
> simple Lisp but just don't have the gumpties to burrow deeply enough
> into EL to have my way.  So I probably forego some improvements or
> features that I would actually use because even rms/gnu is sucked into
> his/its own version of interface glitz.

I was just reading that setting global font lock off turns
off all highlighting except for Info Mode (or something like that).

Or you could go the opposite way and use a theme:

https://emacsthemes.com/themes/monochrome-theme.html


For me, the more color, the better.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155614 — Re: Apple adds 2008-2009 Macs to list of 'vintage and obsolete' products - Emacs

Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:

> Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> writes:
> 
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> Oh yeah, my favorite tool Emacs gets better too.
>>
>> I have to differ here.  I do nearly everything except (graphical) web
>> browsing in Emacs.  But I'm still porting a very old version into
>> every upgrade because it's increasingly hard to figure out how to turn
>> off (or configure to my liking) all the cute improvements, most
>> especially various sorts and colours of highlighting.  Yes, I grok
>> simple Lisp but just don't have the gumpties to burrow deeply enough
>> into EL to have my way.  So I probably forego some improvements or
>> features that I would actually use because even rms/gnu is sucked into
>> his/its own version of interface glitz.
> 
> I was just reading that setting global font lock off turns
> off all highlighting except for Info Mode (or something like that).

Each Slackware upgrade, I mess with the latest Emacs. So I've messed
with font lock $THIS-N-THAT without satisfaction.  Thanks for the
suggestion, though.

> For me, the more color, the better.

I use several colors of xterms and emacsen -- setting -fg, -bg etc. in
aliases -- to keep track of which project or remote login or user (an
xterm for root gets a unique color) they belong to.  But the emacs
highlights often conflict with my color choices, either just plain
distracting me or making high-lit text unreadable. Grump.

Cranky old geezer,
-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155590

Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> wrote 

> I don't want to start a flame war against Apple (for sure they're not
> the first and not the last company to consider 6 years old products
> "vintage" and unsupported), it's just that... you know, I've been
> thinking about what the average user does with his machine and how it
> has barely changed in the last decade. Yes websites have way more bells
> and whistles, user interfaces are now laden with sugar (transparencies
> and smartphone-like effects of dubious utility) but you still fire up a
> browser and it takes a few seconds to load. You open up Word or
> LibreOffice and that loading bar and sluggish interface is still there
> just like it was in Word 95. "The complexity of software seems to
> outpace improvements in hardware, giving us the sense that we're running
> in place" said Jaron Lanier (http://bit.ly/1OE1mKx).
 
> Pretty much every PC manufacturer is shipping machines with insanely
> high performing processors even compared to what they had a few years
> ago. The most basic Mac Mini retails at the ridiculously low price of
> 569 EUR (here in Italy at least, but I guess Apple Store prices are the
> same more or less throughout the world) and comes with a low-end i5 
> in which the graphics department only can run circles around dedicated
> graphic cards of a few years ago. Same goes for the iMac. And yet
> there's a 2.5" 5400 rpm drive inside both computers, totally killing the
> user experience and making the machine infinitely slower and I/O bound.

On the other hand, a hell of a lot of stuff comes with an SSD now instead. 
 
> So:
> * when did we stop delivering performance? 

We haven't yet with SSDs. 

> I remember watching a 1993 presentation in which 
> a 486 DX2 was compared against a Pentium. The
> benchmark was... PowerPoint slides per second. And 
> the Pentium delivered. You could feel it. Today you can't. 

You can with a system with an SSD even now. 

> The blazing fast processors we're shipping to end 
> users are killed by non-existing I/O performance. 
> The top of the line i7 processor on a rotational disk 
> would be put to shame by the Core Duo + SSD I'm 
> running in this laptop in everyday usage.

Sure, but that i7 on an SSD is still noticeably 
better with some stuff like video companding. 
 
> * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running 
> in place", we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more 
> polished (and less functional, IMHO) user interface? 

We aren't really with the move to smartphones and tablet UIs. 

> And why are most users ready to give up perfectly 
> working computers (and phones - well, aint't the 
> two the same these days?) just to write our email 
> or spreadsheets in a more colorful interface?

Essentially because so many have nothing 
but their high end smartphone now. 
 
> End of rant :-)
 
> Have nice holidays everyone.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155593

Laurent Delacroix wrote:

> 
> Pretty much every PC manufacturer is shipping machines with insanely
> high performing processors even compared to what they had a few years
> ago.


> So:
>  * when did we stop delivering performance? I remember watching a 1993
> presentation in which a 486 DX2 was compared against a Pentium. The
> benchmark was... PowerPoint slides per second. And the Pentium
> delivered.

Well, I put a 10 MB Memorex Winchester drive on my Z-80 S-100 system back in 
1980 or so.  It was fantastic.  I had a homemade CRT system with a parallel 
interface (instead of serial) and it could burst screen loads and keep up 
with the CRT refresh for a line at a time.  It was about the fastest thing 
I've ever used, as long as the files were small.  (Large files got REALLY 
slow to load, however.)

Now, really, CPU clock speeds have only had TINY increases for more than a 
decade.  The Pentium 4 came out in 2000, and the Prescott version which 
could go up to 3.8 GHz came out in 2004.  Further shrinks allowed larger 
caches and more cores.  A couple real CPU cores definitely help, but except 
for servers, more than a few cores just don't speed typical desktop use.

Solid state hard drives REALLY give you a boost, I love them!

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155594

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 7:54:50 PM UTC-7, Jon Elson wrote:

> Solid state hard drives REALLY give you a boost, I love them!

The trouble with flash memory, though, is that you can rewrite it only so many 
times before it dies.

But Intel, along with Micron, is working on a new replacement for flash memory 
which basically doesn't have this problem (it still does, but to a much lesser 
extent) and which is several times faster (but it will also be more expensive 
for the same capacity). (They call it XPoint. Apparently a sort of crossbar 
phase-change thingy.)

Hewlett-Packard has had its own technology doing about the same thing, but it 
was less clear whether that one would really see the light of day. (The memristor.)

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155601

On 2015-12-24, Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
> colorful interface?
>
> End of rant :-)

Not really a rant, since it is all so very true.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 67th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155603

On 2015-12-25, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2015-12-24, Laurent Delacroix <laurent@krutt.org> wrote:
>
> [32 lines snipped]
>
>>  * how come no one seems to have realized that we're "running in place",
>> we're doing the same exact stuff, just inside a more polished (and less
>> functional, IMHO) user interface? And why are most users ready to give
>> up perfectly working computers (and phones - well, aint't the two the
>> same these days?) just to write our email or spreadsheets in a more
>> colorful interface?
>>
>> End of rant :-)
>
> Not really a rant, since it is all so very true.

One mans rant is anothers thesis!
>
>


-- 
greymaus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155619

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 6:37:57 AM UTC-7, Laurent Delacroix wrote:
> I don't want to start a flame war against Apple (for sure they're not
> the first and not the last company to consider 6 years old products
> "vintage" and unsupported),

Of course, now that they've switched to Intel processors, if one's Macintosh operating system is too old to safely use on the Internet, and can't be upgraded... one not only has the option of installing Linux on that vintage box, one can even give up, and (horrors!) install Windows. Without even Boot Camp.

I'd swap out the hard drive before doing that, since OS X is too valuable to lose, but Apple should realize that its users have that option, loath as they may be to take it - and, *given* that fact, they should be supportive of their customers with older machines.

Because they have lots of alternatives that are far and away cheaper than 
running out and buying a new Mac.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#155620

On 2015-12-27, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

[8 lines snipped]

> Because they have lots of alternatives that are far and away cheaper than 
> running out and buying a new Mac.

Fortunately for Apple, it appears they go and do just that.


-- 
Today is Sweetmorn, the 69th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
                  I don't have an attitude problem.
    If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web