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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #67754 > unrolled thread

Has Apple's software quality declined?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Has Apple's software quality declined? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2014-12-22 12:24 -0700
    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-22 15:11 -0500
    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-22 20:12 +0000
      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-22 16:04 -0500
        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-22 22:50 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-22 19:07 -0500
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-23 04:49 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-22 22:51 -0500
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-23 04:46 +0000
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-23 00:43 -0500
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-23 14:39 +0000
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-12-26 19:39 -0500
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-27 01:44 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-12-23 04:37 +0000
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 00:03 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-12-23 17:46 -0800
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-24 04:36 +0000
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-24 14:39 +0000
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-24 13:56 -0800
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-24 22:09 +0000
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-24 18:40 -0500
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-25 15:09 +0000
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-25 09:33 -0700
                      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-25 16:38 +0000
                        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-25 09:46 -0700
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> - 2014-12-28 09:19 +0000
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-12-29 02:42 +1300
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? android <here@there.was> - 2014-12-28 15:35 +0100
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-12-29 10:57 +1300
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-12-28 07:43 -0800
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-28 08:49 -0700
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-12-28 11:26 -0800
                      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-28 20:11 +0000
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-28 19:35 +0000
                      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-12-28 13:05 -0700
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-12-29 10:57 +1300
                      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-28 17:23 -0500
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-12-29 22:59 -0500
                      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-30 09:42 +0000
                        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? android <here@there.was> - 2014-12-30 12:44 +0100
                        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-12-30 14:09 -0500
                          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? android <here@there.was> - 2014-12-30 20:51 +0100
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-28 17:55 -0500
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-30 13:03 -0800
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-30 22:20 +0000
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-12-31 20:42 -0800
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-31 01:16 +0000
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-12-31 15:33 -0600
        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 00:01 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-25 11:34 -0500
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 21:59 +0000
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-25 17:07 -0500
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-25 22:38 +0000
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-26 09:05 -0500
                  Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-26 17:01 +0000
                    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-12-26 15:32 -0500
                      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-26 21:16 +0000
                        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 17:33 -0500
                          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-26 23:41 +0000
                            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-26 22:48 -0500
                          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-12-26 23:22 -0800
                            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-27 04:26 -0500
                            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-27 14:45 +0000
      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-12-23 19:19 -0800
        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-24 04:34 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-23 23:46 -0500
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-24 05:22 +0000
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-24 07:55 -0500
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2014-12-24 16:20 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 00:06 +0000
        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-24 14:46 +0000
          Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-12-24 23:19 +0000
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 00:09 +0000
            Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-25 03:04 +0000
              Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-12-25 09:20 -0800
                Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-12-25 17:29 +0000
    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-12-22 23:44 -0800
    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-24 00:42 -0800
      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-12-24 03:58 -0500
        Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-24 13:52 -0800
      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 00:11 +0000
    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-12-25 00:00 +0000
    Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-12-25 18:41 +0100
      Re: Has Apple's software quality declined? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-12-26 14:00 +1300

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#67807

On 14-12-24 17:09, Jolly Roger wrote:

> quality. All we have are a bunch of people saying, "Well it sure *seems*
> like quality is getting worse".

It isn't the number of problems that causes that, but the types of
problems. When something like wi-fi used to work fine breaks with
Yosemite, it is quite different from some fancy new feature that doesn't
quite work as advertised.

When they release new IOS patch that disables the cellular radio on the
newest iPhone, this is pretty serious stuff considering the unpatched
version worked.

You also have to put that into context. There have been major structural
changes at Apple with regards to who is in charge of software. Ive gets
involved, and Federigni goes from being an unnamed underling in charge
of OS-X to being the big cheese in charge of both IOS and OS-X.

Secondly, Apple specifically set out to do yearly releases with very
ambitious changes to OS-X and since IOS 7, with IOS too since they
decided to redo the user interface.  Sometimes, ambition is greater than
what you can reliably deliver. Apple Maps was a good example, and
Yosemite is another.

Apple marketing needs to be reigned in and stop setting unrealistic
demands on Apple software.

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

#67831

On 2014-12-24, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-12-24 17:09, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> quality. All we have are a bunch of people saying, "Well it sure *seems*
>> like quality is getting worse".
>
> It isn't the number of problems that causes that, but the types of
> problems.

Like I said, I've been around long enough to know from direct experience
that there have been numerous major bugs throughout Apple's history.
More selective memory...

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#67832

In article <cg2nkuFj5a8U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Like I said, 

*As* I said,

Grammatically yours,

-- Michelle

P.S.  Mele Kalikimaka

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

#67835

On 2014-12-25, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <cg2nkuFj5a8U1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Like I said, 
>
> *As* I said,
>
> Grammatically yours,

Thanks for the reminder. : D

> -- Michelle
>
> P.S.  Mele Kalikimaka

Ah, there it is:

<https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/mele-kalikimaka/id736458757?i=736459053>

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#67838

In article <cg2srmFkljoU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > P.S.  Mele Kalikimaka
> 
> Ah, there it is:
> 
> <https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/mele-kalikimaka/id736458757?i=736459053>

<http://youtu.be/s06qX5Jn_yM>

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

#67907

On 2014-12-24 21:56:58 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:

> On 2014-12-24 01:46:35 +0000, Michael Vilain said:
> 
>> And as JR says, most people haven't been around Macs long enough (e.g 
>> since MacOS X) to form anything but "I remember this one time" 
>> recollections.
> 
> I'm not sure that we can just throw out the experiences of the what, 
> tens of millions of Apple users who have been around since the Apple II 
> days, into the Classic Mac OS days, and now through the OS X days.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series

"By the end of production in 1993, somewhere between five and six 
million Apple II series computers (including about 1.25 million Apple 
IIGS models) had been produced."

While it is possible that the average Apple II was used by 4 people, I 
doubt that enough users of the Apple II remained loyal to the brand 
through the dark days of the mid 1990s to form a consistent and firm 
base of experience to draw on for the evolution of Apple software 
development for such people to be counted in the "tens of millions".

Robin

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

#67909

bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-12-24 21:56:58 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
> 
> > On 2014-12-24 01:46:35 +0000, Michael Vilain said:
> > 
> >> And as JR says, most people haven't been around Macs long enough (e.g
> >> since MacOS X) to form anything but "I remember this one time" 
> >> recollections.
> > 
> > I'm not sure that we can just throw out the experiences of the what,
> > tens of millions of Apple users who have been around since the Apple II
> > days, into the Classic Mac OS days, and now through the OS X days.
> 
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series
> 
> "By the end of production in 1993, somewhere between five and six 
> million Apple II series computers (including about 1.25 million Apple
> IIGS models) had been produced."
> 
> While it is possible that the average Apple II was used by 4 people, I
> doubt that enough users of the Apple II remained loyal to the brand 
> through the dark days of the mid 1990s to form a consistent and firm 
> base of experience to draw on for the evolution of Apple software 
> development for such people to be counted in the "tens of millions".

Especially given the number of Apple II users who were disappointed with
Apple abandoning their platform and preferring a more open environment,
went to IBM PC clones and something like MS-DOS, Windows or Linux,
rather than the Macintosh.

Some of them may have eventually come "back" to the Macintosh.

Given the number of times Apple has highlighted that more than 50% of
Mac sales via their retail stores are to new Mac users, it would be fair
to say that those who used Classic Mac OS are a small minority among the
current Mac OS X user base. Apple II users who came through Classic Mac
OS and are now running Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.

In fact, I'd expect that those who have used PowerPC Macs are a minority
among current Mac users, since most of the growth in Mac sales came
after the Intel transition.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#67912

On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:42:36 +0100, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz>  
wrote:

> bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-12-24 21:56:58 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
>>
>> > On 2014-12-24 01:46:35 +0000, Michael Vilain said:
>> >
>> >> And as JR says, most people haven't been around Macs long enough (e.g
>> >> since MacOS X) to form anything but "I remember this one time"
>> >> recollections.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure that we can just throw out the experiences of the what,
>> > tens of millions of Apple users who have been around since the Apple  
>> II
>> > days, into the Classic Mac OS days, and now through the OS X days.
>>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series
>>
>> "By the end of production in 1993, somewhere between five and six
>> million Apple II series computers (including about 1.25 million Apple
>> IIGS models) had been produced."
>>
>> While it is possible that the average Apple II was used by 4 people, I
>> doubt that enough users of the Apple II remained loyal to the brand
>> through the dark days of the mid 1990s to form a consistent and firm
>> base of experience to draw on for the evolution of Apple software
>> development for such people to be counted in the "tens of millions".
>
> Especially given the number of Apple II users who were disappointed with
> Apple abandoning their platform and preferring a more open environment,
> went to IBM PC clones and something like MS-DOS, Windows or Linux,
> rather than the Macintosh.
>
> Some of them may have eventually come "back" to the Macintosh.

One would think that a *NIX system would be more attractive to a  
commandline cp/m user than the original Macintosh. The cats and cattle are  
*NIX systems under the hood and would therefore be more attractive to some  
Apple II enthusiasts.
>
> Given the number of times Apple has highlighted that more than 50% of
> Mac sales via their retail stores are to new Mac users, it would be fair
> to say that those who used Classic Mac OS are a small minority among the
> current Mac OS X user base. Apple II users who came through Classic Mac
> OS and are now running Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.

One would expect new users to go to the store and recurring ones to  
replenish their supply online.
>
> In fact, I'd expect that those who have used PowerPC Macs are a minority
> among current Mac users, since most of the growth in Mac sales came
> after the Intel transition.
>
-- 
The Goog: Do NT. Be EVIL!

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

#67931

android <here@there.was> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 14:42:36 +0100, David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz>
> wrote:
> 
> > bob <rcp27g@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014-12-24 21:56:58 +0000, Oregonian Haruspex said:
> >>
> >> > On 2014-12-24 01:46:35 +0000, Michael Vilain said:
> >> >
> >> >> And as JR says, most people haven't been around Macs long enough (e.g
> >> >> since MacOS X) to form anything but "I remember this one time"
> >> >> recollections.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure that we can just throw out the experiences of the what,
> >> > tens of millions of Apple users who have been around since the Apple
> >> II
> >> > days, into the Classic Mac OS days, and now through the OS X days.
> >>
> >> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series
> >>
> >> "By the end of production in 1993, somewhere between five and six
> >> million Apple II series computers (including about 1.25 million Apple
> >> IIGS models) had been produced."
> >>
> >> While it is possible that the average Apple II was used by 4 people, I
> >> doubt that enough users of the Apple II remained loyal to the brand
> >> through the dark days of the mid 1990s to form a consistent and firm
> >> base of experience to draw on for the evolution of Apple software
> >> development for such people to be counted in the "tens of millions".
> >
> > Especially given the number of Apple II users who were disappointed with
> > Apple abandoning their platform and preferring a more open environment,
> > went to IBM PC clones and something like MS-DOS, Windows or Linux,
> > rather than the Macintosh.
> >
> > Some of them may have eventually come "back" to the Macintosh.
> 
> One would think that a *NIX system would be more attractive to a  
> commandline cp/m user than the original Macintosh. The cats and cattle are
> *NIX systems under the hood and would therefore be more attractive to some
> Apple II enthusiasts.

I expect there would be some who fit that pattern, but I don't know any.

> > Given the number of times Apple has highlighted that more than 50% of
> > Mac sales via their retail stores are to new Mac users, it would be fair
> > to say that those who used Classic Mac OS are a small minority among the
> > current Mac OS X user base. Apple II users who came through Classic Mac
> > OS and are now running Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
> 
> One would expect new users to go to the store and recurring ones to  
> replenish their supply online.

That's true for some people. Even many experienced Mac users I know
prefer to buy a new Mac from a retail outlet.

Sheer numbers suggest that former/current Apple II users must be pretty
rare amongst the Mac user base.

Estimates suggest total Apple II sales of 6 million over its lifetime.
Apple has sold more Macs than that in every calendar year from 2007 to
2009, and more than double that in every calendar year from 2010 to
2014. If the last calendar quarter of 2014 follows the pattern, Apple
will have sold more than 18 million Macs this year.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#67914

On 12/28/2014 5:42 AM, dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
...
>> "By the end of production in 1993, somewhere between five and six
>> million Apple II series computers (including about 1.25 million Apple
>> IIGS models) had been produced."
>>
>> While it is possible that the average Apple II was used by 4 people, I
>> doubt that enough users of the Apple II remained loyal to the brand
>> through the dark days of the mid 1990s to form a consistent and firm
>> base of experience to draw on for the evolution of Apple software
>> development for such people to be counted in the "tens of millions".
>
> Especially given the number of Apple II users who were disappointed with
> Apple abandoning their platform and preferring a more open environment,
> went to IBM PC clones and something like MS-DOS, Windows or Linux,
> rather than the Macintosh.
>
> Some of them may have eventually come "back" to the Macintosh.
>
> Given the number of times Apple has highlighted that more than 50% of
> Mac sales via their retail stores are to new Mac users, it would be fair
> to say that those who used Classic Mac OS are a small minority among the
> current Mac OS X user base. Apple II users who came through Classic Mac
> OS and are now running Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
>
> In fact, I'd expect that those who have used PowerPC Macs are a minority
> among current Mac users, since most of the growth in Mac sales came
> after the Intel transition.

I grew up with my Apple //c. No GUI stuff. After that, I could have 
gotten a Mac but I went with an IBM PS/2 model 30 286 10 Mhz. I am glad 
I did since it was much cooler to be more flexible. I retried Apple with 
its PowerBook G4 1 Ghz back in end of 2002 because I already knew 
command lines like DOS, Linux, and UNIX. It was so cool compared to 
classic Mac OS. Thanks Steve Jobs and RIP! :)

FYI, http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html for my computing and 
other electronic (geek/nerd)y history. ;)
-- 
"We have to break with what must be broken with once and for all... and 
we have to take the suffering upon ourselves... Freedom and power--power 
above all. Power over all the tumbling vermin and over all the 
ant-hill!" --Fedor Dostoevsky
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

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

#67915

In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
<dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

> Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
> Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.

If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.

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

#67922

On 12/28/14   PDT 7:49 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>> Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
>> Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
>
> If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.

I used an Apple II, but not extensively.

Got in a bit late to the Apple game with a Mac Plus.

Will never forget the day I added a huge, 20 *Meg* HDD to my then Mac (SE)!

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

#67926

On 2014-12-28, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/28/14   PDT 7:49 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
>> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
>>> Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
>>
>> If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.
>
> I used an Apple II, but not extensively.

I owned an Apple IIe before I sold it on eBay recently. I've owned and
used many classic and modern Mac models running all versions of Mac OS
to date. So I guess I'm in the "minority" too. : D

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

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

#67924

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> was all, like:
> In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>> Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
>> Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.

> If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.

Apple ][+ (upgraded to a //e), Apple //gs (upgrade to 4MB of RAM!!!),
Apple //c+, Mac SE FDHD, and then a slew of Macs up to my current 2012
iMac (one of 6 Macs in the house).

My //e and my //gs ran my BBS for many years.

-- 
Well I've seen the Heart of Darkness/Read the writing on the wall/and the
voice out in the desert/Was the voice out in the hall

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

#67925

In article <slrnma0mss.105k.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
> >> Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
> 
> > If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.
> 
> Apple ][+ (upgraded to a //e), Apple //gs (upgrade to 4MB of RAM!!!),
> Apple //c+, Mac SE FDHD, and then a slew of Macs up to my current 2012
> iMac (one of 6 Macs in the house).
> 
> My //e and my //gs ran my BBS for many years.

I started with an Apple ][, upgraded to a ][+, sold it and bought a
//e.  Won a //c in a sales contest, and eventually sold the //e. 
(Actually I traded it for store credit at a comic-book store.)

Bought a 128K Mac that I eventually upgraded to 512K and then 512Ke. 
Bought a Mac Plus, and used the 512Ke to run a BBS.  Then I got a used
Mac SE when my employer was selling off equipment no longer being used. 
I forget what happened to the 52Ke, but I used the SE to run the BBS
(easier than trying to transfer the disk contents from the Plus to the
SE and the 512Ke to the Plus.

I bought a IIfx through the employee own-a-Mac program at Apple. 
(Could have got a Mac Plus for free, but the IIfx was the top of the
line at the time.)  Got a 7200, which I upgraded to a 7600 a few years
later.  Eventually sold the IIfx.  Got a Grape iMac and used the 7600
for the BBS.  Eventually sold the 7600 and the grape, and got an iMac
G4, which I kept until I replaced it with the first Intel iMac.  I'm on
my third Intel iMac (late 2012 model) now.

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

#67930

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
> > Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
> 
> If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.

You are not alone. I'm in that category, as are a few people I know
locally, but they are only a small proportion of the Mac users I know.

We are probably more common amongst Usenet users, given the antiquity of
this environment.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#67933

On 14-12-28 16:57, David Empson wrote:

> You are not alone. I'm in that category, as are a few people I know
> locally, but they are only a small proportion of the Mac users I know.

One must not forget that computers are now ubiquitous whereas in the
days of Apple ][ and original Macintosh, the market was much smaller. So
even if all Apple ][ and original Macintosn customers had remained
loyal, they would represent a small percentage of the total market today
since that market is orders of magnitudes bigger than it was back then.

Having said this, OS-X has undergone massive changes since the last
"stable" Snow Leopard release. Both in UI and how things work under the
hood.  Unmanaged changes that grow out of control bring with them
lessening of software quality, not matter how good the efforts are and
no matter how much money Apple throws at its programmers. There are
still only 24 hours in a day and when a programmer or small group who
are intimate with a piece of software are given tight deadlines,
something suffers.

Such projects are not the type where you can just double the programmers
to halve the time to market. Adding programmers to a group initially
slows the group down since they have to train the programmers on their
software. And then you get to the "too many cooks" where too large a
group functions less efficiently.

What is clear is that to meet marketing deadlines, Apple most likely
knowingly released sofwtare that was not yet ready. And that is a big
change.

The "once a year" for OS-X has to stop. Yes, add features AS THEY BECOME
READY during the year, but don't force everything to be released at once
in a single release.

However, adding features as they become ready goes against Apple's main
marketing philosophy of a single keynote per year where they talk about
OS-X new features.

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

#68004

In article <281220140849233203%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
> > Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
> 
> If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.

I didn't own an Apple II but I used one at work. Does that count?

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
GOP delenda est!

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

#68009

Okay, so one time? In band camp? D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> was all, like:
> In article <281220140849233203%michelle@michelle.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>> In article <1lxe9my.odoxg6127tqnrN%dempson@actrix.gen.nz>, David Empson
>> <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> 
>> > Apple II users who came through Classic Mac OS and are now running
>> > Mac OS X will be an even smaller minority.
>> 
>> If this keeps up, I'll be a minority of 1.

> I didn't own an Apple II but I used one at work. Does that count?

At Work? Like, for pay?

That may count double.


-- 
At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral shattered... and the Devil
walked the earth again. He'd never really left.

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

#68010

On 12/30/2014 10:42 AM, Lewis wrote:
> At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral shattered... and the Devil
> walked the earth again. He'd never really left.

You're kidding right. He's on the evening news. Nightly...
-- 
The Goog: Do NT... Be EVIL!

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

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web