TellarHK
Sarcastic Jerk
Over the past several months, I've written quite a few posts on a few different forum sites regarding my experiences coming over as a Windows PC user with some experience in Linux, to my recent ownership of an iBook Dual USB. Several things have come to my attention in these months, and I would like to summarize some of them here in order to see what longtime Mac users and owners think of the observations I've made.
First, I'd like to start with misconceptions that I see continuing to appear in regards to Apple's current focus and equipment. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about the state of OS X in regards to the functioning of the upcoming Quartz Extreme.
It has been made clear over several weeks of reading and interpreting statements made by various sources that the Quartz Extreme package will only affect users with Radeon or GeForce based cards, but that other enhancements to X 10.2 will bring improvement of varying measure to users of older graphics chipsets and hardware most commonly in use. Though few direct statements have been made to give numerical examples of speed increases on specific hardware, it is speculated that improvement will be made for just about every configuration.
Another misconception is that Apple is hostile to developers. This may have been the truth in the past, but today it seems Apple is going to lengths to achieve the appearance of openness. With the downloadable developer tools, Apple has struck a single blow to Microsoft in that companies or individuals who wish to customize nearly any aspect of operations have the ability as long as skills permit. With Microsoft, the expense of development tools is well known. However, it is easy to see where Apple might lead some to continue believing they are clinging to the ways of the past by noticing the many applications Apple is developing "in house" that incorporate the ideas of traditionally (in the Windows world) outside parties. The strongest example I have seen so far is the Watson-esque features planned for Sherlock 3. An act like this on Microsoft's part would be reviled, however on Apple's it is tolerated, even by me. No, I can't explain it either.
Other observations I have made include notes on Apple's current shift in product lifespans and features. What I have noted in the past few months is a rapid acceleration of Apple's power curve. For many people, this is a very good thing. For others, it is highly disheartening. Belonging to the latter group myself, I must nonetheless admit it is a good thing for Apple to be bringing itself to doing - if they are capable of moderation. In the Windows world, it is very easy to justify rapid and frequent system upgrades due to poorly designed programs and increased overhead that it has taken to make the Windows kernels more robust. This cycle has increasingly disgusted many users, and has led to a growing mindset of self-made systems. As those with the understanding of how to build an x86 machine are able to do so from easily replaceable and upgradeable parts, the pace of innovation is sustainable in the x86 world for even those of limited resources.
With Apple, the truth is that they cannot make money on turning hardware into as much of a commodity item as it is with x86 equipment. As such, they need to continually cannibalize thier own market segment by encouraging upgrades at a somewhat steady pace. For several years, Apple hardware has stagnated in performance and features, until only recently. The latest incarnation of Apple's product roadmap appears to be geared toward much faster acceleration of product to market, in an effort to compete with the Windows encroachment on Apple's core businesses (namely desktop publishing and education). It is important to see whether Apple will be able to strike the careful balance of pace that will leave fewer of its die-hard customers with outdated hardware. Since Apple equipment has traditionally had high longevity in comparison to x86 systems, recent purchasers of Apple equipment (admittedly including myself) may feel somewhat jaded by the visibly shorter lifespan of our hardware in contrast to what we might have expected.
And now that I've criticized Apple for a few things, it's time to point out what things I've observed have gone right.
Apple has done the right thing in regards to ceasing OS 9 development and encouraging a move toward OS X. Though this does conflict with my concerns about hardware becoming more rapidly outdated, it makes an important point that does need to be made. That Apple will come to focus more and more strictly on improving what they've created.
I also believe based on reaction from users and the trade press, that Apple's focus on "digital hub" creation may pay off quite well if given a chance. It is an excellent idea, and Apple has created a set of software applications which can exploit it properly when used together.
Apple's attempts to recapture the education market are excellent ones. If my credit wasn't so hopelessly poor, an eMac would have been my graduation gift to myself before I left school this May. Unfortunately, I couldn't get one even if I wanted it any longer.
And before I close this posting, I'll make a few "suggestions" and hopes for the future of Apple.
Unfortunately the pricetag on Apple hardware may indeed by slightly high. Many people have debated the cost of Apple equipment, comparing it to less expensive PC equipment, but those who have actually grown to understand the design methodology of Apple and the techniques used by x86 system manufacturers will recognize that the premium for Apple's hardware is slimmer than one might think.
OS X is a system in it's infancy, but at the same time it is bogged down with legacy architectural choices and an interface so much more technically advanced than any other that it is often struggling under the load. With Apple's focus shift, we can hopefully expect a much more rapid growth of speed and stability enhancements to OS X applications. It may not be as simple for the user as Apple once was, but the overall result will be worth it.
The G4 iMac may be an excellent machine, but Apple needs to try and get away from the "one model to rule them all" mindset when it comes to home systems. If Apple could make a profit marketing the eMac or a similar device at a cheaper pricetag, by all means they should. I don't know if I believe in the 'gMac' idea I saw here recently simply because a used Sawtooth seems like it might fit the same (or similar) bill.
That's all for this rather long runon thought, and I hope people don't think I'm too far off the mark.
First, I'd like to start with misconceptions that I see continuing to appear in regards to Apple's current focus and equipment. It seems to me that there is a lot of confusion about the state of OS X in regards to the functioning of the upcoming Quartz Extreme.
It has been made clear over several weeks of reading and interpreting statements made by various sources that the Quartz Extreme package will only affect users with Radeon or GeForce based cards, but that other enhancements to X 10.2 will bring improvement of varying measure to users of older graphics chipsets and hardware most commonly in use. Though few direct statements have been made to give numerical examples of speed increases on specific hardware, it is speculated that improvement will be made for just about every configuration.
Another misconception is that Apple is hostile to developers. This may have been the truth in the past, but today it seems Apple is going to lengths to achieve the appearance of openness. With the downloadable developer tools, Apple has struck a single blow to Microsoft in that companies or individuals who wish to customize nearly any aspect of operations have the ability as long as skills permit. With Microsoft, the expense of development tools is well known. However, it is easy to see where Apple might lead some to continue believing they are clinging to the ways of the past by noticing the many applications Apple is developing "in house" that incorporate the ideas of traditionally (in the Windows world) outside parties. The strongest example I have seen so far is the Watson-esque features planned for Sherlock 3. An act like this on Microsoft's part would be reviled, however on Apple's it is tolerated, even by me. No, I can't explain it either.
Other observations I have made include notes on Apple's current shift in product lifespans and features. What I have noted in the past few months is a rapid acceleration of Apple's power curve. For many people, this is a very good thing. For others, it is highly disheartening. Belonging to the latter group myself, I must nonetheless admit it is a good thing for Apple to be bringing itself to doing - if they are capable of moderation. In the Windows world, it is very easy to justify rapid and frequent system upgrades due to poorly designed programs and increased overhead that it has taken to make the Windows kernels more robust. This cycle has increasingly disgusted many users, and has led to a growing mindset of self-made systems. As those with the understanding of how to build an x86 machine are able to do so from easily replaceable and upgradeable parts, the pace of innovation is sustainable in the x86 world for even those of limited resources.
With Apple, the truth is that they cannot make money on turning hardware into as much of a commodity item as it is with x86 equipment. As such, they need to continually cannibalize thier own market segment by encouraging upgrades at a somewhat steady pace. For several years, Apple hardware has stagnated in performance and features, until only recently. The latest incarnation of Apple's product roadmap appears to be geared toward much faster acceleration of product to market, in an effort to compete with the Windows encroachment on Apple's core businesses (namely desktop publishing and education). It is important to see whether Apple will be able to strike the careful balance of pace that will leave fewer of its die-hard customers with outdated hardware. Since Apple equipment has traditionally had high longevity in comparison to x86 systems, recent purchasers of Apple equipment (admittedly including myself) may feel somewhat jaded by the visibly shorter lifespan of our hardware in contrast to what we might have expected.
And now that I've criticized Apple for a few things, it's time to point out what things I've observed have gone right.
Apple has done the right thing in regards to ceasing OS 9 development and encouraging a move toward OS X. Though this does conflict with my concerns about hardware becoming more rapidly outdated, it makes an important point that does need to be made. That Apple will come to focus more and more strictly on improving what they've created.
I also believe based on reaction from users and the trade press, that Apple's focus on "digital hub" creation may pay off quite well if given a chance. It is an excellent idea, and Apple has created a set of software applications which can exploit it properly when used together.
Apple's attempts to recapture the education market are excellent ones. If my credit wasn't so hopelessly poor, an eMac would have been my graduation gift to myself before I left school this May. Unfortunately, I couldn't get one even if I wanted it any longer.
And before I close this posting, I'll make a few "suggestions" and hopes for the future of Apple.
Unfortunately the pricetag on Apple hardware may indeed by slightly high. Many people have debated the cost of Apple equipment, comparing it to less expensive PC equipment, but those who have actually grown to understand the design methodology of Apple and the techniques used by x86 system manufacturers will recognize that the premium for Apple's hardware is slimmer than one might think.
OS X is a system in it's infancy, but at the same time it is bogged down with legacy architectural choices and an interface so much more technically advanced than any other that it is often struggling under the load. With Apple's focus shift, we can hopefully expect a much more rapid growth of speed and stability enhancements to OS X applications. It may not be as simple for the user as Apple once was, but the overall result will be worth it.
The G4 iMac may be an excellent machine, but Apple needs to try and get away from the "one model to rule them all" mindset when it comes to home systems. If Apple could make a profit marketing the eMac or a similar device at a cheaper pricetag, by all means they should. I don't know if I believe in the 'gMac' idea I saw here recently simply because a used Sawtooth seems like it might fit the same (or similar) bill.
That's all for this rather long runon thought, and I hope people don't think I'm too far off the mark.
