Status of 6.0 for production systems

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of David Kelly
>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:38 PM
>To: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC
>Cc: FreeBSD-Questions at freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:13:54PM -0700, Chad Leigh --
>Shire.Net LLC wrote:
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> It would be nice if you could at least get your "facts" straight
>
>Agreed.
>
>> There is no software obsolescence issue.  Besides making it quite
>> easy to port software to OS X Intel for most people, since the
>> underlying OS and libraries is the same, Apple has invested a ton of
>> money into the Rosetta technology which allows PPC software to
>> continue to run on the Intel boxes.  And they are also still
>> introducing PPC machines for a while and will continue to
>support PPC
>> machines for several years so as to avoid the problem.
>>
>> >Once again typical Apple apologizing.  When Apple dumped MacOS
>> >Classic in favor of MacOS X, all the Apple proponents who for years
>> >were saying that MacOS was the best OS in existence, didn't let the
>> >door hit them on the ass on the way out of the mac Classic room.
>
>Before it MacOS X, MacOS 9 was not known as Classic. Classic is MacOS 9
>being hosted *under* MacOS X. Contrary to Ted's revisionist view of
>Macintosh history, Mac users were pushed to X kicking and screaming in
>protest. Much the same as when DOS users were forced to use
>subdirectories.
>

If the Mac users really didn't like it, they would have told Apple to
wank off and gone to Windows.

Much like the little child who throws a temper tantrum when the parents
try to get him to eat his carrots, but when they finally give up and
let him alone he eats every carrot in sight.

The protesting was completely empty and as fake as a crocodile's
tears.  Secretly the Mac faithful loved the move to OS X.  If they really
had been mad at Apple, they would have retaliated by leaving Apple.
The fact that they didn't speaks far more volumes than any kicking
and screaming.

>> ?????  classic MacOS  (OS 9) was good for the market it was
>competing
>> in but could not last forever.  Apple has the Classic compatibility
>> in OS X and for a few years after OS X was introduced continued to
>> introduce new machines that support OS 9 natively.  I can still run
>> lots of my System 7 apps on my G5 under Classic today...  no
>software
>> obsolescence and nothing to worry about hitting me in the ass.
>
>I have an Introl C-11 compiler from 1991 for the 68hc11 family which
>still runs under my old 68k version of MPW, under Classic, under MacOS
>10.4.3. One OS hosted under another and one CPU doing soft
>interpretation of 68k binary code. Generating code for yet a 3rd
>CPU. And on my lowly 867 MHz Dual G4 its 30x faster than it ever was on
>native 68k.
>

Hmm - let's see, where's Introl today?  Do you suppose that all that
backwards compatability helped Introl's sales? ;-)

>In real world use my 256MB G4-400 MacOS X 10.4.3 Powerbook is faster
>than my 512MB 2GHz WinXP Pro box at work.

But - Chad said that the G4 is a no-go?  That the G5 was an absolute
requirement
for laptop use?  Yet your saying that a G4 for a laptop is perfectly
acceptable?
Then why again ais Apple moving to Intel chips to get laptops?  :-)

>Thats also no small part of
>why I keep a 450 MHz PII FreeBSD system at work. There is too much real
>work that needs to be done which is easy in Unix but a pain in Windows.
>Am not going to waste *my* perfectly good Macintosh at work.
>
>If this is planned obsolescence then I love it!
>

The plan is to come out with new gear every few years so as to extract
money from
the customer base.  As I already said in my first post, lots of people
are like you -
perfectly happy NOT buying the latest Apple product.  Apple wants money
from them -
so Apple has to shake things up.

Ted