On 2002-01-29 17:33, "Stephen Jendraszak" <stevehj_at_mac.com> wrote:
> Apple (or the company's CEO, for that matter) has not killed the floppy,
> serial devices, or SCSI. These devices are antiquated. The technology
> (save for some special applications) had outlived it's useful life.
Not at all. Floppies are still used by PC folks and are a very quick and
dirty way to exchange small files. I personally haven't used them at home
for years, but they would have come in handy last summer.
My Garmin GPS receiver I bought last summer only has a serial port. You have
to use a USB to serial adapter with all the problems that go along with
that. My X-10 computer is serial only. I loaned a serial 56 kpbs modem to a
friend. Those are just the devices I use. Perhaps The Steve doesn't use
devices.
As for SCSI, my external HDs, DVD-RAM and scanner are all SCSI devices and
are perfectly suited for the tasks they do. Why on earth would I want to
replace them just because The Steve decides to remove support? If he's
wondering what's slowing adoption of X, this is one of many things, the cost
of replacing all those peripherals and the reluctance to do so when they
work fine.
> It
> was time to move on to faster and more elegant solutions in NEW
> computers.
No problem there as long as the s/w continues to support old peripherals.
Last I checked, Mac OS 9 on my 7100/66av doesn't support the built-in
floppy, A/V features or energy saving modes. Why remove perfectly functional
code when the installer can simply check the model and decide whether to
install it or not? It won't hamper anyone on those fancy new iMacs.
> ... It can be upgraded to a point, but eventually, if you want to run
> the latest OS and do the things that newer machines can do, you will
> simply have to invest in new hardware. I don't like this anymore than
> you do, but it is the way the computer industry works.
And will continue to work like this as long as we blindly accept it. I have
an Epson 800N printer which is networked via Ethernet. Epson decides they
won't support it in Mac OS X even though the printer is less than 3 years
old and works great in OS 9. That's pure s/w and has nothing to do with h/w.
This is what is known as planned obsolescence and I, for one, will not give
up easily.
> There is no
> computer company that fully supports hardware for 5-7 years. You think
> Windows XP runs on a 7 year-old PC?
I'm referring more to the peripherals than the CPU. Peripheral support could
easily last 5-7 years.
It is definitely more difficult to run the bloated OSes of today on older
h/w. That says more about the crappy coding that's being done today than the
deficiency of the h/w. I first used Unix on an HP-UX box which had a 40 MHz
68020 w/64 MB of memory (I think) and it ran X-windows much faster than my
400 MHz G3 w/192 MB runs Aqua. You know, I really think I could do without
all that silly transparency and anti-aliasing that The Steve demands I use
just to get pre-emptive multi-tasking and memory protection.
> The progress of technology in this
> industry is just too fast for hardware to be capable of doing EVERYTHING
> for that long.
That's not progress, that's bloat. When you have to have a gigahertz
processor just to display text in a window as fast as you type, well, that
ain't progress.
> But, the fact that all of us are still Newton owner's
> shows that just because a technology or peice of hardware is no longer
> supported does not mean that it is no longer useful.
Oh yes, the Newton. :-) There is no doubt in my mind that abandoning the
Newton was one of Apple's finest mistakes. You know that Apple really had
something when 4 years after a product is cast off that people still are in
awe of what the Newton can do. Sure, it doesn't have colour and it won't fit
in your shirt pocket, but the s/w (in most cases) is very nice and that 100
DPI screen, ahh...
This is actually an example of a product that was way ahead of the curve and
thus had to go.
> On the other hand, I agree with you regarding DVD support.
I bought my Lombard in June 1999. The DVD s/w was last revised that
September and won't play many DVDs today. I'm not sure if that sets a record
for Apple in abandoning peripherals, but it must come close.
> But WaveLAN
> is not an Apple technology... why should they write the drivers for it?
> Isn't that the responsibility of the company who made it?
I'm not sure if you're aware that Lucent developed WaveLAN/Orinoco for
Apple. There was a big announcement by both Apple and Lucent when AirPort
was released about this great partnership. AirPort cards _are_ WaveLAN
cards. Mac OS 9's AirPort drivers support my WaveLAN card (because it's very
darn close to Apple's) yet in OS X, they have deliberately chosen not to
support it. Why? Perhaps The Steve wants me to cast off my Lombard and buy a
new iBook or TiBook? Forget it Steve. I haven't even written this thing off
yet.
Anyway, I'm sure Apple appreciates and supports your viewpoint on replacing
old gear, but being and old gear (EE) myself, I can still see the value in
perfectly functioning hardware.
Regards,
...Tom
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 16:03:32 EST