Discouraged Apple User

[Rastor]

As a network administrator for a public school, I have been involved with Apple since I started my job in 2000! The part of OS X that has me discouraged, is Apple's frequent updates AND software retirement. Let me explain;

 

Apple came out with OS 10.0 in early 2001, 10.0 was a terrible software package BUT our school purchased 100 Apple computers with that version of software.

 

Apple came out with OS 10.1 in November 2001 BUT, we were required to pay for the "upgrade" even though many of the stability issues of 10.0 were never solved! Again we bought another 100 Apple computers that year. At least 10.1 was stable and functioned.

 

Apple came out with Jaguar (OS 10.2), and it was finally 95% of what Apple promissed! The problem was we had to pay full price (even thoug education gets a discount full price is still expensive) for each computer upgrade to this version! So, we bought 100 computers two years before this that now have obsolete software, and another 100 one year before this that are also obsolete!

 

Then came 10.3, 10.4 and now talk of Leopard (10.5)! Each step has required yet another software purchase. Right now, Apple will NOT provide tech support for versions 10.0, 10.1 at all. They do not provide security patches or bug fixes for 10.2, although they will provide PAID tech support for Jaguar. The only versions that they provide ANY patches and updates for are 10.3 and 10.4!

 

Now I don't know about you, but if Microsoft sold ANYONE Windows 2000, then required you to pay for Windows 2001 to FIX problems of 2000, and then came out with Windows 2002 to fix 2000 and 2001 for another full price update, and now only supported Windows 2004 and 2005 and considered all the other versions obsolete with absolutily no tech support CAN YOU IMAGINE THE MASSIVE LAWSUITS ACROSS THE WORLD!!

 

I guess that Apple users must be more affluent than the average American, and can afford to pay for the constant upgrades, because I sure can't understand it any other way.

 

Don't get me wrong, OS 10.3 and 10.4 are VERY nice to use, Apple's hardware prices and warranty covereages have a lot to be desired (Apple care costs nearly 10% of purchase price, every where else extended warranties are less than 2%) but the system itself is very nice, and I am looking forward to OS X on a Dell, and maybe dual booting my MacBook between Windows and OS X but it is a very nice alternative, if you can afford it....

 

......steps off the stump

[Ouch]

It is quite difficult to draw comparison between Apple's OS development cycle and microsoft as they operate completely different models. Microsoft traditionally favours infequent but major paid for upgrades, with minor point releases supplied as service packs - the downside of this is that each major release of the operating system invariably very expensive. Apple on the other hand tends to upgrade the OS on a more freqently yearly cycle, with the content of the upgrades sitting somewhere between microsoft service packs and a full major release. However these point releases are far cheaper than microsoft's. When you directly compare the cost of upgrades over say three years, which has traditionally been micrsoft's mean time between a major release (during which apple may release 3 paid for updates) the cost works out as roughly the same, somewhere around $200

 

Of course Microsoft does tend to operate their business products with a longer support period than Apple do, but you still have to pay to log incidents during microsoft extended support period, and only severe security flaws are patched during this time - so it's not all that different from Apple requiring you to have AppleCare.

 

I'm making these comments based on my knowledge of Microsoft business services, i don't have any experience dealing with apple on in a corporate environment.

[iMaurice]

the way i see it, if 10.x-10.4 were fixes, so where 95,98,ME, and 2000

[DeathChill]

Apple came out with OS 10.1 in November 2001 BUT, we were required to pay for the "upgrade" even though many of the stability issues of 10.0 were never solved! Again we bought another 100 Apple computers that year. At least 10.1 was stable and functioned.

Though I somewhat agree with your point, but I believe 10.1 was a completely free upgrade because 10.0 was so terrible.

[MacSpaces]

What amazes me the most is that no matter what-apple fanatics will always find away to protect their beloved company-but then again microsoft is the evil company right?

 

apples whole bussiness strategy was so poorly conducted i cant believe they managed to stay in bussiness for so long-apples best asset is their marketing team. Apple computers in general are beatiful and well crafted but the hardware was 4-5 years behind compared to windows machines but people still went out and purchased a 2400 dollar computer with no type of technology advancements-their laptops still dont have built in media readers for christ sake.

 

and everybody talks about how poor windows me was blah blah microsoft sucks blah blah but nobody talks about os 10.

some aplpe users even come out saying it was stable and fully functional knowing damn well os 10 was windows me brother with wodwn syndrome.

[Ouch]

Apple has always been at the bleeding edge in terms of hardware scsi, firewire, bluetooth, expresscard to name but a few. Only the processor was a problem in thier laptops recently and thats cause ibm kept making them promises it couldn't deliver on.

[Metrogirl]

I'd be inclined to turn that last observation on its head. I think it was more a case of Apple making promises to the consumer that IBM was not prepared to deliver for the price/volume/system constraints that Apple was demanding. Remember that the PowerPC is the very heart of some of the most powerful mainframe systems in existence, but in that environment it's not limited by the price, form factor, supply or cooling constraints that a laptop requires.

[Ouch]

Well i wasn't at the meetings but i doubt apple would have made the infamous 3Ghz statements without IBM at least leading them on a bit...(didn't you work for IBM? )..and i'm sure the 970FX didn't meet it's predicted power consumption figures when it came out, but i could be wrong about that.

[-.-]

I can see why this would be fustrating and with you buying them a 100 at a time I find it shameful that they would not extend to you a package deal with substancial discounting, and the fact that they would not do this for an educational establishment is beyond outragious.

 

But then you mentioning a comparison with MS Windows loses me because I consider them to be the spawn of Satan.

[Colonel]

But then you mentioning a comparison with MS Windows loses me because I consider them to be the spawn of Satan.

 

DOWN WITH MICRO$OFT!

[Urbz]

well i guess this is why Apple dumped the eMac...

Their business strategy for schools isn't very good...

 

although you didn't need to buy a new 100 computers just for the OS... and you could have deployed the OS from a server, simplifying everything...

 

really, i think things just weren't done very efficiently.

[Rastor]

well i guess this is why Apple dumped the eMac...

Their business strategy for schools isn't very good...

 

although you didn't need to buy a new 100 computers just for the OS... and you could have deployed the OS from a server, simplifying everything...

 

really, i think things just weren't done very efficiently.

 

The problem wasn't deploying the new versions, it was paying for upgrade software to fix bugs AND to pay for replacement software on two year old computers. Apple Care wouldn't even cover the operating system, of course now you can buy (for the cost of one version upgrade) and three year contract to receive free upgrades (software assuarance?). The problem is, I have to FIRST get all my Mac's (197 still in operation) to the latest version at full price THEN another full price OS purchase to have a three year promise of OS Tech Support. All this for computers that will not likely run 10.5 with its "intel" tweaks.

 

Prior to the year 2000 Apple had more than 60% of the education desktop market, today they are less than 20% with Dell having nearly 50%. Schools can't replace and upgrade every year to keep tech support around. Schools also have no budget to cover the 20% premium in hardware prices that Apple products seem to have. Although it is smart to keep both platforms around, three if you have the staff and can include Linux in house as well. BUT, the continuous and expensive software upgrades each and every year (I know Microsoft would LOVE the business model if they could get away with it) from Apple computer, plus THREE major Processor changes in SIX years, (G3, G4, G5 and now Intel-each with major motherboard/os code tweaks) make it nearly impossible to support in education.

 

I wish it weren't true, they do make some beautiful computers and easy to use software packages, but I have a budget with student to computer ratio requirements to meet. Apple can't fit in my budget in any signigicant numbers.

[Metrogirl]

I think Rastor is absolutely right that one of the reasons that educational establishments switched from Apple was the pace of introduction of new technology. Changes with the Mac rendered peripherals and software obsolete. Proprietary serial ports, strange video standards, Appletalk anybody?

 

Although MS is criticised for backward compatibility it has meant that, for example, a ten year old printer still works, and software written in the late 80s can probably still be used. In a cash-strapped educational environment it's often impossible to update equipment and software en masse; the PC route means you can move as your budget dictates.

 

In the 80s the now defunct Sequent made huge inroads into the Unix market by throwing hardware at Universities - at genuine manufacturing price (i.e. a fraction of the commercial value). It was a strategy that paid off; corporate Sequent sales grew accordingly. Many scientists and engineers who cut their teeth on Dynix wanted to use it in their employment too. That strategy only ended when IBM bought Sequent.

 

Apple would have done well to follow that market strategy, even today a lot of older Mac users have stayed with the platform because that's what they learned at school. Now most schools have PCs so it's inevitable that's what most students buy themselves.

[Beringer]

But then you mentioning a comparison with MS Windows loses me because I consider them to be the spawn of Satan.

 

So what can we say about LinTuxSux?

 

"Hare Krisna for Anoraks" ?

 

Jobs = Thorvalds = Moon ?

 

Let's try to avoid cultism....

 

I believe the main reason for Windows- and OSX-bloat is the fact that we have gotten into an unfortunate habit, the habit of seeing SW the same way we se a physical product, i.e a car. We expect it to be Perfect from the getgo, rather than accept the fact that it can't be.

 

This means that we do not pay for bugfixes and security updates, only for new (bloated) versions with new features that we really don't need. Apple and MS can sell new version updates but not fixes, they are an expense.

So, new versions get priority since they bring home the Bacon.

 

If we want to have SW perfected rather than new buggy versions, we must be willing to pay for the work being done.

 

If we're only willing to pay for new junk, new junk is what we get..

 

regards