"Apple is the next Microsoft"

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

It wouldn't make sense for Apple to support their previous OS versions as long as MS, really. I'd guess that demand for the continued support of business software likely plays a big part in this (not to mention just having hundreds of millions more clients out there). Large, infrequently overhauled business and government systems probably demand longer-term support, in general.

You know that the post that started this line of debate had the opposite view:

Originally Posted by hardcastle

Microsoft has a company culture that isn't compatible with consumer-facing long-term support though.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Oh, really. So which OS do you actually use? To my knowledge Apple has stopped supplying updates for Snow Leopard already - and that's just 4 1/2 years old. Quite a different generation as compared to XP. As Apple doesn't release official timetables to announce end of support it's always a guessing game though. It's not even up to debate that Apple does not support its OS for comparable periods of time as does MS, though.

Many people who buy Mac hardware do so because Apple makes it so easy to update the operating system to the next generation. My 2008 laptop came with Leopard which preceded the version mentioned here. Since then it has been upgradable to Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion and now the latest Mavericks all with the original spec hardware (no upgrades). Apple even provided Mavericks for free! I am pretty pleased that my 6 year old computer is still running and can take advantage of new modern features such as cloud syncing with other Apple devices.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

It wouldn't make sense for Apple to support their previous OS versions as long as MS, really. I'd guess that demand for the continued support of business software likely plays a big part in this (not to mention just having hundreds of millions more clients out there). Large, infrequently overhauled business and government systems probably demand longer-term support, in general.

That's one of the obvious reasons why Apple makes no inroads into the corporate world. Large companies are running hundreds of software applications and they can't depend on a company that switches off support for a OS version without giving plenty of notice. There are many large companies that are completing the switch from XP to Win 7 just now.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

To my knowledge Apple has stopped supplying updates for Snow Leopard already - and that's just 4 1/2 years old.

Apple just released a security update for Snow Leopard 14 days ago.

Originally Posted by Rizla

I attempted to copy from a Mac OS to NFTS on a Mac laptop bought this summer. I assume the OS is up-to-date and state-of-the-art. It didn't work.

Not surprising. The file system is 21 years old, and really due for a replacement. Heck, even Microsoft tried to make a replacement for it 6 years ago with Vista. Why would Apple at waste time to support a random file system it will never need? OS X has supported SMB for 7 years anyway, meaning that writing files to NTFS network drives is not a problem anyway.

And look at all the issues with proprietary connectors. Sheesh. Apple doesn't want to play with the rest of the personal computing world. It's their business strategy. That's fine for people that are happy to use only Apple. It's not for me. And I think it's a strategy that isn't ultimately going to work. Apple's products don't offer enough innovation anymore to compete with Windows and Android in the long-run.

Apple is using *one* proprietary connector on their Macs, and that is the power plug. The rest are standard. The iOS units uses a proprietary connector because it has much greater bandwith, and thus support many more accessories.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You know that the post that started this line of debate had the opposite view:

Originally Posted by hardcastle
Microsoft has a company culture that isn't compatible with consumer-facing long-term support though.

I'm still catching up with the thread, heh, but that view seems more similar than different. MS is used to long-term support for business/government because those clients generally stick with systems for longer than consumers and need to be given time to change. They can't pull the rug out from say, an old MIS structure used by some huge government agency without giving them years to upgrade. As opposed to consumers, who can more easily switch to a new OS whenever they buy a new PC (PC in the generic sense). I don't know if that is an effect of corporate culture, or just practical business. This is genuinely humble speculation on my part, as I'm no authority on this subject but find it interesting.

Originally Posted by CommonReader

That's one of the obvious reasons why Apple makes no inroads into the corporate world. Large companies are running hundreds of software applications and they can't depend on a company that switches off support for a OS version without giving plenty of notice. There are many large companies that are completing the switch from XP to Win 7 just now.

Makes sense. Working in education IT, I see how licensing costs alone make frequent OS changes prohibitive. But have they made no inroads because of it, or do they not seek inroads because the burden of long-term support doesn't fit their consumer-oriented approach? Even then, I've heard that is changing due to businesses bending to the prevalence of iOS among employees (Apple to take 11% of global enterprise market by 2015 thanks to iPhone 'halo effect').

[shalym]

Originally Posted by David Munch

Apple just released a security update for Snow Leopard 14 days ago.

Are you sure about that? If so, it's not listed on Apple's site. http://support.apple.com/downloads/#macosx106 According to that, the last security update for Snow Leopard was in September. There was an update to the Migration Assistant in October, and that's listed as the last update available. Even if there was an update, that will be the last one released: http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/tech.../snow-leopard/

Shari

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Are you looking in a mirror?

Why drag ad hominem into a reasonable discussion about Apple?

My question about seeing a pattern of selective interpretation in your posts is not only germane; it is specific to the way you've disputed other people's points over the past several pages. It's a comment on method, not the kind of person you are.

Here's what you've been doing:

Taking the most far-fetched interpretation of any logical argument by an opponent, presenting it as if said remote interpretation were exactly what the opponent meant, then responding it as if you were actually refuting the opponent's point.

Page after page, post after post, this is the disingenuous technique you've used to dismiss other people's points and arguments.

I can understand your creating a straw man over the course of a discussion. Nearly everyone slips from time to time. What I can't understand is your choosing to become an assembly line of straw men. No cause -- not even your belief that Jobs was a colossal derailment of consumer progress -- is just enough to warrant summarizing other people's points in a consistently misleading manner.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by David Munch

The iOS units uses a proprietary connector because it has much greater bandwith, and thus support many more accessories.

Isn't lightning just a wrapper over USB 2? If so, how can it achieve "much greater bandwidth"? Especially compared to newer phones that come with USB3 support.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by afv011

Isn't lightning just a wrapper over USB 2? If so, how can it achieve "much greater bandwidth"? Especially compared to newer phones that come with USB3 support.

I don't know if there's a bandwidth difference (maybe he was thinking of Thunderbolt), but lightning is different than USB. It's also allegedly more adaptable to new tech, without physical changes (so in theory may be able to keep up with new/faster protocols).

[afv011]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I don't know if there's a bandwidth difference (maybe he was thinking of Thunderbolt), but lightning is different than USB. It's also allegedly more adaptable to new tech, without physical changes (so in theory may be able to keep up with new/faster protocols).

He was specifically talking about ios devices, so it's definitively lightning, not thunderbolt.

Some googling indicates it is indeed just USB 2, so those claims of "much greater bandwidth" are simply untrue:

The speed could be better, but this is still based on USB 2.0 specs, not 3.0 or Thunderbolt. That means gains will be modest, not magical.

Source

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I'm still catching up with the thread, heh, but that view seems more similar than different. MS is used to long-term support for business/government because those clients generally stick with systems for longer than consumers and need to be given time to change. They can't pull the rug out from say, an old MIS structure used by some huge government agency without giving them years to upgrade. As opposed to consumers, who can more easily switch to a new OS whenever they buy a new PC (PC in the generic sense). I don't know if that is an effect of corporate culture, or just practical business. This is genuinely humble speculation on my part, as I'm no authority on this subject but find it interesting.

I didn't think that hardcastle was making the distinction between business/government and consumers.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Why drag ad hominem into a reasonable discussion about Apple?

My question about seeing a pattern of selective interpretation in your posts is not only germane; it is specific to the way you've disputed other people's points over the past several pages. It's a comment on method, not the kind of person you are.

Here's what you've been doing:

Taking the most far-fetched interpretation of any logical argument by an opponent, presenting it as if said remote interpretation were exactly what the opponent meant, then responding it as if you were actually refuting the opponent's point.

Page after page, post after post, this is the disingenuous technique you've used to dismiss other people's points and arguments.

I can understand your creating a straw man over the course of a discussion. Nearly everyone slips from time to time. What I can't understand is your choosing to become an assembly line of straw men. No cause -- not even your belief that Jobs was a colossal derailment of consumer progress -- is just enough to warrant summarizing other people's points in a consistently misleading manner.

And I can say the same thing about you. Remember post #141?

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

It's important to differentiate between Jobs' talents and successes, his failings and limitations, and his moral ambiguity. All three aspects are not interchangeably bad or good.

I have no idea what brought this on and why you would bring morals as a point (and later, in post #163 say that I am apparently making a moral argument).

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Hans' point is merely logical: Jobs would have found other creative people to galvanize, bully, steal from and improve upon. Those same creative people would likely not have found another Jobs. To say so is no more a trivialization of those people's talents than it is a justification for Jobs' tendency toward mystification, hype and dictatorial self-assertion. Despite all that, he was good at some important things.

I never said that the creative people would have found another Jobs, I said that without Apple they would have worked for another company.

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The man was a gifted organizer, salesman and conceptual simplifier. He might be dead, but (even if he annoyed you beyond patience) to discount his gifts is to fail to recognize and possibly absorb the strengths of a former rival. It's easy to see how Guy Kawasaki might have learned from Jobs but eventually decided to work for Google.

I don't know where you got the idea that Jobs annoyed me. And I am not discounting his gifts.

And in post #144:

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Here's the problem, Sil_liS: At this point, most of us were already aware of the examples you're offering (fixed iPhone screen size; Jobs' appropriation of ideas from Xerox/Parc and others; iDevices not having been created in a vacuum, etc.).

I didn't say that the screen size needed fixing. I don't believe in the idea that there must be only one screen size. I was pointing out the lack of variety, which is good for maximizing profits, but not good for the consumer.

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The difference is that you and I form antipodal conclusions about the trajectory of the data overall.

I could try to convince you of my POV and you mine, but each of us is still going to leave with his own opinion of Jobs' role. I think it will be much easier to discuss his contribution in 50 years when his personality and the dominance of Apple aren't deterrents to objectivity. We do the same thing now with similar catalysts and can be dispassionate (Coco Chanel, Henry Ford, Robert Moses, Louis Comfort Tiffany).

I don't care about Jobs' personality, it was never a point for me in this discussion.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by afv011

He was specifically talking about ios devices, so it's definitively lightning, not thunderbolt.


Quote: OtterBooks
I don't know if there's a bandwidth difference (maybe he was thinking of Thunderbolt), but lightning is different than USB. It's also allegedly more adaptable to new tech, without physical changes (so in theory may be able to keep up with new/faster protocols).
He was specifically talking about ios devices, so it's definitively lightning, not thunderbolt.

Quote:
The speed could be better, but this is still based on USB 2.0 specs, not 3.0 or Thunderbolt. That means gains will be modest, not magical.

Some googling indicates it is indeed just USB 2, so those claims of "much greater bandwidth" are simply untrue:

Source

Accurate as usual.

In my opinion, usually anything faster than USB2 like USB3 or the second version of Firewire (800 up) is overkill unless you are trying to copy whole hard drives. Say an image.

Backup software usually is the slow link.

Back in the 90s I used Firewire for peer to peer networks, connection and backups. All on Windows machines.

I wouldn't even guess how many FireWire external hard drives I have in my hardware clutter.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by afv011

He was specifically talking about ios devices, so it's definitively lightning, not thunderbolt.

Some googling indicates it is indeed just USB 2, so those claims of "much greater bandwidth" are simply untrue:



Source

Ah, thanks. its wiki entry mentioned some stuff about it supporting different wattage and having sort of built-in upgradeability whereby Apple could update the connection without requiring a new cable but I lost interest half way through.

[David Munch]

Originally Posted by shalym

Are you sure about that? If so, it's not listed on Apple's site. [url]http://support.apple.com/downloads/#macosx106[/url

XProtect (Appels Malware detector) which is part of Snow Leopard, was updated. I count that as a security update.

Originally Posted by afv011

Isn't lightning just a wrapper over USB 2?

It is. See also my comment below.

Originally Posted by afv011

Some googling indicates it is indeed just USB 2, so those claims of "much greater bandwidth" are simply untrue:

Source

I actually thought that the new Lightning connector did employ as much digital bandwidth as the old 30-pin connector, which it apparently doesn't do. I based my comment on that, so sorry for the false information. Turns out the only advantage is greater power bandwidth which is bidirectional, which USB does not currently employ as far as I know.