"Apple is the next Microsoft"

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I mean any XP computers, why should there be a difference? There isn't for FF & Chrome.

Windows XP system requirements:
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)

IE11 system requirements
Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)

Do you see why there is a difference?

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Tech support for a piece of software that doesn't actually have the capabilities to understand the internet in the first place? By which I mean those parts of it that aren't 6 years old, like most of the important stuff. Because so many people call up MS Tech support when Gmail crashes on them.

By abandoned, we mean, or at least everyone other than you seems to mean, a piece of software that hasn't been updated to be useful in the current state of things.

99% of all calls will go like this: "Hi this is Tech Support. How may I help you? Oh, that? That doesn't work on this version, update your browser."

I'm sure you think that you are making a point here but I don't see it.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I'm sure there is no difference today. I have a friend who runs a smaller ad Agency, everybody is on a Mac. I told him that PCs can do all that as well at a lower price Point. His reply was that the Mac is so deeply entrenched it is impossible to change now.

The difference between mac and PC usage is far greater in the music and film industries than in graphic design.

Companies that prefer PCs and want their departments to use the same kinds of computer have pushed for that and their design departments reflect this. That same approach hasn't really happened in professional video and music, which is interesting considering that Intel and MS's shareholders' takeover of Avid was intended to change that.

One vast difference is the level of investment in additional hardware and software that pro-level music and audio demand. You're not just buying a computer if you're a video post-pro studio; you're also buying additional hardware that costs several times more than the computer itself. You can easily spend $140,000 on workstation hardware and software alone.

Part of the reason the strategy of the Avid takeover failed was their initial announcement they wouldn't be supporting the mac. The outrage that that announcement produced in Hollywood was immense: Editors, directors, engineers and soundtrack composers were effectively being told they were about to lose $40,000-140,000 investments with the very next update. People who'd bought into a bulletproof system on one computer didn't like being told to switch at any price.

I've known established directors who'd stop working with you if you put them on hold while talking on the phone. I can only imagine what they did when Avid threatened to make them switch high-cost high-end editing systems purely to effect a lateral business move.

[theinfamousj]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Nothing at all, I was just commenting on someones comment.

What OS can't you run the latest Firefox on? I know plenty of people who run it on WinXP without any problems -- well, not any FF problems.

I just want to point out that you are assuming that XP is the base and oldest OS in the wild. It isn't. Not by a long shot.

There are older OSes (Win2000, WinME, OS X pre-Tiger) and those need to upgrade to at least XP or Tiger to run the latest Firefox.
I would love to live a financial life where I was able to upgrade my whole computer as regularly as you assume is the norm, but I don't have the financial resources for it. The $500 computer has to last me nearly 10 years. And it has. (pats her 2001 Sony Vaio running a recent upgrade to XP from ME)

Edited to add proof of computer for the doubters.

Ludicrously large photographs deleted by moderator. Please read the Posting Guidelines to learn the maximum size of image that can be posted.

How I get online since the computer was built before WiFi was standard.

[Kumabjorn]

@Prestidigitweeze
Isn't that kind of entrenchment, be it a Swedish ad agency or an American music producer, proof that there will be very little growth for Apple in the computer segment. ADs and illustrators get the latest Macs for the graphic capabilities, their computers becomes hand me downs to copywriters whose computers goes to administrative staff. Two people on staff use Windows, they run tax software that is no longer available for the Mac. My guess is that if a music setup runs into six digits that they aren't too keen to upgrade unless they have too.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Nothing at all, I was just commenting on someones comment.

What OS can't you run the latest Firefox on? I know plenty of people who run it on WinXP without any problems -- well, not any FF problems.

I have no problems on XP with Firefox. My old CRT based, slow 1/2 GHz, computer does have problems though, and when XP loses MS support I will see if Bitdefender Virus protection or another anti virus steps up and fills the gap.

If not then I will probably load Ubuntu on the machine.

I do have other machines available like this high powered Win 7 machine I am on right now but that old XP machine sits in my home office 24x7 working tirelessly. It is an old friend. Through it, I discovered Napster.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Windows XP system requirements:
Pentium 233-megahertz (MHz) processor or faster (300 MHz is recommended)
At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)

IE11 system requirements
Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster with support for PAE, NX, and SSE2
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)

Do you see why there is a difference?

Firefox 27 System Requirements

Operating Systems

• Windows XP SP2
• Windows Server 2003 SP1
• Windows Vista
• Windows 7
• Windows 8

Please note that while the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 can be used to run Firefox 27, only 32-bit builds of Firefox 27 are supported at this time.

Recommended Hardware

• Pentium 4 or newer processor that supports SSE2
• 512MB of RAM
• 200MB of hard drive space

Do you see why there is a difference?

So either Microsoft stinks at programming or they are artificially inflating the requirement levels.

I'm sure you think that you are making a point here but I don't see it.

My point is obvious. Microsoft abandoned IE on WinXP. You cannot possibly tell me that answering questions about how it isn't working is equivalent to supporting IE. All improvements are artificially withheld from XP, because IE+XP has been abandoned! Obsolete software is not called being supported.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Firefox 27 System Requirements


Do you see why there is a difference?

So either Microsoft stinks at programming or they are artificially inflating the requirement levels.


My point is obvious. Microsoft abandoned IE on WinXP. You cannot possibly tell me that answering questions about how it isn't working is equivalent to supporting IE. All improvements are artificially withheld from XP, because IE+XP has been abandoned! Obsolete software is not called being supported.

Currently on my laptop FF is using 712 MB, which is separate from the 1 GB that the flash player plugin is using. Maybe Firefox should be more honest with the requirements.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

@Prestidigitweeze
Isn't that kind of entrenchment, be it a Swedish ad agency or an American music producer, proof that there will be very little growth for Apple in the computer segment.

Oh, I think you're right in a few respects, and not simply because the expense forestalls upgrades. The other factor is synergistic stability, which is often hard-won. Producers and working electronic musicians are often the last to upgrade because a stable system is a dependable system and no one wants to crash with a client sitting next to them. Aaron Funk (a/k/a Venetian Snares) has the most old-fashioned rig I've ever seen (an ancient version of SoundForge on pre-XP Windows and a flickering CRT monitor) -- it's PC-based, BTW -- and it's all because the system works for him.

You see that a lot -- supposedly futuristic music being produced on tech that's a decade old or more (three or four decades, if you count legacy electronic instruments).

Still, rich artists often spend a lot on Apple kit even beyond their pro rigs and studio systems. Who was the designer who owned fifty iPods at one time -- was it Karl Lagerfeld? That seems ridiculous to me, but it does point toward a cultivated relationship with the arts that once allowed Jobs to market his simple computer as if it were something inherently more creative.

Jobs would have gone on caring about my sector of the client base because we're the people who lent credibility to the rest of what Apple did. Fine-arts cred is part of what gave Apple its cool for a moment, even among consumers who never got past the iPhone. That's why Jobs talked about the arts so often. It's telling that Ives rarely does. He's less pompous than Jobs but also less hypnotically overreaching.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Jobs would have gone on caring about my sector of the client base because we're the people who lent credibility to the rest of what Apple did. Fine-arts cred is part of what gave Apple its cool for a moment, even among consumers who never got past the iPhone. That's why Jobs talked about the arts so often. It's telling that Ives rarely does. He's less pompous than Jobs but also less hypnotically overreaching.

Jobs was one of those rare creatures who come along once in a generation. He literally didn't give a flying fog about anyone external to his own thought processes. Under Jobs, Apple couldn't care less about stock holders, sub-contractors, banks, distributors etc. He cared about only one single person, the Apple customer. That kind of laser sharp focus can't be emulated, and as we move forward I think that loyal Apple customers slowly but surely will start to realize that it is no longer the same company under Tim Cook. From my vantage point the hard core Apple fanboi received as much love from the company that he gave them, wake up and realize that the love is now unrequited and that loyal customer will start to feel confused.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Very well then, how do you define support?

And why is it so obvious to you that older OS versions don't deserve the latest version of a software that is fully capable of running on the older system? I would understand if a program is simply too resource-intensive/complex/requires libraries not available for older systems/something, but if Chrome and FF both find it technologically feasible to support WinXP, then Microsoft can do it so.

The only reason they don't is because of politics! Why?

As others have mentioned, it's not politics, it's the resource requirements. Most likely because as you said sloppy programming. IE has always been like that. I'm not excusing it, but again with all the free browsers available it's not a hardship.

I have admitted IE is not supported as well as Chrome or FF. However the point is that it is still supported with patches, and that in general Microsoft has been better about support than what popular perception assumes.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Jobs was one of those rare creatures who come along once in a generation. He literally didn't give a flying fog about anyone external to his own thought processes. Under Jobs, Apple couldn't care less about stock holders, sub-contractors, banks, distributors etc. He cared about only one single person, the Apple customer. That kind of laser sharp focus can't be emulated, and as we move forward I think that loyal Apple customers slowly but surely will start to realize that it is no longer the same company under Tim Cook. From my vantage point the hard core Apple fanboi received as much love from the company that he gave them, wake up and realize that the love is now unrequited and that loyal customer will start to feel confused.

Jobs accomplishments happened because worked with a large team of engineers and designers. He was not a lone genius toiling away in isolation apart from other people.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Jobs accomplishments happened because worked with a large team of engineers and designers. He was not a lone genius toiling away in isolation apart from other people.

Jobs had a sense for what would be popular and the ability to articulate his excitement so that others shared it.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Jobs accomplishments happened because worked with a large team of engineers and designers. He was not a lone genius toiling away in isolation apart from other people.

Not once in my post did I claim that. His didn't give "a flying fog" attitude is what enabled his staff to concentrate focus on their jobs, not needing to worry about outside distractions.

[ApK]

What's important is that the large team of engineers and designers would certainly not have accomplished what they did without him, and that goes all the way back to the very small team of just Woz.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ApK

What's important is that the large team of engineers and designers would certainly not have accomplished what they did without him, and that goes all the way back to the very small team of just Woz.

That is certainly true. Without a great visionary at the top who gives them direction, who understands marketing, design, and technical matters, who is as obsessed about the tiniest details and who makes the right decisions when necessary the best team of people would not have been getting to where Apple got to. And part of being a leader like Steve Jobs is to recognize talented people and get them to join your team.

The point being --- the same support team without Steve and nobody would ever have bothered. But Steve could easily have assembled a different team and that team would have gone to do similar things. He was the driving force, the one who had the final say on everything. Not to mention the great show he put up at product introduction.