Dvorak: Discontinue the Mac 243
paradesign writes "In an 'E-Mac, i-Mac, No Mac', John C. Dvorak makes the claim that the Macintosh should be discontinued. He adds, 'I'm not writing this column as a Mac basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that.' Worth a read, but keep in mind where its published." I am not posting this as a Dvorak basher to make people realize he is clueless, although plenty of people will accuse me of that.
haha (Score:5, Interesting)
So if he ran Apple, he would do what? Concentrate on selling on OS that ran on discontinued computers? I guess he hasn't been watching Apple's annual reports lately.
Re:haha (Score:3, Funny)
Re:haha (Score:5, Insightful)
Well since he got fired from MacUser magazine anyway... Anyone remember when he used to write a Mac column? He was very pro Mac, but didn't like Apple too much.
Re:haha (Score:2, Funny)
Pi
Re:haha (Score:2, Insightful)
He used to write for MacUser, and got fired for (rightfully) saying that the company was going to shit. A few years later, in the depths of Apple's despair, guys like Guy Kawazaki got praised for saying the exact same stuff as Dvorak.
Misleading description. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading description. (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, I think the hardware is great from a performance point of view and I dropped all my other un*x platforms for OS X.
Dvorak is a pussy.
Re:Misleading description. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I find this kind of whining, psuedo-advocacy bullshit extremely annoying. It's far too easy for media pundits with no programming or interface design experience to complain endlessly about how operating systems and applications haven't advanced since the late 80's, without offering any concrete evidence to the contrary.
Even the hallow Amiga, BeOS, and other ill-fated "visionary" platforms have failed to move beyond slightly improved versions of the WIMP model for user interfaces, and yet people seem content to deal with their mediocre systems.
I wonder: is it possible that the general public (random columnists included, of course) are not able to conjure up some immensely more effective model for human/computer interaction? I suppose not; Dvorak obviously has much greater plans for the personal computer, and is simply biding his time until he can unveil the great revolution in computing technology locked inside his massively effective cranuim.
Give me a break. This isn't news; it's a random thrust for publicity by a mediocre, middle-aged technology columnist whose popularity has waned since he left the safety of the Mac fanatic world.
My only question is, why didn't he target Microsoft, or IBM, or any of the other massive corporations that seem perfectly content to release year after year of forgettable upgrades and minor enhancements to software and hardware that adheres strictly to the status quo? Apple, of all companies, hardly deserves to be singled out for failing to take heroic measures to innovate in the arena of personal computing...why not put the pressure on the real market leaders (i.e., the folks pulling in the most money)?
OK (Score:2)
Personally, I find this kind of whining, psuedo-advocacy bullshit extremely annoying. It's far too easy for media pundits with no programming or interface design experience to complain endlessly about how operating systems and applications haven't advanced since the late 80's, without offering any concrete evidence to the contrary.
Okayyy... Well, I don't like Dvorak very much. And I've been doing programming and interface design for fifteen years, even did some research into interfaces (VR Toolshed, Roller [no, you've never heard of them unless you went to some highly specialized conferences]) and have implemented many unusual interfaces (cylinder menus, gesture interfaces, etc.). So can I whine about how little interface design has improved?
It's unfair to single out Apple, though. OS X is good. Apple is just beginning to re-assemble a world-class design team like they had in the early 1980's with Alan Kay and the other Grand Old Men. In the mean time, they need to secure their future in the marketplace. If they need to produce vanilla-scented art-deco Macs with built-in can openers, then they need to do it.
I like Dvorak (Score:1)
Re:I like Dvorak (Score:2, Insightful)
However, he gets WAY to much credit as a visionary or pundit. I heard him say on his Silicon Spin show several times (quote, unquote) "People don't want to edit their videos." I personally know three first time Mac buyers who bought Macs mostly for that very reason.
Re:I like Dvorak (Score:2)
I read the Dvorak column when it first came out. Believe it or not, he makes a small amount of sense. Apple needs to be leading the pack when it comes to OS innovations. I totally disagree with him that Apple is not innovating though. Apple is just playing with the hardware right now. I mean, isn't a postscript disp[lay interface an advance? Quartz is absolutely beautiful.
Re:I like Dvorak (Score:2, Funny)
They did; it was called `NeXT'. (Score:3, Insightful)
The real answer to ``why don't they give up?'' is because ``people still want to buy their products''. Doesn't seem so hard to understand. Shrug.
Re:They did; it was called `NeXT'. (Score:3, Insightful)
The general outcome was that the NeXT boxes were faster, prettier, had better bundled software, and generally kicked the asses of equivalent Mac systems at the time. Of course, there were only a few dozen NeXT-compatible applications at the time, but that was just a matter of time, right?
IMHO, what really killed the NeXT systems was lack of software, which was in turn driven by their use of Objective-C. Obj-C was a great language, but it wasn't what anyone else used: Mac and Windows folks were committed to C and C++ by that time, and the UNIX world was (as always) all about C, Tcl, Perl, and the like.
Re:They did; it was called `NeXT'. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem aside from lack of apps, was the price, Cubes were going for $8K, AFAIR, and that was pricey. Some of the killer apps were the first WYSIWYG Wordperfect, and Lotus Improv. Other great apps like Mathematica and Framemaker were also released.
This isn't to say there wasn't any problems with design, the optical drives were expensive, slow and clunky. Jobs had the right idea to carry your whole environment with you (OS, Apps, Data) on an optical disk. Now that I think of it, the same thing lives on today in a different way on the iPod. Anyhow, the optical was later an option, and a floppy was added to the cube.
I cut my teeth on one of these in the early 90's. I rescued a Cube from my college and used it as my Unix workstation for all my programming classes. It made life more pleasant working at home rather than fight for lab machines.
Re:They did; it was called `NeXT'. (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, what really killed the NeXT systems was lack of software, which was in turn driven by their use of Objective-C. Obj-C was a great language, but it wasn't what anyone else used: Mac and Windows folks were committed to C and C++ by that time
That's a horrible argument. At this point in my reply, I'll just say it's wrong.
NeXT failed* for the same reason that Be failed. Well, Be failed ultimately because they engaged themselves with a war with MS, instead of trying to make their technology work. They're technology failed (was not adopted) because the only API they had was C++. And that API was just a knock-off of OpenStep anyway (try comparing them sometime). Be was too stupid to learn from NeXT's mistakes; they just copied them outright (Wee, a wonderful new gui, an object oriented api. That's what NeXT brought to the table). For some reason, they thought C++ was a good idea. C++ is never a good idea :) They did worse than NeXT did; at least enterprise found NeXT's Objective-C-based software tools useful.
NeXT and Be failed because they didn't bring procedural APIs to the table. It's like those dorks on slashdot who keep saying 'Office is on OS X! It can come to Linux now!!'. OS X has apps coming to the table because of Carbon, a procedural API. It has nothing to do with BSD or Cocoa (or NeXT).
It's a pain in the ass, if not impossible, to graft one object oriented API on top of another. Try porting some Java code to the BeOS, or to Cocoa (without using Cocoa's Java support). Java receives button clicks differently than the other frameworks. You need to be able to tell Java (or whatever OOP framework your code came from) that you got a button click. This is easy to do with a procedural API like Carbon. In Cocoa, you'd have to let NSButton tell you it's been pressed, and somehow pass that off to... whatever replacement you have for Java's event stuff; because you won't have that Java button anymore (any code that wanted to access that Java button is garbage; with Carbon you can simulate that Java button).
The main diff is that OO-frameworks give you already built objects. Procedural APIs give you raw materials. You can rebuild your car with raw materials, but you can't rebuild your inline-6 engine from an inline-4 that someone handed you.
This is why the original Rhapsody project was killed. It was f'n stupid. Office, Illustrator, Photoshop, etc would have to be rewritten from scratch. From scratch, not a port. I remember reading a MacTech article about bringing your apps to the Be OS. The main tip was, "if you're app is already factored into back-end, and front-end parts, it's easy to port to the BeOS! Just throw out your front-end code and write it again! Otherwise you're SOL."
*NeXT probably would not have failed if they had pursued WebObjects. But that didn't happen. Apple didn't pursue it either, which was really stupid.
What an idio.... well maybe not (Score:3, Insightful)
There's all those wearable computing folks too, talking to their computers all day.
And I'm sure there are a few other good WIMP replacements out there too, but they never seem to be adopted by the big boys into shipping products. What gives?
It seems like Apple has the kind of user that would try a new UI, like say telling your mp3 player what you want to listen too. But they are too focused on little improvents, just like their PC Bretheren. It may make for a profitable company but there's something wrong with our industry if only mediocre products can be profitable.
I'm not blaming Apple per say, Jobs had to save them from early death. But I don't the Dvorak is either (ignoring the Slashdot headline and reading the article, oh
Re:What an idio.... well maybe not (Score:2)
Neither group cares about, or wants to deal with, some amazing new advance in HCI technology. Voice recognition, gesture-based control, and 3D UIs are all great academic concepts, but they have yet to be adopted and understood by the general public. People who don't care about computers as objects of techno-lust, and only want to get real work done, tend to ignore "amazing" technologies that don't already plug in to the latest version of Office, IE, and Photoshop.
Granted, it's a sad state of affairs, but more or less unavoidable given the fact that absolutely computer-illiterate people drive the strong majority of the technology market. For every avid
Re:What an idio.... well maybe not (Score:2)
Re:What an idio.... well maybe not (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, the research is worthwhile and over time someone will have a new idea with the potential to revolutionise UI. But for now there doesn't seem to be anything out there that is worth the kind of fundamental shift that Dvorak is blaming Apple for not making RIGHT NOW.
As an aside I DO tell my mp3 player what I want to listen to
Re:you WORKED on Pad++ ??? (Score:2)
Easy answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Software is why most people buy and use computers - not many outside the geek community are interested in playing with a machine with no applications.
It's the software, stupid. A new system that was substantially different from the old ones (in a way that Dvorak, who pooh-poohs the substantial 680x0 -> PPC and Mac OS -> NeXT/Mac OS X transitions - the most radical transformations you can get while maintaining compatability, means) would not be able to seamlessly run old software.
BeOS was the last platform that looked like a major contender, and it didn't get anywhere. Why? As well as having no name recognition, there simply wasn't the body of applications for it.
Re:Easy answer (Score:2, Informative)
As an early user of BeOS on PPC, I have to disagree. There were quite a few applications, and after BeOS shifted their focus to x86, the number grew dramatically. What really doomed BeOS? It was Microsoft's confidential agreement with vendors that forbids installation of any other OS alongside Windows. 99% of computer users just use the OS their computer comes with. If people could have bought dual-boot or BeOS only boxes at Walmart it may have had a chance.
The terms of MS's contracts with vendors was at one point a part of the antitrust case against them. Gil Amelio even testified. However, the feds chose to focus on the browser issue for some reason.
Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:5, Insightful)
For people who read the article, they'll notice that what I quoted is the intro paragraph. That's all I had to read to realize that the author is full of it. Macs aren't ready to die. On the contrary, they are blooming. Macs are one of the few computer brands that are actually profitable right now. Look at the computers that are being sold. Most people buying systems want to spend $800 or less. People will then go ahead and drop $1500 on a Mac system. Why is this? Because a Mac is a niche market system. There is special hardware and software that people are paying for. It's never going to explode onto the desktop (again) and take over the Windows community, even though the Mac zealots would really like it to.
The Mac exists for a small group of people, and also in my opinion as a testing ground for new technology. Would your PC have a USB port on it right now if it wern't put onto a Mac first for B. Gates to notice and snap up? How bout IEEE 1394? In a year or two you'll have a DVD burner on your system (many people already do). What systems did they originate on? The Mac.
Apple never moves forward? Riiiiight. On the contrary... Apple moves EVERYONE ELSE forward. Linux/Unix/BSD can't move the market. On the X86 systems there is not enough pull from those communities to get hardware like USB or IEEE put in as standard, so the job falls to the Mac systems to get the attention of the rest of the world when newer technology comes out.
I'm not a Mac person. I have many P3 and P4 systems in my house and like it that way. I'm also one of the few
Excellent Points (Score:2)
The Macintosh brand is a stable brand, but Dvorak does raise an interesting point. Since Apple is one of the few companies that seem to be able to reinvent itself, perhaps they should consider reinventing the Macintosh in another brand name that's more in line with the product's diversity (it's a business computer, it's a graphics box, it's a recreation box, it's a floor wax, dessert topping and more, et al.) I can see that a name change, even if Apple never changed the basic design, may make a better market pitch to IT professionals whose name sours on the word "Mac."
Usually Dvorak doesn't have a clue. He might have one here, although he's generally wrong in his basic point of the article.
Re:Excellent Points (Score:3, Interesting)
understandable. I think apple has muddled the waters in what it means to be a "mac". this doesn't mean the "mac" is dead, but I think it's entirely warranted that they re-evaluate the brand name.
why not start at their OS level. MacOSX and MacOSXS. Hell. Remove the "mac". OSXS should not be run on what is quintessentially the macintosh... a little home computer that has a smiley face when you boot it up and originally came with a built in handle.
MacOSXS running on XServe... you hardly want to bring the idea of a "mac" into the picture, you want it to be seen as a serious piece of computing equipment with a serious operating system. Kill the bouncing shit in the docking bar on the server. Kill the fluffy shit. A little less "mac" and a little more serious.
anyway, it's getting late and this is just a rant now. enjoy.
Re:Excellent Points (Score:2)
I disagree with you about this. Apple is careful to focus on the Unix side of OS X in all of it's marketing about the XServe. I just saw an ad in JDJ or one of those rags that focused on an open terminal in a Mac.
OS X isn't necessarily as "Mac" as you put it, and it's really there to replace Windows boxes in the server room. Personally, I don't look at Windows file servers "as a serious piece of computing equipment with a serious operating system." It has the same desktop heritage as the original Mac OS (though the various Windows version are better than the previous Mac iterations). OS X on the other hand starts from Mach and BSD, which has serious computing equipment with serious OS heritage.
So, if you can run a Windows 2K Server box, you can easily run an XServe with OS X Server.... I'm not sure I see the difference. Which means, I'm not sure I see your point about not bringing "Mac" into the picture.
Sujal
Re:Excellent Points (Score:2)
The guts are the guts and the plastic should fit with the room but if it doesn't, I won't cry because that's *really* putting form over function.
I'm just waiting for the Mac home server to come out with Inkwell and voice recognition built in. $10k for the modular, expandable setup and you get your talking home running computer from a million science fiction stories. The technology should be affordably in place by OS 11 and it'll get folded into new home construction costs.
Oh, and the plastic is not likely to be rack mounted but wall mounted like a lot of PBXs.
Time for the marketing weasel! (Score:2)
> Macintosh in another brand name that's more in line
> with the product's diversity (it's a business computer,
> it's a graphics box, it's a recreation box, it's a floor
> wax, dessert topping and more, et al.)
There is no way in hell that Apple is going to kill off the "Macintosh" brand name until something bad happens (e.g., Some terrorist named Mac N. Tosh kills 50,000 school children in a horrific poisoning involving McIntosh apples).
Companies work for years and spend millions of dollars to build brand names, and they don't toss them aside without good reason. Very few computers (or regular products, for that matter) have the same type of recognition. For example, how likely are you to be able to figure out who builds the following: Accsys, Dimension, Inspira, Achieva, Presario, Millennia, Evo, OptiPlex, etc. You might be able to figure it out if you've got one on your desk, but if someone says Macintosh, chances are better they'll figure out it's an Apple, whether they like the product or not. That type of brand recognition in the industry is something other computer makers would kill for.
Dvorak's article isn't as much of a troll as he usually does (the title is an order of magnitude worse than the article itself), but that point still doesn't make any sense. One thing that has to be understood is that Apple did kill the Macintosh. If you think of the Macintosh as a 68xxx-based computer running the Mac OS -- keep in mind, Mac OS 9, although more advanced than the original OS, was still the original OS -- then Apple did kill it. The new Macintosh runs Unix, has the PowerPC, and is a very different machine.
Market not important (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Market not important (Score:3, Insightful)
You can make loony rantings about "transcending" the market, but the market isn't the issue. Pushing the state of art is. Free Software, by and large, does not push the state of the art.
-jon
That isn't really what the guy said (Score:2)
So we have millions of people running Linux who would not normally be able to afford a Unix at all. And we have thousands of people running mySQL and PostGresSQL who could have never afforded a SQL database.
Without Linux, FreeBSD and Darwin - all open source projects - Unix would be dying since it would not be cost-effective compared to Windows.
I agree with you that free software isn't innovative as software, and that's why I use MacOS X at home. It's a great deal more innovative than anything out of the Linux camp, because it takes a driving force like Steve Jobs to create something truly brilliant and new.
But that should by no means allow us to underestimate the importance of free software. It's just a different kind of importance.
D
Re:That isn't really what the guy said (Score:2)
The importance of free software has been to bring the cost of high-end software down, but only certain kinds of high-end software. What it really shows is that a certain level or type of programming expertese has become a commodity. People who want to make a living as programmers need to consider the ramifications of this.
-jon
Re:Market not important (Score:2)
There is innovation, but you can't see it in the clouds. They are more engineering innovations rather than "Whoa, look -- a new interface". The gems of the free software movement are usually overlooked. Such as the emacs editor -- written completely in the free software community and often duplicated both by other hackers and corporations. And guile, which I've been investigating recently. Its a scheme interpreter that tries to make interoperation seamless between the scheme world and the C world and is the official GNU scripting language.
In truth, there's a lot out there that I haven't looked at yet. That's one of the things that makes free software exciting. Look at fresco and the hurd. These emerging projects may or may not make a huge difference in the free software landscape.
The problem I see is that there's a lot of outside demand for software to work a certain way. Eventually the hackers seem to oblige this demand.
"You can make loony rantings about 'transcending' the market, but the market isn't the issue. Pushing the state of art is. Free Software, by and large, does not push the state of the art."
I'm serious about transcending the market--its not luny at all. I was replying to the idea that the market is important.
I've been running wholly free software for a while now. A lot of people think that we use it because its cheap. Well, anymore, I don't even think about cost anymore. I'll buy a new distribution when I think its ready, but for the most part I download software off the internet. As long as it has an acceptable license, I'll run it if I find it useful. And I'm continueing to look for ways to contribute back.
It really is an ecosystem not based on money or a market at all. A lot of it is people curious about the technology they and wanting to learn more about and extending it. I believe thats what free software is all about. Where as proprietary software corporations see that as infringing on intellectual property. So they rather make their end-users helpless users of technology. Free software is about empowerment.
As far as the state of the art goes--we'll see. It ain't over yet.
(* now this is a rant, my previous post was not)
Re:Market not important (Score:2)
Re:Market not important (Score:2)
-jon
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:2)
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you want to believe that, but before Windows had USB support, Apple introduced the iMac and forced Mac users to use USB. Yes, PCs had USB ports, but you couldn't do anything with them, and there were no USB peripherals available anyway.
Do you notice how all those early USB peripherals were translucent and came in colors? Did that have anything to do with Windows 98? Of course not! All that stuff was made for the iMac craze... it took a few years for PCs to catch up with USB, just like with Firewire.
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:2)
Microsoft is the only company that's a monopoly on market share out there. Apple is just competitive enough to do well (meaning they get and retain between 3-6 percent during any given period).
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:2)
The only new peripheral I had to buy was a USB printer to replace my aging Apple printer.
It turned out to be a good thing, because I can go out and buy any new peripheral and it will probably work out of the box... like my MS Intellimouse optical.
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:2, Informative)
USB didn't come from Apple OR Microsoft. My point wasn't one about a horse race between those two entities. I'm just tired of people claiming it's yet another 'Apple Innovation.'
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:3, Funny)
USB didn't come from Apple OR Microsoft. My point wasn't one about a horse race between those two entities. I'm just tired of people claiming it's yet another 'Apple Innovation.'
No iMacs weren't the first computer to ship with USB ports. They were, however, the first computer to ship WITHOUT serial ports or parallel ports or any other ports to hook up keyboards, mice and printers. Apple forced adoption of the USB standard. No PC company has balls that big, and that's what really irks people about Apple.
Steve Jobs is the Fonz, and Bill Gates is Richie Cunningham.
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:2)
Re:Wow, what a piece of complete BS (Score:2)
In short, Apple was the first company to make a reasonably affordable system that recorded DVDs.
D
One paragraphed idea stretched so he can get paid (Score:5, Insightful)
-----
Isn't it about time the Personal Computer was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does everyone maintain this type of machine instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The computer has become the horse of electronics, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if nobody ever moves forward, what happens to the television?
I'm not writing this column as a computer basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the computer buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the personal computer as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's look at the recent computer offerings. The industry made the PC available to the public after initially saying nobody would ever buy it. The PC is the desktop version of the mainframe, and similar to the original mini-computer, built with a display in a small package. The company also rolled out some beefy computers for tech-heads who like running massive Web sites with PC technology. The obvious next iteration of the computer will be the current l33t-looking PC with a bigger screen and probably new colors. After that, what is the industry going to do?
Remember that in 80's the PC arrived amidst a flurry of experimental activity, much of which was triggered by the Commodore Pet. IBM PC-Jr was designed with ideas lifted from the Eniac. The PC-AT was an improvement, but apparently there hasn't been a new idea since.
[...] [Getting lazy]
Having said that, why can't the industry take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Personal Computer? The answer is obvious if we look at recent history and compare it to the era when the PC was invented. Here's the problem. This supposedly creative business of high technology has invented nothing that compares with the IBM PC-AT in over 20 years. All the R&D money has been diverted, mismanaged, killed by zealous bean counters, or simply wasted. Most of the big R&D labs have been closed or cut back. All the R&D seems to be in semiconductor technologies, which is because that particular business is more of a psychopathic rat-race than anything else and you get eaten by the rats if you miss a step.
So perhaps I have answered my own question regarding putting down the old dog called PC. The industry has nothing it could possibly replace it with. There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer. And the technology for the talking computer is decades away.
In fact, the old dog will not be shot, but up with hormones, and patched with reconstructive surgery, instead. The PC will go in the only direction possible: big design. The next era will be like the car business in the 1950's. Lots of chrome, big fins, and a new model every year. Form over substance.
---
=Brian
Does he understand computers? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is an understatement.
The new kernel was necessary to better manage today's networked multimedia.
More like to handle crashing apps without taking out the whole system.
Apparently Apple has done the impossible [in creating a user friendly unix].
Well, at least he gives Apple some credit.
Having said that, why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh?
They have, it is just under the same name.
There is no new idea out there short of a talking computer.
Well, Apple has the idea of a digital hub, and they are implementing it quite well.
Apple has done many new thing with their computers; it just happens to retain the name "Macintosh." They now have the option of dual processor (OS 9 just couldn't do it well), better perefereal connections, different processor than they had a decade ago, rack mounting, and many others.
The professional has gained a lot from these advances. Could you imagine editing a movie on your computer a decade ago. What about a hollywood level movie (Anyone else see the thanks to Final Cut Pro at the end of SW ep2?).
But, what about the consumer:
They can create their own movies quite easily with iMovie and the Firewire connection (another Apple invention).
There are also Digital Cameras, MP3 players, and a whole list of others that I am forgetting right now..
Just about the only thing that is the same about the Mac is that it is still a computer. The OS has changed, and so has a lot of the hardware. The Mac has more life left in it that Dvorak would like to admit. Part of it will change; that is inevitable, but it will likely be a Macintosh as long as Apple is in business.
Old journalist who needs to be put to rest (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not writing this post as an ageist to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I've noticed a complete lack of intellectual content of this column for ages, and I'm now beginning to see John C. Dvorak as an old hound that can't hunt.
Some one give this man a shotgun. Or help him contact Jack Kevorkian.
Re:Old journalist who needs to be put to rest (Score:2)
Dvorak needs to be specific about what is outdated (Score:3, Interesting)
"Why, exactly, does Apple maintain this line of machines instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs."
The G4s of today are a far cry beyond the Motorolla 68000 based Macs of the early eighties.
If it's software that's his problem, OSX is the very fresh start that he speaks of, but he is too blind of biased to see this. Apple has managed to maintain some backward compatability with OS9 and step into the UNIX world with one fell swoop.
Just what the hell is the bug up his ass?
The only thing Apple could do that would be more progressive is a full port of OSX to the x86. But that would mean war with Microsoft.
That would be a hell of a thing to see.
Re:Dvorak needs to be specific about what is outda (Score:2)
well, thr problem is that it would mean war with commodity hardware producers. Apple is not, like Microsoft, primarily a software company. It is not clear that making OS X run on intel hardware would be a good thing. One reason that things work so well on the Mac is that they have complete control over both the hardware and software pieces. If people suddently quit buying Apple hardware because they could get OS X on cheap, commodity Intel stuff, you would have two problems. One, Apple doesn't get money from hardware. Two, Apple doesn't control the quality of the hardware that OS X has to run on.
The (fairly well substantiated, I think) rumor is that they do, in fact, have a port for x86, but have decided not to release it for something like the above reasons. There might even be early releases out there of Rhapsody that ran on x86, but I don't remember for sure.
Re:Dvorak needs to be specific about what is outda (Score:2)
Vendors would(should?) jump at the opportunity to build OS X compatible boxes, provided they lose their fear of MS screwing them over. With the proper hardware selection, people could get a kick-ass Wintel and OS X dual-boot box.
I agree that this is technologically feasible. I wasn't questioning that. What I was doing was questioning whether that is a situation that Apple wants.
That's why I said:
Maybe I should have said "releasing a version of OS X that runs on Intel hardware" rather than "making OS X run on Intel hardware". I would not be surprised if they have this sitting in the lab. It's just not clear at all that ti makes business sense for a hardware company to invite competition from the commodity pc world.
Re:Dvorak needs to be specific about what is outda (Score:2)
A "Berliner" is a person from Berlin, while "ein Berliner" is a goop-filled pastry. Kennedy mixed it up.
Churchill said "We are all worms, but I believe I am a glowworm." [winstonchurchill.org]
Harry S. Truman said "Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day." [brainyquote.com]
I'll make sure not to kick you.
Re:Dvorak needs to be specific about what is outda (Score:2)
That's an urban legend, deal with it. If you are in doubht, try this [google.com].
Some Germans I met got confused when I mentioned that JFK called himself a jelly donut. So, the phrase was perfectly good German.
Funny thing about Germany is that there are all kinds of foods that bear the name of a city or an area--Frakfurter, Wiener, Tuebinger, etc. All sausages.
One thing missing is the Hamburger. (I live in Hamburg and the city is full of Hamburgers, but they are not all burger joints
All kinds of food that bear the name of a German city, but the most famous example is of American origin... I find it curious.
Mac is the preferred digital file format of PC Mag (Score:5, Interesting)
I was wondering if I should send my advertisement to them in a format that is no longer going to be around. It seem like I would have to pay extra to send a Windows native file.
This is in their media kit
Ziff Davis Media publications are produced in a 100% digital pre-press, computer-to-plate environment. We therefore require digital materials for advertisements running in our publications.
Preferred digital file formats for advertisements are:
TIFF/IT P1, Scitex CT/LW, & QuarkXPress 4.04 Mac Native files, collected for output, including all fonts & graphics. Please contact Production Department before sending any digital files besides these Preferred Mac application files (additional charges may apply).
Re:Mac is the preferred digital file format of PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, they are, however Quark and inDesign are available for the windows PC and some magazines are layed out with a windows PC. I just thought it was strange to see a writer bash Apple, when the magazine he writes for uses the computers he says should be dicontinued.
Now this is proof that art directors don't always read the content of the magazine they work for(myself included sometimes)!
Re:Mac is the preferred digital file format of PC (Score:2)
Then again, on the Daily Show last nite (6/24/2002) we got to see a reporter browsing porn on his TiBook. I don't think Apple's gonna be exactly thrilled about that sighting.
I don't get his point at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly enough he makes a decent point... what next? Of course he has turned a blind eye to the XServe and the potential for the G5 and G6. Not to mention all the really good software technology present in OS X.
What the hell more could he want? The all-digital flat panel monitors are second to none IMO for the price. [I was skeptical of the price/value of them until I bought one... holy cow is it cool].
I have to disagree with this... Perhaps he hasn't noticed that Apple has been doing new things because they are doing new things in software and not hardware so much [except the XServe of course].
Oh... and it wasn't the Xerox "star" it was the Alto. Oh yeah... and Xerox was notorious for developing stuff they didn't market and basically invited Apple to come look at all of it. That story has been told so many times no one knows what the hell happened anymore. *sigh*.
I think this article was written from a completely different perspective than the one I see. I generally like Dvorak but this article just makes me think he is blind.
What you need to realize about Dvorak.. (Score:2, Insightful)
THIS JUST OUT (Score:3, Interesting)
John Dvorak, noted PC World columnist, has reported for the very first time that Apple is irrelevant.
Dvorak could not be reached for comment, although his agent noted that "John's probably just off his meds again".
Seriously. Dvorak seems to forget that Apple HAS reinvented the Mac into something quite different and novel - through Mac OS X.
A Mac in OS 9 is one thing...but a Mac in OS X is a completely different computer. Dvorak either needs some hits on his portion of the PC Magazine web site, or he's just feeling mean.
Hardly even worth a reply (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Releasing the eMac after original not: they did it becuase they're pushing the envelope so much by having their entire line use LCDs that they've hit up against the bleeding-edge problem of LCD supplies and prices not meeting expectations. I think flexability and admitting you didn't make a good decision is a good thing. In any case, it seems like he should at least wait for the sales figures before he calls it a bad decision.
2) The OS isn't moving forward: Need I comment? Well, I will because it's just too stupid to pass up. Apple's moving to a more UNIX-centric OS. So is Sun (embracing Linux, they already had Solaris), IBM (embracing Linux over AS400/AIX/etc.) and the rest of the market (see growth of Linux). I just saw an article in Network World (I think) that projected 12 million Linux installations by 2006. Clue: if you think everyone but you is crazy, you may have it backwards.
3) Why can't Apple bring about an entirely new machine: well, I think other people have made good points about the digital hub. It strikes me that he wants something here but doesn't know what. Yes, I'd like the computer from Star Trek too, but we can't have it yet.
4) There's a post (supposedly from him) pointing to an article on The Register [theregister.co.uk] that implies that Apple's given up on advertising to anyone but "Dummies and Losers". Quite the oposite: I've seen Apple in more technical places lately than I ever have. I'm a Java programmer, so I'll talk from that angle. They were HUGE at JavaOne. They've a two-page spread in almost every Java developer magazine talking about the virtues of Mac OS X. It's just not true! Just like Dell's got the "Dell Dude" and yet hits the server market pretty hard, Apple has a two-sided strategy.
Well, I've ranted long enough, but hopefully you got the point that I think this guy is full of crap.
Just for laughs (Score:5, Funny)
I selected the above, right-clicked on it, and chose "speech/start speaking" from the context menu. I got quite a laugh out of hearing my computer talking about how a talking computer is decades away.
Re:Just for laughs (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess you're also using OmniWeb? I'd never tried the Speech tool before tonight. Works pretty good, but I don't plan to use it often.
Re:Just for laughs (Score:2)
Re:Just for laughs (Score:2)
Yes, it was very near the end. Alas, the 99/8 never saw the light of day...
Dummies and Losers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Like these dummies and losers?
Apple Ad geared to UNIX heads [slashdot.org]
does pcmagazine.com have editors? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dvorak, once again,you have shown that you have no place in this field to even have an opinion... do you're research before you even think about writing again, pleeeease.
"for Mac-heads who like running massive Web sites with Mac technology."
-mac technology? Do you even KNOW what is underneath os x? Have you even HEARD of the apache web server? the sad thing is that I know that you have. And thats what makes this statement more ignorant than it sounds.
"The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. "
- ok, you put them down like this, and then you go on to explain how hard it is to do this, and you give them no respect for doing it...You call this writing?
"Having said that, why can't Apple take its genius to the next level and bring out a completely new machine that is not a Macintosh? "
-Exactly what do you even mean by this statement? Macintosh is a branding, not a 'computer'. The original macintosh was a one piece machine with everything combined, and a new OS. apple puts out a 1U server, the imac, and a powermac (which, i'm not sure if anyone told you, is a normal tower with pci slots, capable of dual monitors, hardware mpeg cards,and pro audio cards). Now really, what do YOU want them to do to come out with a completely new machine that is "not a Macintosh". Jeez, look at the iMac g4.
This article obviously was spurned by you watching todays sell of in the market which included aapl dropping about 3 points. AMD dropped too, should they quit too because they haven't gotten to 2 ghz yet? oh wait thats right, AMD's cpus compete with Intels at lower clock speeds too. I have just moved to an osX platform from windows, and the one thing if anything i have noticed is the thought and care that apple puts into their products, all the way down to spring loaded screws. I have never in my 17 years with a pc seen this kind of commitment. Why should someone care about their product if they have 95% of the market? they shouldn't, and they don't. They don't have to, and thats where they lost my money. Apple is here to give people an option, and if one was to give themselves the time to just read thier website they would see how much they have to offer.
In your article you gave absolutely no reason for apple to give up the market, i really saw no point, just ignorant comments. Dvorak, please spend a little more time researching a company before you see them dive in the market and say, "haaaaa, i knew it". Apple is getting ready to do some real moving, they have given people a reason to use thier products, i will admit that they didn't before, but now they have. Remember this email address, and you can email me an apology in 2 years when apple is trading at double what they were trading 2 weeks ago.
180 degrees later (Score:4, Funny)
an old dog? Why, exactly, does PC Magazine maintain this continuous
fount of drivel instead of starting fresh or at least cutting off his legs.
Dvorak has become the Jenny Jones of the product-porn magazine industry, except for
the fact that he's less popular. Of course, if Dvorak never moves forward,
what happens to the copycat Dave Winer?
I'm not writing this comment as a Dvorak basher to get attention, although
plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull
in the Dvorak buzz, however, and I'm not beginning to see the Dvorak column
as an old hound that can't hurt.
LOL (Score:2)
Dvorak's been trolling for nearly 20 years now. It's starting to show; that last column was so weak he had to pad it with a disclaimer.
-pmb
This is SO cool! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is SO cool! (Score:2)
Are you implying that VA Software has burned so much cash they can't afford to pay Cmdr Taco any more?
Re:This is SO cool! (Score:2)
Same Dvorak Drivel (Score:2)
News that slow today?
Dvorak is like a monkey in a zoo.. (Score:2, Funny)
here is a few chunks of fecal matter to choke on..
you fat-bastard, knuckle-dragging cretin..
i hate microsoft. i hate peecees. i hate peecee users. i hate dvorak. i hate peecee magazine. i hate the x86. i hate rambus. i hate beige. i hate zip drives. i hate intel. i hate bill gates. i hate modems. i hate privacy intrusions. i hate cookies. i hate bad javascript. i hate the republican platform. i hate clearchannel communications. i hate the impending implementation of a "big brother" society. i hate the RIAA. i hate macrovision. i hate the MPAA. i hate people who hate macs. i hate explosive diarrhea. i hate elitist wannabe fags. i hate the KKK. i hate dvorak keyboards. i hate trackballs. i hate ignorant mac bashers. i hate j-lo's big fat ass. i hate having to hear needless shit about the computing platform i have chosen. i hate the smell of the typical x86/windows user. i hate hillbilly and/or redneck peecee users. i hate 14" monitors. i hate the smell of a smoker's peecee. i hate the palm's grafitti HWR. i hate all forms of windows. i hate windows software. i hate people who code for windows platforms. i hate people that think windows is the only OS, other than MacOS. i hate anchovies. i hate Creed. i hate transient technology. i hate chinese-made sony products. i hate
i love my mac..
and if you can't take that fact, you are invited to fist yourself to the elbow.. twice.
What "Macintosh" stands for ... (Score:2)
simply, it just works.
Ignorant irony? (Score:2)
Wasn't Apple the company that put text to speech (without any add-on boards) on the desktop?
Isn't it Apple that pioneered universal (no need to train it) software based speech recognition?
While I'm at it...
Wasn't it Apple that pioneered desktop video/multimedia in software with QuickTime?
and revolutionized it again with FireWire?
Wasn't it Apple that brought simple desktop networking to the industry (Appletalk/Localtalk)?
Wasn't it Apple that pioneered plug and play that actually WAS plug and play, not plug, replug, jiggle, install driver, reistall OS, reboot, jiggle some more, flip switches, reboot again, play?
Wasn't it Apple that revolutionized desktop realestate by allowing multiple monitors (really, not just 2).
Wasn't it Apple that went through no less than 3 major O/S re-writes, and a switch of processor families, all withot loss of legacy compatibility? (okay, maybe a little here and there)
Wasn't it Apple that had computer enclosures placed in the Museum of Modern Art, and many others louded by the press and Wintel users alike for form AND function?
Come on JD! What's your beef? That Apple hasn't revolutionized, or at least significatly improved the state of computer use THIS WEEK? I've heard of "what have you done for me lately," but you're just demanding beyond reason.
Overall this article was bunk, I really with Devorak (and his loudmouth friend LaPorte) would just give up and leave the industry already.
Macintosh... it may have a one button mouse, but it's no one trick pony.
wanted: 1 editoral columnist, no experience needed (Score:4, Funny)
Changing to a UNIX kernel is a revolution in Apple's thinking! It's the first time in 18 years they haven't shot themselves in the foot! They have leapt completely ahead of Windows technically by separating the OS from the GUI. Mac's are now more like UNIX!!!
Dvorak's mental. I want my own column.
Ellen
(BTW, although I owned one for a year-and-a-half, I'm not a devoted Mac person -- I'm one of those "UNIX is the One True Operating System and Dennis Ritchie is its Prophet" types -- but isn't multimedia where the Mac is and always has been ahead of the game, anyway? Was the "networked" in "networked multimedia" really an issue?)
Re:wanted: 1 editoral columnist, no experience nee (Score:2)
Like the seamless switch between processor architectures?
like the wild screaming success of the imac?
like iMovie, iTunes, etc?
I am not sure you would make a great replacement for Dvorak, as your definition of "not shooting self in foot" seems limited to "embraces unix".
Yes, Apple did a lot of boneheaded things during that time, I agree. To act as though OS X is their only major success during that time is just as boneheaded.
Also, I am not sure that we know yet whether the OS X strategy is a success. There was a lot of risk involved and there are still issues, as I understand it, with stuff like printing which is extremely important in the Mac world. Technically we don't know yet whether OS X "worked". It has won over a lot of geeks, and gained grudging acceptance from others, but that's not enough for us to know whether it will turn out to have been a good business decision. I would say that they have made it through a lot of the forest, but aren't necessarily all the way out of the woods yet.
Re:wanted: 1 editoral columnist, no experience nee (Score:2)
I dunno, the iMac wasn't shooting themselves in the foot. Neither was switching to PPC. Nor the LaserWriter. Or built-in networking (in the Appletalk days). Or Firewire either.
Put your biases away and clue in. OS X is a great leap forward, but it's only one of many.
--Dan
What makes him look biased is... (Score:3, Insightful)
a grrl & her server [danamania.com]
Re:What makes him look biased is... (Score:3, Informative)
> Dvorak. It seems the comments about his odd
> antimac bias are verified by the very fact his points
> are true - not just for Apple, but pretty much all
> popular computing at the moment.
I admit, this article isn't as bad as some (the title is a troll to increase his hit counts, but the essence of the rest of the article is more reasonable), but he still has a long enough history of being a troll that most people don't respect his views. But for him, all that seems to matter is that people know his name and click to his articles.
Although he has written some reasonable articles, there are some trolls of Dvorak I can remember:
Talking about the MacWorld Expo: "Folks, the Mac platform is through--totally--and this may be the last, if not the next to last, Mac show." PC Magazine, January 1998
"it's the Mac user, then as now, who has been the lemming" PC Magazine, June 1998. In this article, he bashed Steve Jobs based on a dream he allegedly had.
"The only thing missing from the new Apple iBook is the Barbie logo" PC Magazine, July 1999
And my favorite: "the Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things." San Francisco Examiner, 1984.
The last one I got from an article Janelle Brown wrote in Salon [salon.com] about Dvorak's trolls regarding calling the iBook a "girly" computer. She took him to task for the sexist generalization, but as she wrote, "Dvorak himself confessed on the Silicon Spin show, he made those "girly" remarks primarily to elicit a strong reader reaction -- not because he necessarily believed what he wrote."
The problem is, when a writer resorts to that sort of tactic, they shouldn't be surprised if their views are dismissed out of hand.
Fetishism (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me that if Apple just called the iBook the NeXTBook, and called it a NeXT computer rather than a Macintosh, they've have answered all of Dvorak's objections in one fell swoop.
And immediately have lost 99+% of their market.
Apple computers are called Macintoshes for the same reason that Microsoft's XP operating system is called Windows: Windows XP has little in common with Windows 3.1, but MS wants to market to loyal Windows customers. If they had called it Whistler, would it have sold so quickly? Not likely.
Same with the Mac: Apple is basically fooling long time Mac customers into buying a PPC-based NeXT box by falsely calling it a Macintosh and including a few pretty graphics. When you've got a fiercely loyal customer base, you do incremental changes, or disguise sea changes as incremental changes (Carbon, anyone?).
I lusted after the first NeXT box I ever saw, but couldn't afford the $4K price tag. I snapped up the first NeXT computer I could afford. I don't care that it has an Apple on the lid, I don't care that it still has OS 9 in it (though I'll admit I like such technologies as Firewire, 802.11b, and the like, all of which seem to work better, and to arrive sooner, on the Mac than on Wintel machines), and the Aqua finder is an improvement over the old window manager. There are what, 2,000 people in the world like me? And 2M who'll buy anything with the word Mac on it.
digital hub concept == "new thing" (Score:2)
Then, instead of coming up with this mythical new computer thingy, they could just come out with software components that make it easy to plug your other digital devices in (iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes) and maybe a few cool little digital devices of your own (iPod, i[Newton] ).
There's your "new computer"--it's an imac with a detachable mp3 player, digital camera, digital video camera, and (soon, please!) the Second Coming of the Newton.
Write Your Own Mad-Lib Column (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not writing this column as a [product] basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the [product] buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the [product] as an old hound that can't hunt.
Let's try it out:
Isn't it about time the Beetle was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog? Why, exactly, does Volkswagen maintain this line of cars instead of starting fresh or at least introducing something new with fresh legs. The Beetle has become the Mack Truck of compact cars, except for the fact that it's prettier. Of course, if Volkswagen never moves forward, what happens to the copycat Ford Focus?
I'm not writing this column as a Bettle basher to get attention, although plenty of people will accuse me of doing that. I recently noticed a lull in the Beetle buzz, however, and I'm now beginning to see the Beetle as an old hound that can't hunt.
I'll just ship this right over to AutoWeek. I'm sure they'll print it.
Not Apple Category Material (Score:4, Funny)
John 'Chowderhead' Dvorak (Score:4, Funny)
- Ok John, I've heard your question however strange.
The most interesting aspect with OS X is the way Apple managed to take a Unix kernel and turn it into a user-friendly OS with a charming desktop and Mac GUI. Curiously, no other company has been able to manage anything like this. The Linux folks are said to have legions of coders whose sheer numbers are supposed to be the big threat to Microsoft, but they have gotten nowhere close to what little ole' Apple has accomplished in the operating system arena. In fact, if you even bring up the issue of Linux as a possible desktop replacement, members of the Linux crowd will almost always tell you that it's not ready. Only the folks at Lindows.com even consider the possibilities. Apparently Apple has done the impossible.blakespot
right complaint, wrong target (Score:3, Informative)
I fully agree with this. The state of computer research is depressing, and funding for it is very limited.
However, Dvorak's attacks on Apple or Linux are ill-founded. Both Apple and the Linux community are pushing the envelope within the limits of what is commercially feasible or practical. Neither Apple nor Linux developers are charities. In order to survive, they have to deliver tools and environments that programmers and users trained in the current, outdated paradigms can deal with.
The real culprit is the US government. Due to a quirk in military funding and the cold war, it used to fund research lavishly and often independent of short-term commercial considerations. But in the spirit the radical free market ideology that has gripped most of the government, research is now largely only funded if people can answer the question "what is it good for in the short term", or "how many jobs will it create in my state before I face re-election".
Of course, it should also be said that some innovative ideas in programming are out there, if you know where to look. And it should also be said that the "low hanging fruit" has been plucked in the 20th century--most of the easy, gee wiz, solutions have been found.
Taligent? Pink? (Score:2)
I can make the same argument for PCs. (Score:2)
Its not an argument if someone can give the same responce back for the other side.
He seems fixed on the idea the name of the computer is a Mac and sience it has the same name it must be old and out of date. Lets use cars. I drive a Toyata Camry comparing the 2002 model with the mid 90s model you see a big difference in the car. The Camry is more luxerius then the little boxy camry of the past. The same is true about Macs. They keep the name but there are verry diffent. I mean they even have a differnt archecture then the old macs. You cant say that about PCs.
Trolling (Score:2)
Misinterpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not saying that the mac is the worst thing out there and should be discontinued, he's saying that it is the best thing out there and should be discontinued. Though breifly, he states clearly enough that MacOS is better than copycat Windows or too-difficult-for-the-desktop-user-GUI Linux.
My interpretation is that Dvorak expects that because Apple claims innovator status (I would agree with Apple) it should be coming out with some revolutionary new thing. The modern computer in general is obsolete and Apple should abandon the Mac for this "new thing."
Problem is this: Dvorak never even hints at what this revolutionary new product should do. He seems to forget that it is necessity (or at least desire) that leads to innovation. The Mac provided something people needed -- a GUI that a home user could handle. Dvorak doesn't even address what void exists now and how Mac does not fill it.
In my way of thinking, what people want now is stability and streamlined use of the web. OS X has those features in mind. Dvorak discounts the new OS as merely eye-candy and beautification akin to fancy chrome on a car. My experience is contradictory, though. OS X has provided better stability and a better internet experience for me.
Article (Score:2)
Please. Why doesn't anyone built something new and different? Why sure Mr. Dvorak, give me some of your cash and I'll build you something new and different.
The answer is: it doesn't pay to build something new and different if people don't want to buy it. And at least give Apple credit for trying, unlike some other companies I could mention who are simply copycats.
Why do I even bother to write this? As I said, -1 redundant.
Here's a paradigm shift (Score:2)
When Will Dvorak get his facts straight? (Score:2)
The store clerks didn't know how to operate the machine and they were afraid to just unplug it so they directed people away from that part of the store while someone called for the manager.
Re:Follow the money (Score:2)
why ibook is the way to go (Score:2)
Re:why ibook is the way to go (Score:2)
Moderate Drunk
...and reply to your own posts.
Re:I think John Dvorak should be discontinued, (Score:5, Funny)
SENSE OF HUMOR? (Score:2, Funny)