Dear Windows people without any knowledge of the Mac Market whatsoever, or no ability to do research, please...stop. Just stop talking about Apple and the Mac like you know what you're on about, because well, you don't.
Take Matt Freestone of Windows Connected, and his blog post: The Vista Schoolyard Bullies........
He's trying to defend Vista and how users of older machines simply should not expect the same performance out of it as a new machine. That's logical. That's not really why people are pissed about Vista performance, but okay, we'll go with that.
But Matt has to compare Vista to something, and of course, he uses Mac OS X 10.5. The problem is, he doesn't know anything about the Mac market:
Before I explain some common sense things, let's first take a look at Apple's OS history and deployment strategies. I ask you, how many Apple users do you know that own a 3 year old Mac, and install Leopard on it? The silence is deafening.If by "silence" you mean "The sound of PowerMac and iMac G5 owners running happily along", then yes, the silence is deafening. Yeah. See, G5s, while not as fast as a current Intel system for a lot of reasons, are not dogs.
You also have quite a few PowerBook G4 users on Mac OS X 10.5. Again, not as fast as a MacBook or a MacBook Pro, but none of those systems are running Mac OS X 10.5 in "Crippled Mode". Obviously, it didn't occur to Matt to go to Apple's support site and do a little research If he had, he would have found every machine released in 2005, (three or so year old hardware), listed nicely for him. But never let a lack of research slow you down, and Matt doesn't. He presses on:
All the Mac OS's through it's life cycle have been hardware dependant. In other words, for the most part, you bought a new PC to get the new Mac OS.Matt is so far out in left field here, he's in right field. While Apple does regularly cut off older hardware from the latest OS releases, that is still not, nor never has been the same as "You have to buy new hardware to get new OS versions", nor is it even close. In fact, prior to Mac OS X, Apple would constantly provide for truly ancient hardware in their OS releases. Mac OS X 10.5 still supports a machine with at least an 867MHz G4, 512MB of RAM, and a DVD drive. You have to go back into 2002 to start hitting sub-867 MHz G4s. Now, Mac OS X 10.5's performance on those machines won't be anything close to a Mac Pro, or even an Intel Mac Mini. But, if you have a decent G4 Tower with a good video card and decent RAM, you can run Mac OS X 10.5, and well. You certainly won't see any kind of OS degradation on a scale with VIsta's "NoAeroForYou!" issues.
However, Matt's got the backhoe firewalled, no slowing down here:
Obviously that has changed in the last 5 or more years, and has changed more drastically with Apple's adoption of Intel processors. But still, this question is a valid one. Mac OS's have never been designed with backward compatibility (hardware wise) in mind.Wrong, wrong, and wrong. In fact, prior to Mac OS X, you could easily have Macs that were ten years old still on the list of supported systems for a given OS release. That caused Apple no end of pain, and that tendency to be far too generous with hardware support was a major factor in the death of Copland. But even in the Mac OS X era, neither Matt's facts, nor his implications are correct. However, we are in the Scoblelite era of "Fuck Research and Facts, that's what your readers are for". Somehow, I bet a similarly inaccurate screed by a Mac Web site be greeted with equanimity by the Mattster there. He now brings out the strawman:
Why? Simple, Apple is a hardware vendor, not just a software vendor. Apple makes 50% of it's profit from the hardware. It's against their best interest for you to simply upgrade your old computer with their new OS. They want you to buy a brand new computer. This is a very liberating thing as it allows them to design the OS to take advantage of the latest hardware and provide much 'cooler' user interfaces as they don't have to worry about older or slower hardware not being able to run it.Actually, by that logic, Apple could easily get people to buy more hardware without giving a rat's ass about what OS they run on it. Matt's implications here are not just wrong, but bordering on stupid. Dell is a hardware company, Apple is a systems company. Apple sells you a system, of hardware, OS and application software all designed to work well together. Dell sells you a box and if you want, puts an OS on it. There is a difference, but I don't expect Matt to understand it. I only want him to stop talking about shit he doesn't really understand, or do a little damned research. Finally:
So again, I ask you. How many Mac users have wanted to install Leopard on a 3 year old Mac, and if they do, how many complain about it's performance? They don't because they knew it would be horrible.<Raises Hand> I have several G4 machines running Mac OS X 10.5. Honestly, when it just comes to running the OS, it feels no slower than Mac OS X 10.4 did, and some things, like Spotlight, actually feel faster under Mac OS X 10.5. Same thing for G5s.
If Matt wants to make a point about unrealistic expectations for Vista, that's fine, but he should stick to things he knows, and folks, Macs are not in the set of "Things Matt Knows".
CommentsWarning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar characters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.