Leopard Server hardware requirements?

[John C. Welch]

On 10/03/2007 06:32 AM, "Nat!" <nat at mulle-kybernetik.com> wrote:

> As solely a customer of Apple and not a shareholder, I find it
> amusing, how you emphasize so much with Apple over its problems and
> needs. Do you also emphasize as much with the problems of the post
> office, if your letter arrives three days late ? That's a huge
> logistics large scale project right there too.

Behold the mighty strawman. How glorious, and yet, meaningless.

Funny how you manage to try to come up with the idea that All Big Projects
Are The Same, along with the even sillier idea that An Established
Infrastructure With A 200+ Year History is *exactly* the same as An
Operating System Release


> If we separate "everyone" out into

> a) Apple + people with financial investment
> b) people with emotional investment in Apple (aka Lemmings)
> c) people who just own Apple computers
> d) the other 99% of humanity :)

> The benefit for a) is clear. The benefit for b) is none, but because
> of the faith, what is good for a) is good for b). Then there is c)
> people, whose hardware becomes obsolete and who don't like it.

You forgot e) The people who refuse to buy new hardware because "by gum, I
bought this here laptop five/seven/ten years ago, and by cracky, Apple
should support all hardware forever, because my needs perfectly mirror
everyone else's" 

> Here's a case how the advent of Tiger and its arbitrary hardware
> requirement affected my Apple hardware investment. As a developer
> it's a major hassle to work with various Xcode versions. So when 10.4
> came out there was a new incompatible Xcode. Xcode is tied to the OS
> version. I could have chosen to stay for 10.3 on all machines for
> just about as long as I needed to buy a machine from the next new Mac
> line. New Macs don't support old OSs. Not going to 10.4 was not a
> realistic option though. My company is not an island and the rest of
> the world progressed to 10.4 quickly.

Welcome to being a developer. People buy new stuff. They want applications
to run on it. If you refuse to write applications that run well on a new OS
release, someone else will happily take your customers. As well, if you had
a machine that was current and new when 10.3 came out, it would run 10.4. So
unless you had a fairly old mac for 10.3, you didn't have a problem.

> Now suddenly, that laptop I used to develop on the train became
> useless for its purpose. That is certainly not "good for me" by
> anyones definition.

Um...camembert or gouda? First of all, unless you're in the dev program, you
don't know what Leopard's requirements are, and since they haven't been
announced yet, even if you are, you STILL don't know, because such things
are flexible even close to a release date. If you have a fairly new
PowerBook, say, anything released after the Aluminum ones were announced,
which was 2003, almost 5 years ago at this point, you should be good to go.
If you have a 400MHz TiBook, which is almost 7 years old? Worry.

Here's one...stop assuming that you're general motors.

By the way, you also got that GM quote wrong, or at least the context,
because that part is rather quotemining-ish, as it leaves off the important
lead-in:

"For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General
Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big.
It goes with the welfare of the country."

The amusing thing is that the ego behind Charles Wilson's statement, and
your insistence that Apple never stop supporting any hardware ever made just
so you're not inconvenienced in the least are rather similar.


-- 
John C. Welch         Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com              Mac and other opinions
jwelch at bynkii.com