Leopard Server hardware requirements?

[John C. Welch]

On 10/03/2007 15:29 PM, "Nat!" <nat at mulle-kybernetik.com> wrote:


Am 03.10.2007 um 14:07 schrieb 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

>It's sorta funny, to see you try very hard to miss the point I was
>making.

You're the one who tried to compare the Postal Service with Mac OS X. You
don't like me laughing at your strawman and silly analogies, don't make
them.

>
>
>>> 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"

>No, they are logically included in c) b) and a), which goes to show
>that your reasoning abilities < polemic capabilities.

No, because the nits who insist that Apple never ever cut off any hardware
are never in c) or a). A) in fact LOVES it when Apple cuts off older
hardware, that's financially advantageous for them, and c) don't really care
that much. It is only b) and e) that get whiny because their Iisi can't run
Mac OS X 10.4. 

>
>>> 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."

>Ouch, that gives it a completely different spin, that I didn't intend.
>No.. Wait...

No, it just shows you can't be bothered to understand the quote you're
mining.

>
>> 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.
>

>The problem with that comparison is, that I never insisted on such a
>thing.
>You're either a sloppy reader or not a forthright debater.

Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't complaining that Apple should never update
hardware requirements thus possibly "making" you buy new hardware? So you
don't actually have a problem with it? Because if you're now saying that, I
have some fascinating bits of email you sent to the list that would
contradict this new position.

You're either possessed of the world's worst short-term memory, or you think
everyone you argue with is.

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