Question about Max OS X upgrades

[Jessterw]

I do digress on my point as it relates to yours Kurt, and while various flavours of the OS have been installed on hardware that shouldn't have been possible, this is not an option for everyday users (hacks and all being required).

There is an upgrade market for various components, but the processor is definitely not one of them and that is often the main requirement for upgrades. This once wasn't so much of a problem - in the clone days - but it almost killed Apple off as a company, so there are reasons for the lock-in beyond the obvious.

I understand your point though, and it is valid, but it's also just part of buying into the cult of Mac. For better or worse.

[KeiFront]

A practical example: my Mom has an 2nd generation iMac (Strawberry if you must know) and a nifty Powerbook G4. Guess what? She can't connect both of them using the Mac OS 8.1 on her iMac. Already putting MacOS 8.6 is not possible as her iMac is not supported. BUT she needs Mac OS9 to connect easily to Mac OS X (she's got a ZIP drive, so it's not really an issue).

Eh, an iMac can run OS 9.2.2 perfectly.

[Kurt]

@Sasq: good question, the answer is "when it came out". Should be '98-'99.

@Jesterzwild: yes, it's part of "buying into" Mac. What really killed Apple during the "Clone Wars" was that Power Computing was basically building faster Macs, cheaper. They couldn't compete so they killed the market.

Their problem is that they basically only have an upgrade market. Ppl who have mac buy mac. The switchers aren't very many (and they don't say how many do the mac->PC move). So...the clones were basically eating into their market share. Bad situation.

Instead of promting the Mac as a platform, they're better off porting Mac OS to the PC platform. Darwin x86 exists, they might as well promote it and skin it with Aqua. Free software, no support (or 9.99 for a CD). That would probably get more ppl to buy a Mac too, through exposure.

They have the best industrial design team in the PC industry. Macs are just gorgeous, but the upgrade cycle is hell - except if you have the money or make money with it.

Like I said, it's not the platform I don't like, it's the company. (your mileage may vary blah blah - mine was NOT good - for a long time). I guess I'm just pissed off because I'm not rich enough to buy into that experience

[UtwigMU]

Apple is primarily a marketing/branding company, then they are a hardware company and software is basically there to serve the former two. If they did that, they would dilute their brand and kill their hardware sales.

[Jessterw]

Apple has a great marketing division and access to like resources, but they are above and beyond a hardware company; though, increasingly, they have shown that they are consistently able to produce easy to use, powerful software.

The truth is that Apple outsources a good deal of the marketing for its products.


@Kurt: Yes, you're right. That's largely what I meant, but I see how badly worded and lacking in detail my comment was

[Kurt]

Apple is _fixated_ on selling hardware