#Pentiums and Macs
8 messages in this thread
Jerry,
We run 7.5 on 5 macs. No real problems. I just expected more. AppleScript is
nice. I think as good as Rexx.
I can't help but imagine what we would have on our desktops today if Apple had
acquired Amiga instead of C= way back in the mid '80s.
I think that Apple realizes that its existence now depends on a real OS. I
doubt that it will be wanting when it is released. If it is, so long Apple. The
PPC and either OS/2 or NT will be good enough by then to kill anything else.
Rich
"I can't help but imagine what we would have on our desktops today if Apple had
acquired Amiga instead of C= way back in the mid '80s."
Wasn't Apple interested in Amiga at one time? I vaguely recall some kind of
flap about that. Wasn't it that Commodore had first rights because they had
lent Amiga money or something to that effect?
Apple, of course, could have moved ahead much faster in their development,
but with their smug arrogance, they obviously didn't pay much attention to what
the market wanted, something that they are paying for now as their worldwide
market share continues to shrink.
As an update to an earlier thread, The New York Times today reported that
Macintosh software revenues account for only 7.8% of Microsoft revenues. Hardly
a wart and getting smaller.
"I think that Apple realizes that its existence now depends on a real OS."
And I'm equally sure that the Captain of Titanic realized he should avoid
icebergs . . . right after the loud scraping noise. <G> With NT and OS/2
available for at least two years before Apple's Copland might appear, I kind of
wonder if Apple's ultimate contemporary OS release will make much of a
difference.
"The PPC and either OS/2 or NT will be good enough by then to kill anything
else."
Apple's down to an 8% worldwide market share. They just might get permanently
stuck at that mark or lower. They could still remain a profitable company, but
their signifigance as a spotlighted player would simply disappear.
Jerry
> Wasn't Apple interested in Amiga at one time? I vaguely recall some
> kind of flap about that. Wasn't it that Commodore had first rights
> because they had lent Amiga money or something to that effect?
That was Atari. They had first chance at the Amiga chipset, and the battle was
bitter when C= got it first due to money and timing issues.
— Andrew
Jerry,
If it takes 2 more years for Apple to get Copeland out, they're gonna be in
deep trouble. Still, with all the stuff they're working on – Firewire and a
good networking, pre-emptive multitasking OS, they may just stay as far ahead
in the graphic arts community vs the PC as they are now. And if they can hold
onto the printing industry they will do well. After all, the printing industry
is _bigger_ than the computer industry.
Funny thing, all my printing associates who have tried to ignore the importance
of computers in graphic arts are running out and buying PCs now. Their being
sold on raw processor speed numbers and of course the low buy in cost of a 486
or Pentium system vs a PPC. Sadly, they haven't a clue as to what they're
doing. Most companies in this field who know how to get business out the door
are Mac shops.
Rich
"If it takes 2 more years for Apple to get Copeland out, they're gonna be in
deep trouble."
They're saying Copeland will be relased in 1996. I personally don't think
it's going to have much of an impact.
"After all, the printing industry is _bigger_ than the computer industry."
I don't get the reference, Rich. Granted, Apple is big in the graphic arts
market, but I don't think that franchise will last forever.
"Most companies in this field who know how to get business out the door are Mac
shops."
The Mac is still unequalled for pre-press. But as more clients turn to PC's
for their output, a lot of shops are learning to use the PC.
Jerry
Jerry,
My reference to the printing industry being bigger than the computer industry
was meant only to point out that if Apple can keep their loyal following in the
graphic arts community by keeping the the OS and the hardware (Mac PPC)
superior to the competition for graphic design, pre-press (whatever that will
be in the next few years) – they will do very well. Our experience (and the
experience of many service bureaus) is that jobs that come from a PC
environment have far more problems to be corrected before they can go to press
than jobs coming from a Mac environment.
It is my personal feeling that this is because those people who are inclined to
use the PC as a tool to solve their particular problem are of a different mind
set than those who would use a Mac. And in tackling a graphic design problem,
the differences in the two populations are obvious and interesting.
PC users tend to lack a background in the field, and tend to resist learning
important graphic arts concepts, insisting that the field or problem at hand
conform to _their_ computer concepts instead. They tend to be undisciplined,
have poor work habits, impatient, and surprisingly lack knowledge of their
software _and_ hardware.
Mac users seem to be much better in graphic arts backgrounds. They know their
software _much_ better and while lacking a lot of hardware knowledge seem more
willing to understand how to fix a problem. They seem much more oriented to the
concept that the computer is a tool to solve a particular job and in doing so,
the tool must be designed with knowlege of the job, and must fit the job.
Rather than the opposite – that the universe be viewed from the perspective of
the machine.
Yes, a lot of people in this field are turning to PCs, but a lot of them are
not getting the job done.
I realize that I have made some sweeping generalizations. I certainly don't
mean that they apply globaly. They are the result of our experiences and others
and as I said are my personal observations.
Rich
"I realize that I have made some sweeping generalizations"
Yes, but they're quite interesting and seem reasonably accurate.
But I think the times are a' changing.
More people are learning to turn out quality work on the PC if for no other
reason than their Macintoshes have been chucked for one reason or another or
they simply have learned both platforms.
Apple has to maintain certain scales of operation in order to survive at a
particular economic level. If they are reduced to depending only on the graphic
arts market, I suspect that they will shrink to nothingness, just as the
earlier producers of dedicated graphic arts related equipment did.
Apple probably saturated the graphic arts market about 1989. It was shortly
after that they Sculley introduced the Apple into K-Mart and the other mass
merchandisers in an attempt to broaden their market base.
Jerry
Jerry,
"If they are reduced to depending only on the graphic arts market, I suspect
that they will shrink to nothingness…"
Yup
Rich