Is Apple stabbing itself in the heart?

[BobShaw]

I have been exclusively Apple for photography for a long time now. When I was working full time I was forced to use a PC, but thankfully those days are gone.

One of the great things about Apple was that if a machine failed, you bought a new one, plugged in the last TimeMachine backup and about 4 hours later you were back in business exactly how you were, with the same apps, users, passwords etc.

Now you buy a new machine and the operating system does not support my DAM, my accounting system, my Office programmes, my lighting system and a whole pile of other things.

The ports do not connect to my camera or my drives and it doesn't have a card slot. So instead of just putting the laptop in the camera bag I would need a stack of those little dongles.

I have bought two new computers in the last year and both of them were the previous years model for this reason. They were also half the price.

So I am just wondering what price will Apple pay to drag us along to the 64 bit, one plug tech that they apparently think that we need?

[digitaldog]

So I am just wondering what price will Apple pay to drag us along to the 64 bit, one plug tech that they apparently think that we need?

If you look at the history from Apple, the answer is no. Apple went from PowerPC to Intel as an example. Sure, I've got old software that can't run Intel. Ditto going OS9 to OS X. Nothing new here.

[BobShaw]

If you look at the history from Apple, the answer is no. Apple went from PowerPC to Intel as an example. Sure, I've got old software that can't run Intel. Ditto going OS9 to OS X. Nothing new here.

True. With PowerPC and OS9 though they supported these until about OS 10.4 from memory. Now they seem to be relying solely on third parties to provide backward support, as you can't downgrade the OS to even the last one. I have OS10.6 as well as Mojave now running on Vmware under another Mojave. Seems to run OK, but slow.

[digitaldog]

I have OS10.6 as well as Mojave now running on Vmware under another Mojave. Seems to run OK, but slow.

I may have to go that route. How does one go about this? Is this a better solution than ParallelsDesktop?

[BobShaw]

I may have to go that route. How does one go about this? Is this a better solution than ParallelsDesktop?

Actually doing it was quite easy. Once you have VMware installed you just need an Apple installer of some sort on a USB. I already had Sierra installed. Once you have any OS installed then you just go to Apple.com and search for the Mojave installer. The normal instal process takes you there in about an hour.

I don't have Parallels so I can't comment on that. I only installed Mojave last night so I will try it over the next week and get back. I have been using the 10.6 for several years now without issue.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I may have to go that route. How does one go about this? Is this a better solution than ParallelsDesktop?

There's an informative discussion on the general topic at TidBITS talk.

General consensus seems to be that there's little to choose between Parallels and VMWare Fusion. One beats the other for some things and loses to it for others. I think Fusion is less restrictive on installations.

I've never used Parallels. I used Fusion in the rather distant past and was very happy with it. There's something vaguely surreal about seeing Windows windows and Mac windows on the same screen at the same time.

Jeremy

[digitaldog]

Thanks for the info. Not sure when I'll upgrade to Catalina and my current MPB can boot older OS. But I did go ahead with that deal to get ParallesDesktop since there were other items in the bundle that looked useful.

[Jim Kasson]

If you look at the history from Apple, the answer is no. Apple went from PowerPC to Intel as an example.

And from Motorola 68xxx to PowerPc before that. And from 6502 to 68000 before that.

OTOH:

[Kevin Gallagher]

ZORK!! OMG!!

[Jim Kasson]

ZORK!! OMG!!

Yep. Running under Win 10 (with a little help).

[Joe Towner]

It's all in how you look at it. Apple has given us historically great, reliable hardware that lasts much longer than the other brands. Anything that speaks SATA, or PATA for that matter can be upgraded to a SSD and will run as is for quite a while.  Will it last forever, no, but you can find plenty of G5 or early x86 hardware at great prices.  If you have a specific platform you really need to work, spend a few hundred dollars now and grab a Mac Mini of that era.  It'll be fine just sitting around waiting for when you need it.

As to the current hardware, I have a love/hate relationship with the current Mac's & TB3. But it's by far the fastest connection method available, so it's all a trade off.  Yes, there are many abandonware programs that work and you love.  Unfortunately the time will come when you have to upgrade.  Until then, start saving the dollars you'll need to spend to get current some day down the road. It doesn't get any cheaper, and spreading out the costs over multiple years will make it easier.

[Jim Kasson]

It's all in how you look at it. Apple has given us historically great, reliable hardware that lasts much longer than the other brands.

Is there any evidence of much greater longevity? I've had Windows and Unix servers in continuous operation for more than 10 years with no failures. They were removed from service because the newer machines were so much more efficient, not because the old machines had anything wrong with them.

[BobShaw]

Is there any evidence of much greater longevity? I've had Windows and Unix servers in continuous operation for more than 10 years with no failures. They were removed from service because the newer machines were so much more efficient, not because the old machines had anything wrong with them.

Well servers are a vastly quality to desktop machines, and the OS seldom changes. My current Mac is a 2013 and it replaced a machine that was 2008. Both are still going strong. The 2008 will only run OS10.11 but the 2013 will run 10.15 (eventually).

[Jim Kasson]

Well servers are a vastly quality to desktop machines, and the OS seldom changes. .

My servers and workstations are built with much the same parts. Xeon CPUs, registered ECC RAM, 7200 rpm disks, the same SSDs. My server OS's are updated every month or so, and Windows major server releases have historically been locked to the desktop releases. Even the GUIs are the same.

Jim

[JaapD]

Exactly. There is zero evidence that Apple is using higher grade parts in comparison to Asus, Nvidia, various RAM suppliers, etc. (‘my Macpro 2013 died last week’ from another thread).

However, there is a direct link between operational life time and temperature. Insufficient and/or unreliable cooling, i.e. under worst case conditions (PC required to throttle down; sounds familiar?) degrades operational life time.

Regards,
Jaap.

[Jim Kasson]

Exactly. There is zero evidence that Apple is using higher grade parts in comparison to Asus, Nvidia, various RAM suppliers, etc. (‘my Macpro 2013 died last week’ from another thread).

However, there is a direct link between operational life time and temperature. Insufficient and/or unreliable cooling, i.e. under worst case conditions (PC required to throttle down; sounds familiar?) degrades operational life time.

My workstations appear to have better thermal management than my servers, because the designs are not constrained by the requirements for rack mounting.

Added later: I've thought more about this, and consider the plight of the designer of the thermal management system for a 1U server, of which I have several. All the air has to exit at the back. It's all got to come in from the front. But both of those panels are less than 1 3/4 inches high. The server can't be more than 17 inches wide, and is 24-30 inches deep. The front panel is obstructed by hot-swap disk drives, so there's not much room for air inlets. You can't get conductive cooling from the top and bottom panels, because they're going to be pressed up against more servers. You can't use big fans with slow-moving blades; so you have to use tiny ones, and spin the blades so fast the server sound like a jet engine on start up. You've got air paths that are at least 24 inches long, and often much longer, and they can't be very high, so there's pumping loss. You need so many fans that their reliability is a concern; luckily, if one dies, it's no biggie because of all the others, but even designing for that limits your options. You are limited in your use of thermal conductivity by the snap-together designs that your customers expect in a modern server.

[luxborealis]

I’m a user, not a techie. My MBPs have outlasted any off-the-shelf Windows laptops my friends have had and my MBPs  tend to run regular photo-like operations faster. They have also travelled in a backpack and on-board with me all over the world. Off-the-shelf,  screens seem brighter, with truer colour, bodies and hinges last longer (no plastic!); and yes the innards seem to last longer. I recognize and live with the dongle problem, but Apple also tends to be an early adopter of new (thinner, lighter, faster) technologies like USB (back in the day, but now USB-C) and SSDs as well as ditching optical drives - remember the kerfuffle over that?

So, there is a price to pay, but it also just seems to work without some damn MacAfee or other app getting in the way. Again, I’m not a techie, I’m a user. I almost jumped to PC with my latest upgrade due perceived cost savings, but in the end a I stayed with a MBP, bought the plug-in hub and know that Time Machine will continue to be my friend and, hopefully, I’ll get 5, 6, 7, maybe 8 years out of this machine.

I’m not looking to nit-pick about this. I’m just offering my observations of being one of a few Mac users in a sea of PC users. I know I pay more upfront (part of which is, no doubt a brand premium, like those who drive Mercs and Beemers and Jags – all of which are too rich for my blood) but, in comparison, I seem to have a more pleasant and longer ride.

[Mexecutioner]

I have been exclusively Apple for photography for a long time now. When I was working full time I was forced to use a PC, but thankfully those days are gone.

One of the great things about Apple was that if a machine failed, you bought a new one, plugged in the last TimeMachine backup and about 4 hours later you were back in business exactly how you were, with the same apps, users, passwords etc.

Now you buy a new machine and the operating system does not support my DAM, my accounting system, my Office programmes, my lighting system and a whole pile of other things.

The ports do not connect to my camera or my drives and it doesn't have a card slot. So instead of just putting the laptop in the camera bag I would need a stack of those little dongles.

I have bought two new computers in the last year and both of them were the previous years model for this reason. They were also half the price.

So I am just wondering what price will Apple pay to drag us along to the 64 bit, one plug tech that they apparently think that we need?

Apple doesn't pat any price, you do.

[SimonB]

Is there any evidence of much greater longevity? I've had Windows and Unix servers in continuous operation for more than 10 years with no failures. They were removed from service because the newer machines were so much more efficient, not because the old machines had anything wrong with them.

I think you're highlighting the difference it makes when you carefully select which parts to use, most average people I assume if not buying a Mac would be getting a pre-built PC where the original complaint is probably more relevant.

[Jim Kasson]

I think you're highlighting the difference it makes when you carefully select which parts to use, most average people I assume if not buying a Mac would be getting a pre-built PC where the original complaint is probably more relevant.

These days, I do buy pre-built workstations and servers, from Dell. They let you specify the components from, in the case of the high-end workstations, a long list. I haven't noticed any tendency for them to cut corners when populating that list.

Jim