Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th May 2008 17:54 UTC
Ivan Krstic' critique of the One Laptop Per Child Project has made its ripples around the pond of the intertubes. Apart from the obvious part where it criticises a major project from an insider's point of view, it also had a few other remarks that caught people's attention - most notably the admission that despite his ability to do Linux kernel hacking, his main development laptop is a Macintosh running Mac OS X.
Thread beginning with comment 315830
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-08
Yes, but only to a point. Much of that resale value is lost after Apple drops support for a model. "
Yes, and then you'll have similar or better than a PC as far as resale value goes.
Not everyone cares about using the latest software, and besides, Macs actually have a pretty good record at being able to run the latest software - because OS X keeps getting faster. It's only when say an old G3 can't run Leopard that there is a problem. That doesn't happen *every* OS release though, nor are those old G3 ibooks expected to run the latest software if they were Windows machines from the same era.
Thankfully. "
I agree, but of course, hardware obsolescence wasn't inevitable for every OS release anyway. Au contrair, OS X has been able to run faster on all compatible hardware anyway - and Leopard was a major change because of the 64 bit stuff. An exception, not a rule.
How old is that? How many PCs that old are running the "latest software" too? By the way, it is very common to see older versions of software or older OSs supported that run on the older OS for those who have hardware that old.
How so? Consider that the OS releases are slowing down, and the OS isn't going to make another transition like 32 bit to 64 bit anytime soon, and that the OS hasn't otherwise gotten slower and more bloated like Windows... Didn't XP need a lot more hardware than 9x, BTW?
That's because Vista was a lame release. Windows 7 will be breaking compatibility, by all accounts.
I've run programs written for PPC processors on OS X on Intel acceptably. There is backwards compatibility in Leopard going back to the first OS X eight years ago. Now, ten years ago, that's a bit of a tricky number, but Tiger, before Leopard, could run Classic, which means it could run those special 10 year old apps. Classic was only dropped by Leopard, but since Carbon is trivial to port Classic apps to, there isn't much of a demand for those OS 9 apps anyway. If I do need to run them, there's always Sheepshearer or Basilisk; which'll run them as fast as the original hardware or faster on typical OS X hardware. (Of course, if you try to run them on 10 year old hardware, you'd have a problem - but that's a non-issue, 10 year old hardware for PCs belongs in a museum too. Heck, the IRS considers hardware 3 years old fully depreciated.)
You're arguing corner cases, and Leopard runs 8 year old software, but not 10 without emulation; which nowadays is pretty trivial. Big deal. Now, newer software using newer features of the OS, that's a problem... That was a problem with Windows too though until Microsoft decided with Vista not to add any useful features though, and a problem that will arise again according to them in Windows 7. (If it doesn't, I argue that they'll die, because nobody will want to upgrade - like now.)