Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

By Marc Zeedar

Apple Computer is infamous for making mistakes almost as huge as their successes. I guess it goes with the territory: innovate big, risk big, and flop big.

In retrospect, Apple's mistakes always seem rather obvious. Why wasn't the Mac OS licensed back in 1989, before Microsoft Windows took over the world? At the time, of course, the future wasn't as clear. In fact, most PCs were slow 286 machines -- the Windows OS was going to require purchasing a whole new system. Who would have thought the market would have been not only willing, but -eager- to buy a new computer every couple years?

In recent years, however, that trend has slowed. Everyone knows that a computer purchased today will be obsolete in a few years. But people are starting to resent it. Many people are on their third or fourth computer since the Eighties. It's getting tiring buying the same stuff over and over.

Many people snapping up those sub-$1000 systems aren't new consumers but people upgrading an old system. Why would these computer-literate people want such a limited machine? First of all, those systems aren't that limited -- they're perfectly capable of doing more than the average user needs. Second, most users know they'll be having to fork over another grand in a couple years. Why should they spend a few grand now? Instead, buy a brand new $1000 computer every year!

But Mac users have traditionally been willing to pay more for a system. Apple's average computer sale is about $2000 (pre-iMac, of course). Now there is a lot of value in Apple's systems -- we can't assume that a G3 computer is equal to a cheap Packard Bell Celeron system. But Mac users are willing to pay for that value.

Part of the value of Mac system is its longevity. Not counting Powerbooks, I've only owned two Mac models since 1989. My Mac II lasted me seven years. I expected my Power Mac 8500 to last me another seven. With eight memory connectors, three PCI slots, room for several internal devices, and a CPU daughtercard, I figured the 8500 was a great value. In fact, Apple itself picked the 8500 line as the base system for Rhapsody. That was part of the reason I bought it!

Now, with the success of the G3 systems, Apple is apparently leaning toward making a G3 the minimum model for Mac OS X. That Apple is even considering such a move is shocking to me. The G3s went on sale less than a year ago. Apple is saying that the next-generation operating system we've been waiting for since at least 1996 will only run on a computer manufactured in the last eight months?

Now I can understand if the OS requires a G3 CPU. That doesn't bother me. I can pop a G3 into my 8500 any time I want. But rumor has it that Mac OS X requires a G3 motherboard. Upgrade cards won't work.

I'm sorry, Apple, but that's not going to fly. Millions of users have been paying top dollar for our beloved Macs knowing that we had an easy upgrade path. I planned on installing a new CPU every year for my 8500, not on buying a whole new computer. To me, this is the single biggest advantage of the elegant Power Mac design as compared to ugly Wintel architecture.

Now, I understand the complexities of supporting a variety of hardware. But that's always been Apple's incredible strength. Apple claims 25 million Mac users -- but half of those are still using 680x0 machines! Only recently has Apple begun to drop support for those early Mac II machines and Quadras.

I applaud those decisions. There wasn't the slightest bit of regret when I heard that System 7.5 was the last system my Mac II would be capable of running. But PCI-based PPC machines -- the second generation of the PPC line -- are still current computers. With G3 upgrade cards they are competitive with Macs that just came off the assembly line. There should be a long life ahead for 604 Macs (603 and 601 computers are a different story), including running Mac OS X.

I realize that Apple hasn't released an official statement on Mac OS X's hardware requirements. Normally I wouldn't comment on rumors, but Apple's been making such vague statements lately, it's got a lot of people worried.

When Mac OS X was announced last May, it rejuvenated the developer community. Suddenly, instead of having to completely rewrite all their applications in a new language, developers could simply tweak a few lines of code and recompile. They would still be able to take advantage of the new operating system's modern features, but without much rewriting.

Almost more important, Mac OS X was supposed to have a broader audience than Rhapsody, as Mac OS X applications can still run under the regular Mac OS. (Rhapsody apps won't run under Mac OS.) Analysts predicted it would be years before enough people bought Rhapsody to make developing for it worth while. With Mac OS X, Apple purported to solve that problem.

If Apple follows through with a G3 only plan however, that negates many of the benefits of Mac OS X. Once again, Apple takes two steps forward and one step back.

I don't feel I'm being unreasonable. In fact, I'm willing to compromise. Release Mac OS X first for the G3s with guaranteed compatibility. Three or six months later, Mac OS X is available for G3-upgraded 604 systems. Perhaps there's a limit to the compatibility, like it only works with certain video cards (like motherboard video), or certain upgrade cards.

I couldn't use all the features of System 7.5 with my Mac II, for instance. Some things, like voice recognition, required PPC hardware. That was completely acceptable.

I hope Apple hasn't made a final decision on this issue. It sounds like they're wobbling. Maybe they'll hear our voices and reverse themselves, like they did on the iMac modem.

In any case, I know I'm not buying a new computer for several more years no matter what Apple decides. If that means I'm stuck with plain ole Mac OS, so be it. I'm not about to be forced into a hardware upgrade I don't want or need.

Hopefully, Apple doesn't think so differently it thinks itself out of the market.

Marc Zeedar has been a Mac fan for over 10 years. He makes his living using Macs in graphic design and prepress, but in reality he's a fiction writer. The daring can check out his new "Wreakly Havoc" webzine at http://www.designwrite.com/havoc/.

.

February 09, 2010