PDA

View Full Version : Why to Ignore Forced Obsolescence


MacBytes
May 17, 2005, 12:39 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Why to Ignore Forced Obsolescence (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050517133926)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Blue Velvet
May 17, 2005, 12:46 PM
Piss. Off.




Graphics professionals: You all got by on Power Mac 9600s back in 1997. Couldn't you get by using them now?

What a moronic statement. Yeah, let's roll back to the old days, they were so much better...
:rolleyes:

asif786
May 17, 2005, 12:50 PM
wow, reading that article was the biggest 30 seconds i've wasted today.

i'd rather have watched one of those 'did you slip at work? here's £3000' commercials.

yellow
May 17, 2005, 12:50 PM
What a craptastic article. Why sure I'd LOVE to still be using MS Word 5.1! Yes, software developers push the envelope, which encourages hardware developers to push the envelope, which encourages software developers to push the envelope, it was a dark and stormy night..

And this guy is JUST figuring this out now? Nice. :rolleyes:

James Philp
May 17, 2005, 12:57 PM
i was going to post a specific quote, but it's pretty much all tosh!
Apparently we're all using bloatware!
I think a good few 3d designers and computer scientists would disagree that computers speed etc are important.


The only people who need the best of the best all of the time are the gamers. They go out and buy $1,000 worth of new equipment every six months just so they can play the latest game.

Graphics professionals: You all got by on Power Mac 9600s back in 1997. Couldn't you get by using them now?

Internet, video, and presentation designers: You all got by on Power Mac 7300s and 8600s back in 1997. Couldn't you get by using them now?

Schools and basic users: You all got by on 5500s and 6500s Macs back in 1997, couldn't you get by using them now?

Graphics pros: is it not more productive to apply a filter in 1 second than 1 minute? DO you want more sophisticated filters and tools?

Internet, video etc: Do you not want to be able to make better products that utilize HD and great visual effects.

Schools: Do you want to be able to offer more to your students?

Sure, older computers work, and do some things well, but newer ones do the same taskes, often faster and with a greater level of sophistication.
A self-employed graphics designer I know says the PM G5 is the best computer he's ever used, and he's used a Mac since 1984.

AtHomeBoy_2000
May 17, 2005, 01:07 PM
That is probably the most moronic article ever written.
Let me tear this apart point by point...

The Internet doesn't go any faster just because you have a faster computer.

It may not make the internet go faster, but without modern operating systems, more Ram, faster CPUs, and bigger hard drives most internet webpages would not display because the computer couldn't keep up with Java, large pictures, and audio streaming.

Your CDs and DVDs don't play any better just because you have a faster computer.

Actually, they do. My 4 year old laptop won’t play DVDs as well as my 2 year old tower at work. Also, DVDs play better on new Mac than they would on my laptop.

The only real reason we need faster computers with more memory and more storage capacity is because the program designers keep making the programs and operating systems more and more bloated.

Well, following that logic we should never purchase Photoshop and just do all your photo editing with old Microsoft Paint and whatever Macs version used to be called (I forget).

When they say that a new program is faster than ever, what they really mean is that it's faster than ever before only if you have a state of the art system.

Wow! That is the most logical thing he wrote in the article. of course it’s gonna be that way. Why would anyone want to run a program that takes twice as long to do a task on an old computer when you can do it faster on a new one?

The only people who need the best of the best all of the time are the gamers. They go out and buy $1,000 worth of new equipment every six months just so they can play the latest game.

Not always. I do video editing and I need a top notch computer so it will last me 2-3 years before I have to replace it. Unless I want my videos to look like they were done in 1980, I need to have current equipment.

Internet, video, and presentation designers: You all got by on Power Mac 7300s and 8600s back in 1997. Couldn't you get by using them now?

Ummm......... no! There is no way you could POSSIBLY do modern video editing on those computers. The hard drive maxed out at 4GB. That wouldn’t even hold the programs needed to edit, let alone the VIDEO!! Not to mention it wouldn’t run the OS needed to run the programs.

What I am getting at: Don't let them sucker you into buying all of this new stuff - you can still get by on all of the stuff that you once had or still have.

That may be true over a 3-4 year period. As I speak, I am typing on a 4 year old Dell Inspiron 8000. It works just fine to surf the web (most of the time) and type papers. But for anything other than that, forget it. Anything older than 5 years old is almost unusable. In fact, the only reason this computer is still good is because I maxed it out when I bought it so it WOULD last 4 years. Most computers that people are buying now are NOT maxed out and will be more than obsolete in 2 years.

James Philp
May 17, 2005, 01:24 PM
That may be true over a 3-4 year period. As I speak, I am typing on a 4 year old Dell Inspiron 8000. It works just fine to surf the web (most of the time) and type papers. But for anything other than that, forget it. Anything older than 5 years old is almost unusable. In fact, the only reason this computer is still good is because I maxed it out when I bought it so it WOULD last 4 years. Most computers that people are buying now are NOT maxed out and will be more than obsolete in 2 years.

I am running on a 5 year old PB right now, running tiger, and the only upgrade i've done of it is to add 256MB Ram a year or so ago.

Most Macs last A LOT longer than PCs in my experience. I think I'll get about 1-2 more years from this laptop, and then will either roll back or stay on Tiger to browse the Web etc. I am planning a major upgrade to this computer (Ram to 768, HD up to 40GB) so it may last even longer.

Anything older than 5 years old is almost unusable
I think you'll find this completely untrue for Macs. Sure it could be true if you mean unusable in the sense that Pro Apps may not run, but a 5, 6 or 7 year old Mac CAN be "used" for something!

Sly
May 17, 2005, 01:25 PM
Has this guy ever used a modern Mac or OSX, looking at his collection, I guess not? If you take his argument to its logical conclusion; why don't we save even more money and go back to pens, paper and scissors, worked ok 30 years ago? Goober!

Paul O'Keefe
May 17, 2005, 01:38 PM
The latest and greatest isn't always the fastest, best, or effective solution... it's definitely not the cheapest.

Does anyone remember when OSX first came out. It was impossible to use that in the studio because nothing was ported to it. It added nothing. It was actually easier and faster and produced a better quality to use an OS 9 workflow.

What good is the lastest OS or Quicktime or Safari if it blows your firewire devices, or stops playing files it used to play, or installed unwanted programs on you system? There are good reasons to stick with what you got.

I bet dollars to donuts that the person/company that upgrades EVERY OTHER cycle is more productive than the individual/company which upgrades with every new version of hardware/software each new cycle. Not only are they more productive, they are more cost effective.

What good is new accerated hardware if bloatware in the latest software version drags the effective time it takes to run back down. None.

God forbid that things take time and that people are forced to think about their processes and workflow before engaging in wasting time.

Before you purchase you should ask yourself... does this really increase my bottom line or do I want it just because it's new.

wrldwzrd89
May 17, 2005, 01:41 PM
This article makes me appreciate that PowerMac 7200/75 I still have lying around. I don't use it anymore, but it's there if I feel like reliving the old days of Mac OS.

James Philp
May 17, 2005, 01:42 PM
It's logical conclusion - that all progress is not essential to survival - means a rollback to the jungle baby! :p

wordmunger
May 17, 2005, 01:44 PM
Why sure I'd LOVE to still be using MS Word 5.1!

Actually, Word 5.1 was a damned good app. For example, when I deleted a large block of text, it was deleted instantly. Now in v.X it can take 5 seconds, on the top of the line iBook. It's pathetic that a simple word processor is less responsive now than it was more than ten years ago.

Overall I thought the article was a little simple-minded, but when my browser is a more responsive text-editor than my word processor, something's wrong.

Blue Velvet
May 17, 2005, 01:46 PM
God forbid that things take time and that people are forced to think about their processes and workflow before engaging in wasting time.

Wasting time is burning a CD at 2x, sorting out a misbehaving SCSI chain, storing stuff on a ZIP disk, stuffing a file before sending it by ISDN, distilling a publication on a beige box, ripping a CMYK 48 page publication on a G3, copying a 400mb work folder to a colleagues' Mac by T100 ethernet...

I could go on...

This eulogising of the past is just wistful and unrealistic nonsense.

wrldwzrd89
May 17, 2005, 01:46 PM
Actually, Word 5.1 was a damned good app. For example, when I deleted a large block of text, it was deleted instantly. Now in v.X it can take 5 seconds, on the top of the line iBook. It's pathetic that a simple word processor is less responsive now than it was more than ten years ago.

Overall I thought the article was a little simple-minded, but when my browser is a more responsive text-editor than my word processor, something's wrong.
Word went downhill ever since Word 6 was introduced. That's why I used Word 5.1 extensively on my old PowerMac 7200/75, but avoid it like the plague now.

montex
May 17, 2005, 01:50 PM
This guy has a point, but only up to a point. Sure the old macs are great for some stuff - I keep a Duo 2300c in my car just for writing should inspiration strike when I'm away from home or office. But for my serious work I absolutely have to have the fastest computer. There is no way I could do my color work on an old Mac. It's just not feasible. Ten years ago I rarely had files over 10 Mb. These days I rarely have files under 100 Mb. And some days I color correct dozens of these monsters. Couldn't do that on 9600.

I may not be typical but my case is not unusual, either. Faster computers are needed for bigger, more complex jobs. I have a dual G5 at work and I still hope to someday reach an apex where my needs do not overtax the hardware.

As a hobby, I often bring old macs back to life. One thing the author did not address is the fact that certain models cannot be upgraded past a certain point. For example, a Powermac 9600 cannot run an OS higher than 9.1 and you're stuck at that OS for the rest of its useful life. The latest version of OS X (Tiger) will not install on G3 Macs that do not have a firewire port, so those models are stuck at 10.3. If you want to enjoy the latest software innovations you have to keep upgrading your hardware.

BTW, has this guy tried surfing the net on a 9600? Even with a cable modem it is still very slow. You are stuck using Internet Explorer and even then many sites with Flash and Shockwave animations are doggedly slow. Don't get me started talking about Java!

So yeah, old hardware will get plenty of simple stuff done like writing letters and basic spreadsheets. But so many of us want to do much more than we did ten years ago that you really can't go back.

Silencio
May 17, 2005, 01:51 PM
While I appreciate using older equipment in creative/useful ways (still get good use out of my eMate 300, thanks) and agree that one shouldn't jump on the latest technology for its own sake, the article completely misses all the geniunely useful hardware and software advances made in the past 8-9 years that significantly improve productivity and the quality of the work one can do.

A faster CPU doesn't make the Internet faster? Uh, a faster CPU has a pretty big impact on the speed that a web page renders on your system. There's a pretty dramatic difference in web browser performance between my Dual 2.0GHz PowerMac G5 and my 800MHz PowerMac G4 tower, and web surfing on my old 500MHz iBook G3 feels like molasses in winter compared to the G5.

Would we really rather be editing video on an 8500, importing analog footage via the video-in ports at 640x480 and saving it all off to 4GB hard drives, rather than importing HD and editing off a blazing fast Firewire 800 or external SATA array? And after using InDesign CS2 on any modern G4 or G5 system running Panther or Tiger, I couldn't begin to think of how painful it would be to step back in time and try QuarkXpress 4 on a 9600 running Mac OS 8.6 or 9.0.4 or whatever.

Getting actual work done trumps this whole computer museum mentality any day of the week.

plinden
May 17, 2005, 01:59 PM
I wrote my PhD thesis fifteen years ago, using WordPerfect, on a 386 PC running MSDOS with a 40 MByte HD and 16 MByte RAM (can't remember exactly, but it was less or equal to 50MB HD and 8 or 16 MB RAM). Couldn't do that now with any word processor.

However, each run of the transistor modelling process (code that I wrote myself) took a week to complete on the same machine and generated about 20MB of data, that I had to analyse then dump before the next run, because it would have taken 15 floppies to store.

Just for the hell of it, a couple of weeks ago I opened up my PhD thesis, and using it as a guide was able to repeat about the first six months of it in a couple of hours.

Paul O'Keefe
May 17, 2005, 02:00 PM
Wasting time is burning a CD at 2x, sorting out a misbehaving SCSI chain, storing stuff on a ZIP disk, stuffing a file before sending it by ISDN, distilling a publication on a beige box, ripping a CMYK 48 page publication on a G3, copying a 400mb work folder to a colleagues' Mac by T100 ethernet...

I fully understand. There is a happy medium ground between conservative tech users who hold on to their hardware/software versions longer and the early adopters who get the latest and greatest with every new release.

Run old software on new hardware (if apple enables you) and you can find that it runs very fast indeed.

keysersoze
May 17, 2005, 03:04 PM
Piss. Off.

What a moronic statement. Yeah, let's roll back to the old days, they were so much better...
:rolleyes:

That made my day :D

Lacero
May 17, 2005, 03:34 PM
What the hell? Dumb article.

What about creating and editing High Definition movies? Does the article writer expect people to use an old Quadra to edit HD movies?

What about DVD compression?

What about H.264 encoding?

If anything, computers need to be faster.

Now, what about games? By following his logic, we'd all be still satisfied playing Pong and Frogger, instead of all the games we have now, like Doom 3 and Halo 2.

iGary
May 17, 2005, 03:48 PM
I can't wait till WWDC so these stupid articles go away. :rolleyes:

MacFan782040
May 17, 2005, 03:51 PM
thats like saying...

Why don't we all stop buying new cars and drive old early-mid 90's ones. They still get you from point A - pont B.

He's right about how it was "top of the line" back then, but the world changes. That's like saying, Why buy an iPod when we got by fine with records back in the 70's....

shamino
May 17, 2005, 04:05 PM
This quote seems appropriate here:
There are two kinds of fool. One says "This is old, and therefore good." And one says "This is new, and therefore better".
-- John Brunner, "The Shockwave Rider (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345467175/qid=1116363788)"

xtbfx
May 17, 2005, 04:15 PM
Dang hippy.

ham_man
May 17, 2005, 04:22 PM
Didn't see an Apple II in his collection...;)

I think that this guy is a fool...I want Tiger, I want Core Image, I want a fast, beautiful system. This guy can piss off. Probably just sorrow grapes anyways...

Rocket Rion
May 17, 2005, 06:22 PM
Yeah sure, as a graphics pro I'll be running Motion 2 and the upcoming After Effects 7 on a Mac from 1997. What a maroon.

Alte22a
May 17, 2005, 08:23 PM
OMG!!

I am sitting here right now typing this on my Ti book while my G4 dual 500(which has been upgraded to 1.4). I wouldnt be doing this is my comp was fast enough to render. I would be doing some work, but thats part of the development in technology. Of course we need faster machines, to meet deadlines at a more comfortable pace and spend more time with the wife and kids (I dont have any :)).

More tech at a good price and size (for that matter) allows us to do things that we couldnt do before. Making home movies and burning high quality DVDs to send to your parents, you could only of dreamt about that in the 90s and that wasnt so long ago.

Saad
May 17, 2005, 08:47 PM
I think he's right. I could do all of my work on a Bondi iMac with iMovie and Office 98 installed. Instead, I have a 3 GHZ PC with 512 MB of RAM, and it isn't nearly as responsive with OpenOffice as the iMac is with 98.

RacerX
May 17, 2005, 09:19 PM
I thing many of you are trying to justify chasing the latest and newest, which is not what this article is about.

The fact of the matter is, computers are way over powered these days for many tasks and many people can get away with not upgrading all that regularly.

I, personally, have many productive older systems. I bought a PowerBook Duo 2300c a few months ago for school for about $60. I got an older version of Mathematica for $50 and an older version of Theorist for $35. For most of my tasks this covers what I need quite well. I would have needed either an iBook or PowerBook 12" to get a system about the same size and the latest Mac OS X versions of my software would have totaled of $2000. I was able to get that functionality for under $200.

Also, much of the bloat these days in Mac OS X is for eye candy. I run Rhapsody 5.1 on a Pentium at 133 MHz and Rhapsody 5.6 on a PowerPC 604e at 225 MHz and do both web design and page layout on them... but these systems aren't pushing the Aqua interface either.

I don't think upgrading for the sake of upgrading is a healthy course of action. And it is one that I don't push with my clients. Of course, I work for them and not Apple, and I look out for their best interest. If they need to upgrade I'll push for the upgrade. If not upgrading works for them... then let them be.

I currently have a number of clients that put out monthly magazines using Mac OS 9 on 8600s, Beige and B&W G3s and early G4s and their work flow works for them. I have other clients who have the top of the line systems and they are always looking for more (which is their choice).

I don't think I would take it to the extremes that the author of the article did, but I don't think that the lamb-basting that he is receiving here is justified either.

tpatricks
May 17, 2005, 09:33 PM
Yeah sure, as a graphics pro I'll be running Motion 2 and the upcoming After Effects 7 on a Mac from 1997. What a maroon.

Uh, that's probably "moron." But memorable, nonetheless. The whole article was wistful thinking. On the positive side, a lot of basic word processing could be done on a Mac from 1997. That's about it. Everything else is on the negative side. Don't go there.

I received notice that FCP Studio is shipping. Should be here this week. I checked some specs. It needs 41 gigabytes to handle everything included. The FedEx notice says the package weighs 17 pounds. Whew.

BTW - I just set up a Mac mini with Tiger. Added Marc Liyanage's free PHP 5.0.4, MySQL 4.1.11. Used Postfix Enabler to set up Postfix email (POP, SMTP, IMAP, aliases), and set up a self-signed SSL certificate.

Folks, that's a full-fledged web server for $499. For performance, your mileage may vary (add RAM, larger HD, etc.), but that's a lotta horsepower for low dollars when compared with any Mac from 1997.

The good old days are fun to look back on from time to time (loved that Powerbook 100 with the 40 meg hard drive), but I love what's rolling out of Cupertino these days.

Tera Patricks

tech4all
May 17, 2005, 10:05 PM
Graphics professionals: You all got by on Power Mac 9600s back in 1997. Couldn't you get by using them now?

No.


Don't they screen these articles before they're allowed on the internet? :rolleyes:

revenuee
May 17, 2005, 10:29 PM
I think the article makes a good point, as crudely written as it was.

Computers don't make things better, competent people make things better.


An upgrade from a dual 2.0 G5 to a dual 2.3 within a span of 7 months is not essential to help you produce better work. Is it really THAT much faster? And how much extra time are you spending migrating your work from one HD to another on this new system?

He makes a fantastic point relating to the throw away culture that we have become. Sure many of keep our old macs kicking around, but those that throw away computer equipment as they constantly upgrade produce more and more waste.

The article was using extreme examples to make a very relative point.

sord
May 18, 2005, 12:11 AM
I think he's right. I could do all of my work on a Bondi iMac with iMovie and Office 98 installed. Instead, I have a 3 GHZ PC with 512 MB of RAM, and it isn't nearly as responsive with OpenOffice as the iMac is with 98.

When comparing PCs to Macs, yes getting a new PC is just wasting money, however comparing Macs to Macs is more of the point he was going for. Either way, he did a poor ass job at showing his poor ass point. I rather like not waiting several minutes to open a single program. And I most definatelly like them working.

solvs
May 18, 2005, 12:44 AM
Uh, that's probably "moron."
I believe that was a Bugs Bunny reference. ;)

I have to think this was a somewhat tongue in cheek article. And yes, old computers (well, Macs) do serve a purpose. But otherwise, that was just silly. I'm going to bed now.

Blue Velvet
May 18, 2005, 01:01 AM
I currently have a number of clients that put out monthly magazines using Mac OS 9 on 8600s, Beige and B&W G3s and early G4s and their work flow works for them. I have other clients who have the top of the line systems and they are always looking for more (which is their choice).


In my experience, I can't think of one designer or printshop that hasn't had problems moving to OSX if they were forced to.

Many of them put it off until they had no choice (replacing hardware) and were faced with an unwelcome learning curve and/or unforeseen technical details.

A well-researched and planned-for transition is infinitely preferable to a sudden lurch. Also, if I had a employers' choice between 2 designers of equal ability, one using exclusively OS9 & Quark/Pagemaker, the other fully up to speed on OSX and Indesign, I know which I'd choose.

I usually have a 3-day turn-around on a publication, not the luxury of a month. 30mins shaved here and there makes a huge difference.

Let's face it, OS9 is dead. If it still works for some people, then they're making a future rod for their own backs by clinging onto the past.

Eniregnat
May 18, 2005, 01:27 AM
I know for audio work, if I am 4 years out of date I can't get my job done efficiently. For video, software that is a year old is out of date. If the job requires that I work with the latest protocols, then I can't get my job done unless I have the most current equipment and software.

There is another thing to think about here. Those computers work just fine, just not for design, at least not in certain sectors. There may be a downstream market for those computers.

I use a z80 chip based computer when I travel to dangerous countries (I can get 22hours on solid use one set of AAs). I can do text processing, send messages, and connect to all sorts of arcane hardware (heck I even think I could build a 300 baud modem from Radio Shack parts if I needed too). That old technology allows me to not invest a lot of finances in a tool that I need when it is likely that it might get destroyed. I also can do some board level repair work. It's simple flash memory is very robust, it is nearly an indestructible computer, and I bet it will work for me for 10+ years. I can write a screenplay or story on it, just as I could a typewriter, but I would rather do it on something like a PB. There are just so many benefits to using a tool like a PB to write, even when a typewriter would work (not as well).

I agree that technology can have a longer life, especially if we work against the LAG. It does seem to me that people that argue against new technology are the same ones that argue that text processors useful and word processors are not, and that programming in Assembly is better than programming in a high level language. I'd hate to see the world attempt to go back to IBIC punch card processing.

BlueVelvet- I appreacate you point of view. I always learn something from your posts. I suppose you already know about Lynch's next project (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050512d.php).

Blue Velvet
May 18, 2005, 02:40 AM
BlueVelvet- I appreacate you point of view. I always learn something from your posts. I suppose you already know about Lynch's next project (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050512d.php).

Yes, we've been musing on DV & Mullholland Drive over here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=126759) :)

RacerX
May 18, 2005, 08:15 AM
In my experience, I can't think of one designer or printshop that hasn't had problems moving to OSX if they were forced to.

Many of them put it off until they had no choice (replacing hardware) and were faced with an unwelcome learning curve and/or unforeseen technical details.
Well, that is why I get paid the big bucks ( :rolleyes: well, it is what I get paid for). I started preparing for the transition to Mac OS X back in 1997 when Apple acquired NeXT (you could go back further if you consider the fact that I was using NeXT computers along side Apple computers for years before that). There are very few technical details that I find surprising in a transition.

I just finished transitioning a graphic designer from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. It was easier to let her come to the decision to move rather than force it on her. She took to it like a fish to water.

When it comes right down to it, people's work flow (and what they use within that work flow) is a matter of choice. Tolerance (something oddly absent in this thread) should be second nature to Mac users as we are the outsiders in the computer world. As such, people wanting to stay with what works for them should be fine with us.

Besides, I've been pushing a PDF work flow since 1998. With PDF as the final output, the platform and creative tools used to create the PDF are independent of the tools and platform of the print shop or recipient of the final document.

It is great that you (and others) are keeping up with the times. But the quality of the work done with tools of the past (both in the past and still today) is just as high as with tools of today, and it has more to do with the person behind the technology than the technology itself.

I usually have a 3-day turn-around on a publication, not the luxury of a month. 30mins shaved here and there makes a huge difference.

Let's face it, OS9 is dead. If it still works for some people, then they're making a future rod for their own backs by clinging onto the past.

Well, if you can put out a 60 page magazine in 3-days (write, edit, collecting and placing ads, etc.)... and consider a month a luxury, then you must be in high demand.

:rolleyes:

But what I really think is that that was a ill conceive comment on your part (or you aren't working as a professional in this business).

Please don't lower my high opinion of you by making wild statements like that to try to prove your point. I always thought you were above that.

Blue Velvet
May 18, 2005, 08:36 AM
Well, if you can put out a 60 page magazine in 3-days (write, edit, collecting and placing ads, etc.)... and consider a month a luxury, then you must be in high demand.

:rolleyes:

But what I really think is that that was a ill conceive comment on your part (or you aren't working as a professional in this business).

Please don't lower my high opinion of you by making wild statements like that to try to prove your point. I always thought you were above that.



Did I ever say I was working on a magazine?

I have in front of me a 52pg 2spot report. Proofing 1 day by editor, 3 days design -- last proof, amends & sign-off this afternoon. Back from press within 6 working days. That is a typical job.

Edit: There's also no need to roll eyes at me. I'm not here to live up to other people's perceived standards of me... and I'm also not in the habit of making wild claims either.

RacerX
May 18, 2005, 08:50 AM
Did I ever say I was working on a magazine?
Well, lets look at the content of our collected statements on this...

I said:I currently have a number of clients that put out monthly magazines using Mac OS 9...to which you replied:I usually have a 3-day turn-around on a publication, not the luxury of a month.

The statement "not the luxury of a month" made it sound like you thought that a month was a luxury in producing a magazine.

Edit: There's also no need to roll eyes at me. I'm not here to live up to other people's perceived standards of me... and I'm also not in the habit of making wild claims either.
The luxury statement was pretty wild... glad to know you aren't going to make a habit of making claims like that one. ;)

Paul O'Keefe
May 18, 2005, 09:29 AM
I think the article takes some things to extremes and is very simplistic (to a fault perhaps), but this article and the sentiment of holding on to tech solutions longer makes sense to a particular area of the mac community. Please recall that it originally appeared at Lowendmac.com and their needs and motivations are not necessarily that of the majority of users who post on these forums drooling with anticipation over the the most recent tech indulgence.

killmoms
May 18, 2005, 10:27 AM
The luxury statement was pretty wild... glad to know you aren't going to make a habit of making claims like that one. ;)
I think he meant a month would be a luxury for him, as he doesn't have such time for his work, not that a month is a luxury for a magazine.

Blue Velvet
May 18, 2005, 10:31 AM
I think he meant a month would be a luxury for him, as he doesn't have such time for his work, not that a month is a luxury for a magazine.

I'm a her not a him, BTW. :)

We do produce a monthly magazine, but that's not my team or responsibility although I've helped them out in the past. The biggest use of time there is picture research and subbing.

JonMaker
May 18, 2005, 10:48 AM
Guys, I really think most of you are missing the point. Though it seems to convey the argument that newer faster hardware is unnecessary and promotes bloat, I think that the author did not intend to bash new hardware, but intended to promote use of old hardware.

I'll admit I have a fairly recent (3yrs old) iMac, and that it is my primary machine. That's all I need.

I also have a ~5 year old notebook (which most would probably consider useless) that I have revived to its former glory through Linux.

I have, and have had, other computers (that didn't make it into the sig) that have their own uses and purposes. It is my philosophy that one should not dispose of old technology, but rather "put it to pasture"...

:)