Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 17, 2005, 12:39 PM   #1
MacBytes
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Why to Ignore Forced Obsolescence




Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Why to Ignore Forced Obsolescence

Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
MacBytes is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 12:46 PM   #2
Blue Velvet
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Piss. Off.




Quote:
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...
Blue Velvet is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 12:50 PM   #3
asif786
macrumors 65816
 
asif786's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London, UK.
Send a message via AIM to asif786 Send a message via MSN to asif786
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.
__________________
nigella lawson is hot. no, really, she is.
macTV videocast
asif786 is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 12:50 PM   #4
yellow
Moderator
 
yellow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland, OR
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.
yellow is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 12:57 PM   #5
James Philp
Registered User
 
James Philp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oxford/London
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.

Quote:
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.
James Philp is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:07 PM   #6
AtHomeBoy_2000
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
That is probably the most moronic article ever written.
Let me tear this apart point by point...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
AtHomeBoy_2000 is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:24 PM   #7
James Philp
Registered User
 
James Philp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oxford/London
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtHomeBoy_2000
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.

Quote:
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!
James Philp is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:25 PM   #8
Sly
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Airstrip One
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!
Sly is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:38 PM   #9
Paul O'Keefe
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Low end users

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.

Last edited by Paul O'Keefe; May 17, 2005 at 01:40 PM.
Paul O'Keefe is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:41 PM   #10
wrldwzrd89
macrumors G4
 
wrldwzrd89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Solon, OH
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.
__________________
iMac Intel (Rev H, 27"), 1TB HDD, 16GB RAM, 10.8.4
wrldwzrd89 is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:42 PM   #11
James Philp
Registered User
 
James Philp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oxford/London
It's logical conclusion - that all progress is not essential to survival - means a rollback to the jungle baby!
James Philp is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:44 PM   #12
wordmunger
macrumors 603
 
wordmunger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow
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.
wordmunger is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:46 PM   #13
Blue Velvet
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul O'Keefe
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.
Blue Velvet is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:46 PM   #14
wrldwzrd89
macrumors G4
 
wrldwzrd89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Solon, OH
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordmunger
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.
__________________
iMac Intel (Rev H, 27"), 1TB HDD, 16GB RAM, 10.8.4
wrldwzrd89 is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:50 PM   #15
montex
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
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.
montex is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:51 PM   #16
Silencio
macrumors 68000
 
Silencio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NYC
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.
Silencio is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 01:59 PM   #17
plinden
macrumors 68040
 
plinden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
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.
plinden is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 02:00 PM   #18
Paul O'Keefe
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet
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.
Paul O'Keefe is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 03:04 PM   #19
keysersoze
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet
Piss. Off.

What a moronic statement. Yeah, let's roll back to the old days, they were so much better...
That made my day
__________________
i love brits

keysersoze is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 03:34 PM   #20
Lacero
macrumors 601
 
Lacero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
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.
Lacero is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 03:48 PM   #21
iGary
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Randy's House
I can't wait till WWDC so these stupid articles go away.
iGary is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 03:51 PM   #22
MacFan782040
macrumors 6502a
 
MacFan782040's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scranton, PA
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....
MacFan782040 is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 04:05 PM   #23
shamino
macrumors 68040
 
shamino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vienna, VA
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"
shamino is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 04:15 PM   #24
xtbfx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Dang hippy.
xtbfx is offline   0
Old May 17, 2005, 04:22 PM   #25
ham_man
macrumors 68020
 
ham_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
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...
ham_man is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > MacBytes.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad: iOS planned obsolescence and ethics. h4lp m3 iOS 5 and earlier 6 Mar 4, 2014 01:14 PM
Planned Obsolescence? ShakinBake iOS 7 124 Dec 11, 2013 02:15 PM
Fragmentation / Planned Obsolescence Daniel B iOS 6 10 Sep 13, 2012 11:50 AM
Fragmentation / Planned Obsolescence Daniel B iPhone 0 Sep 13, 2012 06:51 AM
Apple and planned obsolescence dukebound85 Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 28 Jun 17, 2012 08:33 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:01 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC