Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by iPegboy
i work at a newspaper where we have about 50 machines, all running os9. this includes some g4's and emacs. just too much money to update to quark, etc. one day we'll make the switch, but i bet it won't be any time soon. i beg them to switch all the time.

i have x.3 and love it.

anyway, yes, as stated above several times, this is great news. i'm happy about the news.

I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D
 
Originally posted by g5man
Don't give up on aapl. Many got burned with the Nasdaq bubble crash. Apple is going to kick some reall ass in the next 3 to 5 years. The economy is picking up and there are millions of users that will have money to upgrade.

In the last year I have bought over 1200 shares. I have owned Apple stock for over 6 years. I have never lost money on it. I see it going up to $60 a share within 3 years.

Apple stock always takes a dive after earnings.

I mostly agree here. I've been in and out of Apple for years and made lots of money in the dot com boom and got most of it out in time.

The tide has turned for Apple. Press is very positive (for a time there, it was all doom and gloom relating to Apple), their chip architecture and OS look better than anything out there or on the horizon, the iPod is a huge success and they are partnering with heavyweights of the business/computer world (AOL, HP, Pepsi, rumored McDonald promotion). Geez, a few brokerage houses even have Aplle rated "buy". Can't remember that for quite some time.

I got back into Apple at around $14 and I'm up to about 260 shares. I plan on buying more. I expect a sell off for the rest of the week and a good buying opportunity at that time. I don't think I agree with them being a $60 stock but $40-$50.
 
Re: Re: OS 9 ( OS X )

Originally posted by eazyway
So don't expect OS X to filter down but wait for the slow upgrade process to occur. When the entire line runs G5's we should see a lot more trtaction. It will take a long time to overcome the Motorola G4 fiasco.

I expect a new line of some sort to be introduced Jan 24th or Feb 1st ...

Outside of the G5 low numbers the rest of the balance sheet looks great.

Don't particularly see the G5 numbers as a problem. Powerbooks are eroding this market, also I tend to think most have already forgotten the G4 fiasco, the initial rush for G5's was a reaction to that fiasco, now I think people are already used to the idea that there will be a new G5 along anytime.

That and the actual need (or lack of it) for more raw power. In my case I was all ready for the G5 when it first came out, but couldn't get hold of it for a couple of months, now we are expecting new models in the not to distant future, so I just hang on. That coupled with I can still do all I want on my G4 733 and it's still faster than me. So I'm guessing I'll wait for the Dual 3.0Ghz.

(Saying that I could do with some raw power for this maestro app to watch 3D pics from spirit on Mars)
 
No plans vs no announced plans

>No plans to move other iLife Apps to PC (beyond iTunes)<

What my understanding was (and I haven't seen a transcript yet) that what Anderson said was that they have "announced no plans to migrate other applications".

I don't want to re-listen to the stream to see if I recall correctly, but it is different if they say "no plans" vs "announced no plans."

I just looked at ThinkSecret to see if they had a transcript, but they also say "announced no plans."

Anyone care to check?
 
Re: Who are the 40%?

Originally posted by splashman
You could be right. My guess would be opposite, however.

Think about the "institutions" that use Macs. These are mostly "creative industry" companies, right? Given their need for speed and the latest gizmos, it seems to me they'd be first in line to upgrade (except for pure production environments like newspapers and print shops).

Home users with an existing Mac and existing software would have a harder time justifying the expense of both hardware and software upgrades, unless they were gizmo geeks.

Again, this is just my opinion. Would love to hear some actual statistics, but I doubt they exist.

We're just coming out of a down economic cycle; businesses were not spending-period unless absolutely necessary. One of the reasons why we were in that cycle. As we come out, business spending will begin to rise.

Constant rumors of faster G5s may also account for a slower than anticipated upgrade cycle, not to mention early Panther bug reports. Most businesses are not early adopters but lag behind a bit.
 
Re: No plans vs no announced plans

Originally posted by centauratlas
What my understanding was (and I haven't seen a transcript yet) that what Anderson said was that they have "announced no plans to migrate other applications".

I don't want to re-listen to the stream to see if I recall correctly, but it is different if they say "no plans" vs "announced no plans."

Well they have the potential to be different, of course it could mean that any plans they have are just not being announced.

Personally I think they have announced no plans because there are no plans.

The idea is to give PC users a taste of the mac environment to encourage switching, I can't see the advantage of giving them the whole darn thing so they can run it on a 99cent box (PC)
 
Same tired arguments

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D

You're making a common mistake -- assuming that "creative" types need the latest/greatest tools to do their best work. Seems to me that some of the folks who rush to buy the newest gizmo (software or hardware) are those who believe that gizmos are an adequate substitute for skill and experience.

Your contend the upgrade process will get more costly as time goes on. Uh, care to back that up? I'm trying to think of an app that's gotten more expensive since OSX was introduced. The hardware certainly hasn't.

It goes without saying that eventually everyone will have to upgrade. That won't convince anyone to upgrade now, however.

I'm not saying the latest doodads can't help; I'm saying that upgrading is not nearly such an obvious choice as you proclaim.

I upgraded from OS9 in August -- new hardware (about $3500) and new software (about $7500). All the latest and greatest, but at huge cost in time, frustration and $. Has my workflow has become more efficient? Sure. Is it fun working with these new toys? Definitely. Has it helped my creative processes -- i.e., am I producing better products now? Maybe a little. Maybe.
 
Originally posted by jcdenton
You'd be surprised what people are running in large environments where upgrades are few and far between -- such as cash-strapped school districts. I just did some contract work at a high school that was running three labs of old iMac 400s with OS 9 and no plans to upgrade them to the OS X, at least for some time.

While most users are probably running OS X on newer computers, these days, having schools (or other environments) with approximately 100 OS 9 computers each does start to add up (I know that other schools in my city have similar configurations).

My work involved helping to set up a new OS X lab of recently ordered eMacs, but I was told that there were no plans to bring the other labs up to OS X at that time due to money shortages (this extended to using a Debian server rather than OS X Server on the grounds that it was "free," but that's another story...)

For educational school districts, Apple has extended so many initiatives to schools that it's hard to justify NOT upgrading to Mac OS X. My dad's school completely upgraded to Mac OS X this past year for a cost of $0. They did purchase 30 new eMacs, but that really is inconsequential -- they upgraded all of their computers, including lowly 333 MHz iMacs, to Jaguar. My dad and I (and the principal) coordinated a day of Mac OS X training, and that was it. My dad and the principal BOTH say that upgrading has totally simplified everything especially because of the stability of Mac OS X.

My dad did this by telling all of his teachers to apply for the X for Teachers promotion that Apple had offered for Jaguar -- any teacher could get Jaguar (the latest operating system at the time) free of charge. That means that when all of the school's faculty applied for the promotion, the school had enough licenses of Mac OS X to upgrade the whole school at no cost.

While Apple has not yet extended the promotion to Panther (and it has actually ended for Jaguar), any school who passed this up even if they weren't considering upgrading was incredibly foolish. Mac OS X can run well on any Mac OS X-supported Mac (for some benchmarks of Panther on a 233 MHz bondi blue iMac, see my article here), and so there's no reason to put off upgrading if you can get the operating system for free.

With regards to the situation in other cases, like when schools have REALLY old hardware (Performas, all-in-one PowerMacs, etc.), I can understand not wanting to go through the upgrade because of the costs of new hardware. But I believe that many schools don't have Macs that are older than 5 years, and if they do, then at least a portion of their computers will be newer and able to run Mac OS X. Given the experience at my dad's school, upgrading any Mac to Mac OS X is going to have a big benefit at less support and problems, and so upgrading should be done ASAP.

Remember, applications almost always run just as well in Classic as they do natively in Mac OS X, so upgrading won't have any detrimental effect unless the program is really horribly-written so that it's incompatible with Classic but not with Mac OS 9. Furthermore, in addition to the X for Teachers promotion, Apple has practically given away iLife and Keynote for free to educational institutions before, too (excluding the standard $19.95 shipping and handling fee), and it has upped the educational discounts offered on its hardware. It's clear that Apple has done everything possible to help schools to upgrade.

In my opinion, if a school hasn't upgraded to Mac OS X yet, it's either got a lazy administrator, it's faculty has an indordinate amount of fear of upgrading, it's going to start moving to Windows, or it's a school district that is incredibly strapped for cash. There may be other minor reasons, but I just can't see any significant reason why the majority of educational institutions have not upgraded by now.
 
$ 61,000,000

Of course $ 61 million dollars is good for Apple, let's hope it gets even better, but Apple are doing better than you think, don't forget Stevie boy takes out several hundred million for himself before we get this bottom line.

(Think I read somewhere it was about $ 450 million)
 
Re: $ 61,000,000

Originally posted by fatfish
Of course $ 61 million dollars is good for Apple, let's hope it gets even better, but Apple are doing better than you think, don't forget Stevie boy takes out several hundred million for himself before we get this bottom line.

(Think I read somewhere it was about $ 450 million)

That is a lie that has continually spread among many publications, and it's entirely unfounded. Jobs recently got a 9-year compensation package of $158.6 million, but many newspapers have distorted this fact, and some have even said that Jobs has received $219 million per year for the past three years. Clearly this is out of control.

The actual compensation that Jobs gets is $1/year (actual salary) in addition to all the perks -- which comes to about $17 million per year. That's nowhere near the $450 million you said (and I have no IDEA where you got THAT ridiculous figure), and The Mac Observer has an incredibly detailed article outlining this fact, which you can visit here (a followup is available here).

So before you go around and quote whatever compensation you think Jobs gets (whether intentionally or unintentionally), I suggest you look at the facts first before spreading such a lie.
 
The other 60%

It would be interesting to do a study of what percentage of the 60% not using OS X are doing so because they're using an older version of Quark...

I'd bet many are still on Quark 4. I know few people who wanted to pay for the upgrade to 5, let alone pay even more (or again) to go up to 6.

I remember thinking that once Quark for OS X came out, for sure people would finally upgrade, but having seen 6, I wouldn't pay for it; but I also understand that the real world can't just switch to InDesign on principle. Many prepress houses are still ID-incompatible -- and many of those are incompatible with Quark higher than v5.

But, this discussion is a bit off-topic, I guess. Woo hoo profit!!
 
Re: 1:3

Originally posted by Belly-laughs
I have four macs, all running X 10.3, but as all systems are installed from the same CD (how could I resist?), does this mean it only counts for one registered X computer? And three OS9s?

If so, Apple please add to your numbers.

No, I'm sure Apple is not including software pirates like you in their total. They have a very reasonabley priced "family pack" that lets you do install from one CD legally, and would count when the machines were registered.
 
Re: Re: $ 61,000,000

Originally posted by simX
That is a lie that has continually spread among many publications, and it's entirely unfounded. Jobs recently got a 9-year compensation package of $158.6 million, but many newspapers have distorted this fact, and some have even said that Jobs has received $219 million per year for the past three years. Clearly this is out of control.

The actual compensation that Jobs gets is $1/year (actual salary) in addition to all the perks -- which comes to about $17 million per year. That's nowhere near the $450 million you said (and I have no IDEA where you got THAT ridiculous figure), and The Mac Observer has an incredibly detailed article outlining this fact, which you can visit here (a followup is available here).

So before you go around and quote whatever compensation you think Jobs gets (whether intentionally or unintentionally), I suggest you look at the facts first before spreading such a lie.

That ridiculous figure as you call it was taken from a recent list of America's top ten paid CEO's. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right, maybe your right, maybe it includes return from any shares he has, maybe it includes income from pixar. But the figure I remember was around $ 450 m infact I think it was 439, but have you forgotten we are on a rumour discussion forum, we are supposed to repeat rumours, your LIE comment comes across very defensive indeed.

Anyway I'm not knocking the guy, hell it's his baby and if he did get that sort of money he's entitled to it.
 
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D


No offense, but you've obviously never worked in the field you are talking about. First of all, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Slow and rock solid is better than faster and quirky/buggy any day of the week. Secondly, if you are using your Mac in an audio or video field you won't just buy a new Mac and be done with it. You'll have to upgrade all of your software and most, if not all, of your hardware. Plus, all of your previous projects need to work flawlessly w/your new hardware and software. You can't just upgrade willy-nilly. It'll bite you in the @ss. This industry is very competitive and very expensive. If you can't deliver on time every time your clients will quickly find someone who can.

And none of these upgrades come cheap. We just upgraded two of our Avids at work to G5's and that cost, IIRC, over $80,000. That price included trade-in discounts for the Avids we replaced and another machine we no longer used. We also pited two resellers against each to get the best price we could. New tech is also unproven tech. No one wants to 10's, if not 100's, of thousands of dollars and put their business on the line to be a bug hunter on the bloody edge of cutting technology.


Lethal
 
Originally posted by Sonofhaig
I assume they're not being used for "creative" purposes. I'm amazed that a creative dept. (in general) wouldn't want to take advantage of the "newer" creative apps. The differences between the Adobe apps that run on 9 and the ones that run on 10 are day and night in my opinion. Not to mention the stability of 10. I think waiting to convert will just get more costly as times goes on. Applications seem to get more and more costly. Running 9 now is like using an old car with too many miles on it. Eventually you'll break down and no parts will be available to fix it. :D

You'd be surprised. A lot of creative outfits are just too happy with their current workflows and set-ups to upgrade. For years they have been humming along and they cannot afford to undergo a learning curve. Give credit to Apple. They made systems which mean peoples upgrade cycles were longer than the PC folk.
 
This is great! Maybe I'll get stock soon.....

As to the 60% of Mac users who still use OS 9- I totally believe the number. I started up my old Performa 6360 the other day just for kicks, and immdiatly I found myself "switching" back to my OS 7.5.3 habits. It's a good OS, although it crashed a lot years ago. It was ahead of its time, in my opinion.
 
Great news! yeah Apple's stock is probably going to do a lot better then mine has latly :(. Oh well. Go Apple. Even though I like the iPod numbers, and I am one of those 700000+ I really like the look of the 800000+ macs that were sold. Let's get a little more marketshare!! Yeah yeah. Hopefully once my stock goest through the roof. I can sell this eMac and buy a G5 :):):)
 
Re: Re: 1:3

Originally posted by Booga
No, I'm sure Apple is not including software pirates like you in their total. They have a very reasonabley priced "family pack" that lets you do install from one CD legally, and would count when the machines were registered.

Yes, I know I´m a thief. The thing is; I have one mac from the beige era, one from the fruitful, one from the cubic and one from the now defunct titanium era. I tend to use only the latter. Part of my point is that there must be thousands of users like myself, that buy a copy for their current workhorse but can´t resist installing the same copy onto their older hardware that they´ve kept for some strange, sentimental reason.

I´m not trying to defend my apparent criminal actions here, I´m just saying that OSX may be on a few more computers than the numbers suggest.
 
os stability

I just dont get this 'stability' thing.

OS9 was and is a VERY stable system - lets not hear any more crap that it isnt/wasnt. If you have ever actually used OS 9 in what they call the 'enterprise' world, you would know that I speak the truth.

We ran 12 OS9 servers (G3's and G4's) for over 4 years with ZERO problems.
Cisco router, OC level connection (although we rarely used much more than T1) NetGear switches, one linux sniffer box.
NIMDA came and went, didnt touch us. No hacks, no trouble.
Online live Financial services attached to eB** until the investors gave up and we crashed. I know of what I speak. Yes I am a dot.com failure.....used to be a player.

ONE app per machine, all extensions not used taken out, STRICT ADMIN RULES, etc.
(Filemaker Pro, Filemaker unlimited, Lasso, External RAID boxes, no drives in the machines)
No remote maintenance, no remote admin logins.

Now OSX is stable too, IF you apply strict operating rules.
I suspect that not many Mac users have ever been involved in that kind of setup.

If we were still in business, I would be using OSX by now, but we werent in any hurry to change and there was no real need.

Please, guys, dont knock OS9 - it used to be a big friend of mine......
Thats why only 40% have OSX - and of course, because Apple boxes last longer than anything else.

Only use X now, of course.
 
Originally posted by simX
For educational school districts, Apple has extended so many initiatives to schools that it's hard to justify NOT upgrading to Mac OS X. ... In my opinion, if a school hasn't upgraded to Mac OS X yet, it's either got a lazy administrator, it's faculty has an indordinate amount of fear of upgrading, it's going to start moving to Windows, or it's a school district that is incredibly strapped for cash. There may be other minor reasons, but I just can't see any significant reason why the majority of educational institutions have not upgraded by now.

How right you are!

In this case, there was no move to get into the Jaguar promotional round, on account that the new techs (two, both part-time) and a handful of teachers managed to start a war over the need for the school to develop a new "upgrade path" involving transition from the Mac OS 9 server to a Linux server and from Macs (at that point, 2 labs of OS 9 iMacs and 1 lab of mixed beige PowerPCs and a half-dozen 68Ks) to PCs.

The Mac side won the war over the course of 6 months, at which point the Jaguar promotion was over. You call it "lazy," "fearful," and so on, and those are all true. As for the cash-strapped part, in this part of Canada public school funding is ridiculously short at the moment. On the bright side, some of the upcoming school closures might free up a couple labs worth of free Macs. I suggested pushing hard for those, since it looks like there may not be any funding for new hardware next year.

So there you have it: some poor decisionmaking, some bad timing, and some empty wallets add up to make an uncomfortable computing environment. On the bright side, I think I've managed to lock in plans for OS X upgrades for the old labs over the next two yers. Then on to the next battle: convincing the salaried techs that OS X Server is a better move than Debian woody. :(

Probably another point I should have mentioned (before this edit): while I did suggest at the time that the X for Teachers program be taken advantage of, there are probably 4-5 computers at the school for every teacher -- one in each classroom, plus 4 labs -- and at least half of those could or should have been upgraded to OS X. Of the other half, there's a phased-out lab of old beige computers and there's the classroom computers which are almost entirely beige PowerPCs. Even so, there are more computers needing OS X than there are staff members able and willing to contribute their (essentially) free OS X license to the school. That's a very longwinded way of saying: there were too many computers and not enough teachers.;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.