tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726517614184169426.post3047560810393475134..comments2023-08-23T04:15:41.751-05:00Comments on The Jaded Consumer: On the Cost of MacsJaded Consumerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04631410690179296528noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726517614184169426.post-4681845006835012572009-04-14T09:23:00.000-05:002009-04-14T09:23:00.000-05:00Not running noticeably slower over time is somethi...Not running noticeably slower over time is something I've found Unix good for, whether Mac or not.<br /><br />It's possible to drive machines to a crawl by overfilling the drives so there's no space for swap files, of course. Machines with modern memory management write information to the hard drive in case of later need to swap, for example, even if the machines don't actually need more room than exists to run loaded applications. However, just using the machine, collecting cache files, saving and deleting data in the filesystem, and changing various preferences settings don't seem to cause slowing over time. <br /><br />If I knew more about how MSFT's operating system has evolved over the last decade (does it still have a fairly cryptic registry file to which lots of applications add information, to the potential peril and delay of system components that need to access the registry quickly?) I might be able to speculate more productively, but the Unix design theory tends to encourage applications to manage their own preferences -- and Apple's tools in particular encourage developers not to spray application components all over the filesystem but to have them all bundled in a single application bundle to enable drag-and-drop installation. The good part about drag-and-drop installation is that it is easy to install applications, and it makes most uninstallation extremely easy. <br /><br />The propensity of MacOS X applications to create havoc for the operating system by replacing with custom versions components (like DLLs) relied on by the operating system is relatively low; each application can add its own versions of components inside its application bundle, and system components aren't stored where applications ordinarily write shared libraries. Applications have to be written with a special kind of "suck" to generate some of these problems, though of course they are not impossible.<br /><br />Some of the comments on this blog addressing Cocoa (the native development environment for MacOS X, including the iPhone) illuminate some of the user experience differences between buyers of Cocoa applications and buyers of applications written for systems lacking features like runtime linking (which allows applications' component objects to "inherit" features from the current version of the operating system, regardless when the applications were originally compiled).<br /><br />I think the investment case for Apple -- and I think it's a positive investment case -- is based in large part on Cocoa, and on Apple's ownership of its own hardware-independent operating system. Apple can botch services like the rest of them (read about MobileMe when launched; was an online service ever more snake-bit?), but Apple's ability to leverage good code into the future is a real asset. <br /><br />Cocoa offers localization advantages, code reduction (through re-use) (and thus bug reduction, if bugs are proportional to code), resistance to obsolescence (OS upgrades enhance rather than obsolete applications), flexibility to target multiple architectures (and thus freedom from OEM supplier lock-in), development time reduction (Cocoa has been described as a RAD, allowing tiny shops to produce products able to compete with enormous competitors, which in turn helps attract innovative developers) ... the list goes on. <br /><br />If you don't feel like picking up a new machine, consider picking up a few shares instead :-) I did.<br /><br />As for the machine, many users will not describe technical advantages of Macs, but will instead talk about ease-of-use and other quality-of-life issues. These quality-of-life issues will change how happy you are when you work on the machine (if they apply to you; some may not); if you spend a lot of time working with your computer, you want to make sure you get the machine that makes this time least unpleasant.<br /><br />Basically, it comes down to one question: How will you use the machine?<br /><br />Answering that is probably the most important part of the battle, as it determines what you need to make your life with the computer a good one :-)Jaded Consumerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04631410690179296528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726517614184169426.post-14724016102419638352009-04-13T14:02:00.000-05:002009-04-13T14:02:00.000-05:00Thanks for the thoughtful post. I will check out ...Thanks for the thoughtful post. I will check out the links you provided. It is probably time to think with a bit more care about the question of what I need the computer to do. Off the top of my head, having a computer that doesn't run noticeably slower within a year of purchase would be nice...Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03203442190067211002noreply@blogger.com