Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
Well, I for one, use Maya from SGI|Alias|Waefront - and it doesn;t support 10.2 - there are a number of dialog boxen which get very screwed up by it. Are there any other packages which work under 10.1- not in 10.2+ ? Certainly some of the shareware stuff like fruitmenu windowshade have different versions... From a developer's view are there any commonly known gotchas to look for? On Thursday, November 14, 2002, at 05:44 PM, Phil Dobbin wrote: -- From: Phil Dobbin[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 5:44:56 PM To: David Wheeler; Ken Williams Cc: Rich Morin; Mac OS X Perl Subject: Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox) Auto forwarded by a Rule On 14/11/02 1:05, David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Ken Williams wrote: 2) High-end users who are dying to switch, but need to wait until their software is properly supported, or until they can properly do a massive switchover of technologies in their business You can probably blame Quark for about 90% of this. They're *really* far behind updating QuarkXPress to Mac OS X, and they still pretty well own the professional design layout market. This is especially true here in the U.K. The overwhelming majority of Mac users here are in the design/bureaux/newspaper business and won't touch OS X with a bargepole exclusively because of Quark. There are hopes that OS X may eat into the Oracle/Unix/db market but it's a *very* long shot. Local Perl Monger groups are reporting lay offs and the vast majority of _them_ are Windoze users. Switch, whether from Mac OS 9 or Win32, definitely ain't happening here :-( Regards, Phil.
Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
At 7:58 -0500 15/11/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I for one, use Maya from SGI|Alias|Waefront - and it doesn;t support 10.2 - there are a number of dialog boxen which get very screwed up by it. Are there any other packages which work under 10.1- not in 10.2+ ? Yes, there have been quite a number of programs with problems under 10.2, I don't have any particular gotchas, but lots of programs required updating for 10.2. Enjoy, Peter. -- http://www.interarchy.com/ http://download.interarchy.com/
Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
On 14/11/02 1:05, David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Ken Williams wrote: 2) High-end users who are dying to switch, but need to wait until their software is properly supported, or until they can properly do a massive switchover of technologies in their business You can probably blame Quark for about 90% of this. They're *really* far behind updating QuarkXPress to Mac OS X, and they still pretty well own the professional design layout market. This is especially true here in the U.K. The overwhelming majority of Mac users here are in the design/bureaux/newspaper business and won't touch OS X with a bargepole exclusively because of Quark. There are hopes that OS X may eat into the Oracle/Unix/db market but it's a *very* long shot. Local Perl Monger groups are reporting lay offs and the vast majority of _them_ are Windoze users. Switch, whether from Mac OS 9 or Win32, definitely ain't happening here :-( Regards, Phil.
OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 03:58 PM, Rich Morin wrote: At 8:45 PM -0500 11/12/02, John Gruber wrote: Even Apple admits that they expect only 20 percent of the Mac user base to be running OS X by the end of 2002. It could be quite a long time before that number gets to 50. There are ~25 million Macs out there. 20% of this is ~5 million. If Apple sells ~5 million Macs in 2003 (all running OSX) and another 10% of the existing base switch over, you have ~50% by the end of 2003. Eh? 5M new Macs, all on OS X, brings the ratio to 10M OS X, 20M MacOS. Then 10% or the existing base is 2.5M, which would bring it to 12.5M OS X, 17.5M MacOS. That's still only 41.7% for OS X. However, I'm generally optimistic about it - I'm guessing that most of the MacOS users are in one of the following categories: 1) People who can't upgrade hardware or software for various reasons, so they keep a static system which doesn't need (and can't get anymore) much support 2) High-end users who are dying to switch, but need to wait until their software is properly supported, or until they can properly do a massive switchover of technologies in their business There are doubtless some people who stick with MacOS because they just like it better, but I bet there aren't very many of them. Anyway, where does that 20% figure from Apple come from? That seems low to me, but maybe it reflects a bunch of machines in school labs and so on? -Ken
Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 04:27 PM, Ken Williams wrote: 2) High-end users who are dying to switch, but need to wait until their software is properly supported, or until they can properly do a massive switchover of technologies in their business You can probably blame Quark for about 90% of this. They're *really* far behind updating QuarkXPress to Mac OS X, and they still pretty well own the professional design layout market. D -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
At 11:27 AM +1100 11/14/02, Ken Williams wrote: On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 03:58 PM, Rich Morin wrote: At 8:45 PM -0500 11/12/02, John Gruber wrote: Even Apple admits that they expect only 20 percent of the Mac user base to be running OS X by the end of 2002. It could be quite a long time before that number gets to 50. There are ~25 million Macs out there. 20% of this is ~5 million. If Apple sells ~5 million Macs in 2003 (all running OSX) and another 10% of the existing base switch over, you have ~50% by the end of 2003. Eh? 5M new Macs, all on OS X, brings the ratio to 10M OS X, 20M MacOS. Then 10% or the existing base is 2.5M, which would bring it to 12.5M OS X, 17.5M MacOS. That's still only 41.7% for OS X. Sorry for the sloppy math. Bear in mind, however, that I also left out the issue of folks who simply abandon their old Macs. This tends to bring the percentage back up. In any case, my point was that it won't take all _that_ long to reach 50%. However, I'm generally optimistic about it - I'm guessing that most of the MacOS users are in one of the following categories: 1) People who can't upgrade hardware or software for various reasons, so they keep a static system which doesn't need (and can't get anymore) much support 2) High-end users who are dying to switch, but need to wait until their software is properly supported, or until they can properly do a massive switchover of technologies in their business There are doubtless some people who stick with MacOS because they just like it better, but I bet there aren't very many of them. There is also the group that is sticking to Mac OS for reasons of caution. I expect many of these folks to switch over in the next year, however... -r -- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; phone: +1 650-873-7841 http://www.cfcl.com/rdm- my home page, resume, etc. http://www.cfcl.com/Meta - The FreeBSD Browser, Meta Project, etc. http://www.ptf.com/dossier - Prime Time Freeware's DOSSIER series http://www.ptf.com/tdc - Prime Time Freeware's Darwin Collection
Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 06:06 PM, Rich Morin wrote: There is also the group that is sticking to Mac OS for reasons of caution. I expect many of these folks to switch over in the next year, however... Some will also stick to Mac OS for a while because it's still faster than Mac OS X for a lot of things. Pity, that. David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
