Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)

[Peter N Lewis]

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.

--
  

Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)

[gregor420]

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)

[Phil Dobbin]

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)

[David Wheeler]

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]

Re: OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)

[Rich Morin]

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)

[David Wheeler]

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]

OS X Installed numbers (Was Re: mac-toolbox)

[Ken Williams]

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: mac-toolbox

[Rich Morin]

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.

-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: mac-toolbox

[John Gruber]

Jefferson R. Lowrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/12/02 at 1:36p:

> At some point in the very near future, if it hasn't happened
> already, the majority of Macintosh users will be running OS X.

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.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of
Perl-scripting Mac users are already running OS X...

-- 
John Gruber |   Daring Fireball: Mac Punditry and Curmudgeonry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |http://daringfireball.net

Re: mac-toolbox

[Chris Nandor]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jefferson R. Lowrey) wrote:

> Actually, I wonder where the break-even point is for maintaining a separate 
> 'MacPerl on OS 9/Classic" is. At some point in the very near future, if it 
> hasn't happened already, the majority of Macintosh users will be running OS 
> X.  MacPerl will still be relevant, as people will be using it from Classic.  
> But it won't be a common experience.  

MacPerl may die someday, but I won't be the one to send it to its grave.  
:)


> Generally the subscribers to the macosx list seem less bothered by off topic 
> posts than the subscribers to the macperl list seem.  But that may also 
> change as more of the macperl subscribers move to macosx (or add macosx to 
> their subscriptions).   

Yes, I will recommend people come to the macosx@ list for most 
discussions about Mac::Carbon if this is what is decided.  As long as 
people here don't care so much when the MacPerl users invade, that's 
fine with me.

I'll probably just say that people should discuss development and such 
issues on macosx@, and be free to discuss using it on either macosx@ or 
macperl@.  I suppose this will mean some duplication of effort in 
answering questions, but I suppose that's better than using a list that 
most people won't subscribe to.

-- 
Chris Nandor  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/

Re: mac-toolbox

[Bill Stephenson]

Chris, I'd love to hear more about this wherever you decide it should go, I
do agree with Nathan though, I'd like to read about it here. There's already
been questions posted about it here and I think that it hits the "Topic"
right in the nose.

Thanks for the info.
-- 

Bill Stephenson
www.SecureShopper.com
1-417-546-5593



> From: Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Pudge.Net
> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:41:44 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: mac-toolbox
> 
> (FWIW, I bring this up now because I am finishing up version 0.01 of
> Mac::Carbon, which is a port of the MacPerl Mac:: modules to Mac OS X
> ... more to come later.)

Re: mac-toolbox

[Jefferson R. Lowrey]

> 
> There is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.  I started it some time 
> ago, for discussion of issues relating to accessing the Mac toolbox(es) 
> from perl.  The rationale of a separate list is twofold:
> 
> * Discussions of the Mac toolbox are not necessarily specific to Mac OS, 
> or Mac OS X
> * Keep the clutter down in the main macosx list
> 
> This would effectively kill off the macperl-toolbox list.
> 
> So, is there any interest in it?  If the consensus is "no, we want to 
> keep it to the main macosx list," that's fine by me.  Thoughts?  

Actually, I wonder where the break-even point is for maintaining a separate 'MacPerl 
on OS 9/Classic" is. At some point in the very near future, if it hasn't happened 
already, the majority of Macintosh users will be running OS X.  MacPerl will still be 
relevant, as people will be using it from Classic.  But it won't be a common 
experience.  

Generally the subscribers to the macosx list seem less bothered by off topic posts 
than the subscribers to the macperl list seem.  But that may also change as more of 
the macperl subscribers move to macosx (or add macosx to their subscriptions).   

I'm happy to see discussions of Cocoa/CamelBones and other 'toolbox-like' topics take 
place on this list.  Psync, on the other hand, I'm starting to get bored with - no 
offense to Dan or anyone else intended.  That's my opinion.

-Jeff Lowrey

Re: mac-toolbox

[Nathan Torkington]

Chris Nandor writes:
> There is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.  I started it some time 
> ago, for discussion of issues relating to accessing the Mac toolbox(es) 
> from perl.  The rationale of a separate list is twofold:
> 
> * Discussions of the Mac toolbox are not necessarily specific to Mac OS, 
> or Mac OS X
> * Keep the clutter down in the main macosx list

I'd rather read that here.  We already talk about CamelBones without
anyone storming off in a huff.

Nat