But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the
older Classic. I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for
the defunct OS 9.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
I was going to let this
Robert Brenstein wrote:
But as for getting going with Mac, I believe all Mac versions are
included in the Mac license, which would mean both OS X and the older
Classic. I can't imagine RunRev would charge separately for the
defunct OS 9.
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
I
On Wednesday, February 25, 2004, at 01:41 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
A majority of Mac sales across all products I manage are still for
Classic.
This is important for me to know. That some percentage are OS X and
some greater percentage are pre OS X means little of those of the older
OS are
Hi, Dar,
This is important for me to know. That some percentage are OS X and
some greater percentage are pre OS X means little of those of the older
OS are not spending money.
Speaking from experiences with my customers (publishers, marketing
agencies) I can say: Many MAC users still refuse
FWIW,
This has not been my experience for almost two years now. Almost all
OS9 users that have actually seen OSX in action(usually from my
machine) have switched. Photoshop is sound and Quark is coming along.
Office is Ok but anyone who uses OSX even for a few months 'admits' how
much more
At 3:32 PM +0100 25/2/04, A.C.T. wrote:
Hi, Dar,
This is important for me to know. That some percentage are OS X
and some greater percentage are pre OS X means little of those of
the older OS are not spending money.
Speaking from experiences with my customers (publishers, marketing
agencies)
Hi, Thomas,
I think the word was slow at first but now has picked up speed and the
switch is happening very fast now.
that's why I wrote: It is hard to predict. Maybe it is different on your
side of the Atlantic ;-) The publishers I work with are generally old
fashioned, some of them love
Marc,
Yeah, I can't speak for across the ocean but only here on the east
coast of the US. If I read your and others responses correctly then I
would assume that for at least 18 months OS9 will be the dominant OS
where you are. Most things I have seen are either 18 months behind or
ahead, like
My experience in the UK is that the print industry is the most
resistant, mainly because they often have complex workflows and it
would take time to reproduce those workflows on OS X. In addition, the
print industry is so hard-pressed that they often run very old
equipment, my local (tiny)
I'm a Technology Integration Mentor for 6 universities (Education
Departments) on the US West coast, and all have switched to OS X (one
even moving from Windows to Mac). All have increased wireless
dramatically on their campuses, and all have portable classroom sets of
laptops. In my small
Thomas McGrath III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But Mac users can be the most stubborn users in the world.
Hmmm... they were told years ago something like
rumors of demise of HyperCard is pure b***s***
Mac users may be as stubborn as a donkey,
they have also the memory of this sympathetic animal
Hi All,
The pricing for RunRev seems odd to me, the prices currently on offer
are as follows:
Enterprise $999 Runs and Generates code for MacOS X, MacOS 9, Windows
(many versions) and Linux.
Studio $299 Runs on one OS Platform and Generates code for MacOS
X, MacOS 9, Windows (many versions)
My company just bought a Studio version of RunRev for MacOS X,
which is fine for my work Mac. However at home I have an older
Mac that doesn't support MacOS X and I would like to be able to
run RunRev under MacOS 9.2.2 on that machine.
However, it looks like the only way I can do this is to
Why?
Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS
X be separate?
I hate to get back into the pricing debate again, but once again the
pricing model defies logic. Most frustrating. (And, no it's not
relevant to me, I bought the whole magilla and glad I am thank
I'm OK
Alain
Le 23 févr. 04, à 21:11, Marian Petrides a écrit :
Why?
Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS
X be separate?
I hate to get back into the pricing debate again, but once again the
pricing model defies logic. Most frustrating. (And, no it's not
On 2/23/04 2:11 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
Why?
Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS X
be separate?
Probably because the Mac builds are two separate engines, which require
different compiles and separate amounts of time and resources to put
together. They
Otay. Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
M
On Feb 23, 2004, at 4:43 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
On 2/23/04 2:11 PM, Marian Petrides wrote:
Why?
Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and
OS X be separate?
Probably because the Mac builds are two separate engines, which
Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X are completely different systems. OS X is Unix, in
fact.
doug
On 2/24/04 5:11 AM, Marian Petrides [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why?
Win 95, 98, XP are all one license, right?So why would OS 9 and OS
X be separate?
I hate to get back into the pricing debate again,
18 matches
Mail list logo
