Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!think!ames!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!trwrb!felix!john From: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Flames about Multifinder Message-ID: <6640@felix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Sep-87 15:43:35 EDT Article-I.D.: felix.6640 Posted: Wed Sep 2 15:43:35 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 14:16:26 EDT References: <7177@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP Reply-To: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA Lines: 136 Somebody wrote.... >I think I've just about had it with this Multifinder sham that Apple >is pulling on all of us. First off, it cost us $49 to get the thing. >Ok, they had distribution costs and all of that so that's ok. >However, now they say that it requires 2Meg! If that's not bad >enough, System 4.1 craps Switcher, leaving all of us without any >alternative except to get Multifinder. So really Mulitfinder costs >~$549 including the $500 to get a CMOS upgrade to 2Meg. > >Personally, I think this sucks. I'm a heavy Mac user, but not a real >power user. For the vast, vast majority of things I do, 1Meg is >sufficient. Yeah, I want 2Meg someday, but can't do it now. However, >Apple is leaving me no choice if I want to keep my Switcher-like >environment (I like Switcher A LOT. As far as I am concerned, it is >the best piece of software Apple ever produced, and I use it quite >frequently.). As I see it, there are only a few alternatives: Them's pretty stiff words thar pardner. First of all, the tone of your text suggests you feel that Apple was deliberately trying to hose you over when they didn't need to, ar at least that they are trying to deceive you or con you into spending more money on Apple products. Since you agree that $49 for the Multifinder upgrade may not be unreasoable, it seems you are upset over hardware upgrade costs. At the $500 price you quote for the 2 meg expansion, I suspect you are not buying Apple. (BTW - that is the best price I have seen, is that a kit, off the shelf SIMM prices, or a low estimate? Seriously interested as I find myself in your shoes at the moment). Let's TRY to take the system developers point of view here for a minute. Let's PRETEND I sit around at some company (I do NOT work for apple, don't know anyone who does, and have NO vested interest in the company whatsoever!) and I am working on next-generation products. We have a list of features which are coinsidered very important, both to our users for improved computing environment, and also from our own competitive viewpoint. Some of these systems, like moving towards Multitasking, don't get done in a few hudred bytes of extra code. They will absolutely require that the system grow. They will also absolutely require use of previously unused but reserved system resources. In some cases, it may even require changing the rules a bit, putting existing products at risk. Now, basically it is next to impossible to proceed with such implimentation without introducing incompatabilities somehere in the system. We make every effort to keep those to a minimum, and generally the result is that most of the programs that break do so because they did non-standard things (i.e. don't assume that 4.1 BROKE Switcher ... maybe read it as Switcher doesn't work under 4.1). But I want to worry about such things and try to keep the annoyances to a minimum, our fault or not. So I look at the impact of such problems and alternatives. Generally, the number one alternative is that if the upgrade will indeed break someone's productive use of the system, they are NOT required to upgrade. This is your point number one below, and a relatively cheap one. The fact is you can keep on working. So you want all the new features in 4.1??? You DO have a CHOICE to make. If you were getting work done under 3.2 with switcher, stay there. Later, when you can afford the extra memory, move on. The industry trend is towards more memory. It is reasonable for companies to design toward that end, as long as they do not disable existing customers. Growth is important. >1. Don't use System 4.1/Finder 5.5. This is unpleasant since the new >Finder has some nice features in it and System 4.1 has some Toolbox >enhancements that new programs (will) require. > >2. Don't use Switcher. This is more unpleasant than using the old >System and Finder. > >3. Buy a 2Meg upgrade. Great idea, except I think my wife would like >to eat more than watch me use Multifinder. This will eventually be >the solution. > >For me, these alternative are unpleasant. I am not alone. What about >the poor slob college student (I'm one of those too, BTW) that uses >Switcher on his upgrade Mac+ that he gave up clothing and food for and >can't afford another Meg? He's stuck (or she's stuck) too. Unfortunately, this winds up being a case of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." It is not a case, however, of Apple suggesting "Let them eat cake". You CAN continute to work as you were with no problems. If you want to take advantage of new features, do yourself a favor and ANTICIPATE some cost. You are not "stuck". You have a "lesser of two evils" CHOICE. One of those choices leaves you no worse off than you were. And I am willing to bet that Apple considered this. >I'm not suggesting that we revolt or anything, and I'm not really >blaming Apple. After all, this is how free enterprise works. You >introduce a product. Then, introduce a better one and make it as >inconvenient for the people to keep using the older, less expensive >one as possible, forcing them to upgrade. Maybe Apple should apply >their user-friendliness guidelines to their business and support as >well. It looks to me like Apple is taking the first step to shutting >out the Mac Plus users by upping the memory, speed and memory >management constraints (mostly satisfied by Mac II's now, I'll add). Well, to me it SOUNDS like you are blaming Apple, by the end of the paragraph. I do not accept that the motivation at Apple was to > make it as >inconvenient for the people to keep using the older, less expensive >one as possible, forcing them to upgrade. In the first place, I think most people buy third party memory upgrades, and Apple won't benefit there. I don't want to revist the 64K ROM issue if that is what you mean. Another way to look at this is.... At least we have a growth path, and I know that my MacPlus will not forever stay limited to 1 megabyte while the rest of the world marches on. When the time comes and I am finally able to affor this, I will better off than with some hack that allowed me to plod alongmwith the constraints I had. What I did not hear in your article is what you thought they should do What would a better approach have been? >Now, that I've made myself out to be a complete jerk in front of a lot >of people, I will say that normally, I don't complain about much. >Apple can placate me by simply fixing Switcher so I can use it. I >will gladly get Multifinder when I get my 2Meg (probably over the >winter when the cost of the CMOS upgrades get as cheap as the DRAM >ones). Until then, I want a tool I can use. Whatever you were using six month's ago should still work. >Well, this should initiate some good discussion. All I ask is that >people discuss what I've said and not attack me personally. It won't >do any good anyway. This is not a personal attack. I do feel that you could try to look at this a different way, and not read bad intentions into what Apple has done. >Take care, > >Jeff > John Gilbert -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john