| Re: Mac OS info [message #27124] |
Thu, 11 October 2001 14:02  |
Mark Hadfield
Messages: 783
Registered: May 1995
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> The RSI staff had a company wide meeting this morning.
> I happened to call a contact just after and
> talked for a while. I have some info, some changed opinions,
> and a potential route to more information later today.
Thanks.
NB: I wrote my message in the other thread asking you for more info about
the financial aspects before I saw this.
I just spoke to CEO Mike Scally(?) who estimated the cost of fully
developing & supporting Mac OS X as $0.5M. Not peanuts. Several times he
mentioned that it used a very different code base from other versions.
> - RSI's sales dropped 50% 1999 to 2000
What!? This worries me much more than loss of Mac support. (Not that I don't
sympathise guys, but I've got a PC and a hungry ocean model to support.)
---
Mark Hadfield
m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz http://katipo.niwa.cri.nz/~hadfield
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research
--
Posted from clam.niwa.cri.nz [202.36.29.1]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OS info [message #27133 is a reply to message #27124] |
Thu, 11 October 2001 10:36  |
Ken Prager
Messages: 4
Registered: October 2001
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <3BC5CFEC.A3F1154B@jhuapl.edu>,
"Noam R. Izenberg" <noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> The RSI staff had a company wide meeting this morning. I happened to call a
> contact just after and
> talked for a while. I have some info, some changed opinions, and a potential
> route to more
> information later today.
>
> Changes:
> I'm convinced Kodak has little or nothing to do with the decision. Aside from
> more meetings and
> profitability pressure, Kodak is not seen as dictating anything to RSI.
>
> I'm convinced that the decision to drop OS X was financially based, though
> that further convinces me
> the analysis was wrongheaded and/or incomplete. The following points are what
> I gleaned. YMMV
> - RSI's sales dropped 50% 1999 to 2000
> - The largest new contract was either not mac and/or not supportive of Mac
> updates.
> - The largest mac contractor was not up for helping with OS X development
> costs
> - Apple itself was stingy with information (regarding market predictions for
> OS X) and unwilling to
> help development other than with some hardware.
> - RSI realized that with just Thierry doing the programming, the whole
> project was a pizza truck
> accident away from total loss, so at least a backup programmer was needed ->
> more expense.
>
> I still think they're wrong about the recoverability of the expense, but
> that's for another
> conversation.
>
> Info:
> At today's meeting two possibilities were discussed:
> 1) Support of IDL 5.5 in Classic mode of OS X is being considered. I already
> use 5.4 in Classic mode
> at Iwould say 95% efficiency even without support. [Opinion: Thismightgive
> IDL time to observe the
> market response to OS X to re-evaluate their decision]
> 2) A port or emulator for IDL into Mac Linux is being considered.Not an
> aqua-ized total rewrite, but
> something to let us run IDL natively inOS X nonetheless. [Opinion: as a
> command line user of IDL,
> this would be plenty for me.]
> Also: Thierry, though relieved of OS X is still salaried and/or retained
> until the end ofthe year,
> and is apparently being taken good care of. Indicates he (hopefully) woiuld
> not be averse to coming
> backtothe project (even as a contractor).
> Also: Management has been at least somewhat receptive to reported offers from
> oputsiders to finish
> at least a port, if not full a OS X version.
> Also: Our concerns are being heard and given a company wide floor to air.
> Also: The information to customers is recognized as being poor and
> insufficient. They are working
> on better communications. The proof of that will be seen o rnot in the next
> few days.
>
> Hopefully more later,
>
> Noam
Thanks for the update!
Ken Prager
|
|
|
|
| Re: Mac OS info [message #27202 is a reply to message #27124] |
Fri, 12 October 2001 07:11 |
Dennis Boccippio
Messages: 23
Registered: July 2000
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <005101c15298$0db30ff0$d938a8c0@Hadfield>,
"Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz> wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> NB: I wrote my message in the other thread asking you for more info about
> the financial aspects before I saw this.
>
> I just spoke to CEO Mike Scally(?) who estimated the cost of fully
> developing & supporting Mac OS X as $0.5M. Not peanuts. Several times he
> mentioned that it used a very different code base from other versions.
>
This makes the issue even more disconcerting. $500K is about 250-300
licenses at Un*x rates. I really find it hard to believe there won't be
that many converts from Un*x boxes (or new Powerbook license purchases),
and that the "review of the current MacOS user base" neglects this
factor.
It costs us a *heck* of a lot more to maintain our boutique SGIs (almost
solely for the purpose of running IDL) than our desktop machines. IT
support is higher, memory expansion is more expensive, network card
upgrades are more expensive, we can't add low-cost FireWire drives for
disk expansion (a BIG drawback), etc, and we usually also have to
maintain a desktop Mac or PC in the same office _anyway_.
In our small group of 12, we have 4 Mac owners, only one of which ponied
up for an IDL/MacOS license, primarily because IDL/MacOS was hobbled by
the non-multitasking thing. I know the other 3 would go IDL/OS-X if it
were available. The reduced maintenance costs would even justify buying
these as new licenses, rather than platform conversions, and even at
Un*x rates. That doesn't even consider new licenses for Powerbooks.
~100 similar stories would add up to $500K pretty quickly...
- Dennis Boccippio
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
