comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » Mac OSX

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Mac OSX [message #27145 is a reply to message #27034]

Thu, 11 October 2001 08:23

Noam R. Izenberg
Messages: 18
Registered: March 2001

Junior Member

David Fanning wrote:

I am sympathetic. I really am. I especially

> dislike the cheesy way this whole decision
> was announced. It denotes a lack of...well,
> respect...for the people who really do pay
> the bills it seems to me.

What I fear is that Kodak management either doesn't care about, or worse, would _rather_ see the
demise of IDL and RSI in general. Perhaps someone wants to gut the company and scoop the product.

> But given all that, I don't think this decision
> will be changed. I don't know the leadership at RSI,
> or anything about them, but I don't expect them
> to change their mind for this reason.

From what I see, the financial excuse is uttery uncompelling. This is good if is indeed the real
reason. There is at least the possibility of convincing them the picture is not as dim as they
(badly) modeled. If however the finacial excuse is just a smokescreen for a political decision
("kill cross platform because we're going to windows" or some such) then I agree we're all just
spitting in the wind. If it is the latter, RSI will lose a whole lot of reputation on top of
business.

> The Mac right now, today, is not a serious
> scientific computing platform. I know, I know.
> MacOSX is going to change all that, etc., etc.
> But I don't believe it. And I doubt the folks
> making this decision at RSI believe it.

As others have posted, I would disagree. Our section of APL is ~20% Mac. The planetary group is
40-50%. But heck, even 10% is nothing to sneeze at in the land of slim margins. Most mac users
wouldn't even consider switching hardware platforms for the likes of a fickle software product. I
think it's pretty awful timing to make such a summary judgement when the next year or so will reveal
the true answer.

> Many of us using Windows today were once Mac users.
> Why did we switch? I switched, because practically
> everyone I knew was using a PC. And because the
> software I wanted to use ran better on a PC than
> it did (if it was available) on a Mac.

I switched for the same reasons 5 years ago. Then I switched _back_ because of the G4 and OS X. Even
with the slowness of some major apps to convert I'm _much_ happier. But that's just one story.

> Is that going
> to change in the next year? The next two years? I
> seriously doubt it.

Already has changed, IMO.

> RSI is recognizing a trend that
> has been going on for a long time. The Mac may be
> the cat's meow in desktop publishing, but it is
> never going to capture enough scientific computing
> market share to drive software development on that
> platform. That is an economic prediction, not
> an indictment of the Mac's number crunching
> capabilities.

Only time will tell - not much time mind you,whic his why RSI's rationale rings so hollow.

> And I am sorry to see the whole "Alternatives
> to IDL" thread appear again. We hashed this whole
> thing over several months ago. Yes, there are
> alternatives to IDL. But let's be honest, most
> of them suck in one way or the other. None of
> them, *none* of them, are going to capture more
> than an extremely small fraction of IDL users.

Depends how many real hackers and crunchers move from IDL to a new suitor and bring their talents
with them.

> I really hate to be cynical on a newsgroup I
> love so much, but I don't believe the majority
> of the people beating their chests now will really
> leave IDL.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly going to look, which I wouldn't have been doing before. _And_ I'm
not going to be saying "IDL is the coolest" to anyone anymore. Intangibles both, but good for RSI?
Nope.

> Too many colleagues, too much invested,
> too easy to buy a new Dell machine and carry on.

It will be possible, if not easy, to take a C++ course and translate most of what I do. Don't want
to do it, but I will if I have to (probably would make me a better programmer in the end). I won't
buy a new winbox just to run IDL, or _any_ program, for that matter. Not even after 10 years
writing sloppy IDL code (one of the reasons I like it is that it is so forgiving to my amateurish
coding).

> And you will end up needing the new feature IDL
> has added that is not available in whatever the
> alternative de jour is that you decided to use
> as a protest.

Such is life. That's why it's good to have codewarrior friends.

> ... But in the end, you have
> to realize that this is how things are in the
> real world. We don't always like it, I'll grant
> you that. But sometimes we have to accept it.
> Sometimes that is the best alternative of all.

I dunno. If I were you, or another "mainstream" platform IDL user, I'd really consisder that if 1
salary and associated resources is considered an unrecoverable expense to RSI/Kodak, What else is
too expensive to upgrade/maintain?

> P.S. I just saw that sales of Eastman Kodak were
> 3.5 billion last quarter. Do you really think a loss
> of a couple hundred thousand dollars of revenue from
> disgruntled customers matters to them?

It should. The PR they get for having their name associated with high profile researchis worth more
than that. The reputation damage for ditching loyal users is also worth more than that. Some of the
most disgruntled, who based major hardware purchases on the promise of IDL for OS X, are no doubt
considering legal action.Regardless of how sucessful or frivolous they might be, that too is worth
more than a couple hundred thou. A hundred though here, a hundred thou there, soon you're talking
serious money.

Noam

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Mac OSX By: Richard Adams on Mon, 08 October 2001 03:53
		Re: Mac OSX By: Dick Jackson on Wed, 10 October 2001 12:21
		Re: Mac OSX By: colinr on Thu, 11 October 2001 01:17
		Re: Mac OSX By: Dennis Boccippio on Fri, 12 October 2001 07:22
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Wed, 10 October 2001 12:46
		Re: Mac OSX By: Stein Vidar Hagfors H[1] on Wed, 10 October 2001 11:34
		Re: Mac OSX By: colinr on Thu, 11 October 2001 01:19
		Re: Mac OSX By: Paul van Delst on Wed, 10 October 2001 12:38
		Re: Mac OSX By: Todd Clements on Wed, 10 October 2001 10:43
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Wed, 10 October 2001 07:55
		Re: Mac OSX By: Noam R. Izenberg on Wed, 10 October 2001 07:22
		Re: Mac OSX By: Jaco van Gorkom on Wed, 10 October 2001 06:18
		Re: Mac OSX By: Richard Adams on Wed, 10 October 2001 05:56
		Re: Mac OSX By: Randall Skelton on Wed, 10 October 2001 05:24
		Re: Mac OSX By: Bernard K. on Wed, 10 October 2001 00:37
		Re: Mac OSX By: Rob.Preece on Fri, 12 October 2001 07:29
		Re: Mac OSX By: Bernard K. on Wed, 10 October 2001 00:33
		Re: Mac OSX By: Wayne Landsman on Tue, 09 October 2001 23:18
		Re: Mac OSX By: Randall Skelton on Tue, 09 October 2001 22:55
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Tue, 09 October 2001 21:28
		Re: Mac OSX By: gschneider on Tue, 09 October 2001 16:01
		Re: Mac OSX By: Stein Vidar Hagfors H[1] on Wed, 10 October 2001 12:20
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Tue, 09 October 2001 14:09
		Re: Mac OSX By: Mark Hadfield on Thu, 11 October 2001 13:45
		Mac Scoop (Long) By: Noam R. Izenberg on Thu, 11 October 2001 14:25
		Re: Mac Scoop (Long) By: msienkiewicz on Fri, 12 October 2001 17:30
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Thu, 11 October 2001 09:24
		Re: Mac OSX By: richard hilton on Thu, 11 October 2001 09:06
		Re: Mac OSX By: Andrew Cool on Sun, 14 October 2001 17:09
		Re: Mac OSX By: John-David T. Smith on Thu, 11 October 2001 09:06
		Re: Mac OSX By: John-David T. Smith on Fri, 12 October 2001 07:47
		Re: Mac OSX By: Martin Otte on Thu, 11 October 2001 14:49
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Thu, 11 October 2001 08:48
		Re: Mac OSX By: Noam R. Izenberg on Thu, 11 October 2001 08:23
		Re: Mac OSX By: Randall Skelton on Wed, 10 October 2001 23:01
		Re: Mac OSX By: David Fanning on Wed, 10 October 2001 21:25
		Re: Mac OSX By: John Boccio on Wed, 10 October 2001 20:19
		Re: Mac OSX By: David Fanning on Wed, 10 October 2001 19:00
		Re: Mac OSX By: Mark Hadfield on Wed, 10 October 2001 18:33
		Re: Mac OSX By: David Fanning on Wed, 10 October 2001 16:41
		Re: Mac OSX By: pit on Sat, 13 October 2001 11:44
		Re: Mac OSX By: Randall Skelton on Wed, 10 October 2001 14:54
		Re: Mac OSX By: David Fanning on Wed, 10 October 2001 13:39
		Re: Mac OSX By: Noam R. Izenberg on Wed, 10 October 2001 13:27
		Re: Mac OSX By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Wed, 10 October 2001 13:12
		Re: Mac OSX By: David Fanning on Wed, 10 October 2001 13:09
		Re: Mac OSX By: Ken Prager on Fri, 12 October 2001 09:06
		Re: Mac OSX By: Noam R. Izenberg on Fri, 12 October 2001 08:01
		Re: Mac OSX By: pit on Mon, 15 October 2001 12:21
		Re: Mac OSX By: Craig Markwardt on Sun, 14 October 2001 17:51

Previous Topic:	Re: mpfitfun.pro
Next Topic:	Re: Loop Arrays

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 20:07:02 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04801 seconds