🚀 go-pugleaf

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