
Review: Bad Apple - alwillis
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39925/page1/
======
alwillis
I've come to expect better researched and sourced articles from the Technology
Review.

 _Lion's most obvious failings are the frequent crashes of its mail reader,
calendar program, and PDF Preview utility._

Mac OS X 10.7 ”Lion” started with some issues, as do all new operating systems
--it was only released last July. But the issues weren't show-stoppers as the
article implies. 10.7.3 addressed a bunch of issues and it was released on
February 1st.

 _The Mac has also become less reliable for developers, experimenters, and
hackers._

I'm mostly in this category of user and this hasn't been my experience at all.
In fact, things have only gotten better for developers, tinkerers and hackers
thanks to Apple's more modular approach to developer tools and support for
command line toolchains with Command Line Tools for Xcode:
<https://developer.apple.com/downloads/index.action>. Clang
(<http://clang.llvm.org/>) is nothing to sneeze at either.

 _Now developers are reporting that Apple's upcoming "Mountain Lion" release
will drop support for many computers that Apple was selling just a few years
ago—computers that still run great, but which are no longer covered by the
AppleCare warranty._

The implication seems to be that Apple is intentionally leaving these machines
out of the Mountain Lion upgrade game because they're no longer under
warranty, presumably to force those users to buy new hardware if they want to
run Mountain Lion. Bastards! ;-)

Without mentioning that whenever Apple or Microsoft (or even Canonical with
Ubuntu) releases a new operating system, there's almost always hardware that
ran the older version but won't run the new hotness. Or if it can run the new
thing, it can't take advantage of all the new features. This has been true in
the computer industry for decades; it's nothing new.

It's less controversial, but how about that Mountain Lion requires modern
graphics capabiity and hardware that can boot a 64-bit kernel?
[http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/16/os-x-10-8-mountain-lion-
syste...](http://osxdaily.com/2012/02/16/os-x-10-8-mountain-lion-system-
requirements/). Apple also knows that performance would suck on older machines
even if they could run Mountain Lion. Who wants that?

I could go on, but you get the idea: take a bunch of unreleated, unattributed
things, put them in an article and suggest some wrong doing by Apple with
basically no evidence and see what happens.

