39clocks@violet.berkeley.edu (05/02/90)
In article <9033@tank.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > >I called up APDA to inquire whether today was the last day for the MPW 3.1 >upgrades. I was told that the upgrades had been extended indefinitely, >probably until the _next_ upgrade of MPW came out. > >Thanks Apple! Now I can pay this month's bills and get my upgrades when my >finances allow. My guess is that they were not getting people to upgrade to 3.1 in anywhere near the numbers that they expected, particularly in the case of "cross language" upgrades that qualify one to purchase the "Macintosh Programmer's Workshop Suite" (a value added CD-ROM version of MPW C and Pascal) in the future. This is just a guess. I don't have any numbers to back it up. I don't know about you, but I think that APDA is going about this MPW Suite thing the wrong way. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept, I will briefly explain it as I understand it. In Apple's never ending quest to sell expensive hardware and find a less expensive way of distributing software, they have decided to release MPW on CD-ROM. The only catch is that you must own both MPW C and MPW Pascal, presumably because the disc will contain both of these compilers, to buy the CD. Now if I am programming in C, why would I want Pascal? Because I want to use MPW C++ interfaces to MACAPP so that I can write programs lickity-split style. MACAPP, of course, is written in Pascal. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that MPW C++ comes with interfaces to MACAPP and MACAPP is great (or so I hear), but the real issue here is that there is no comperable object library available for MPW C++, _yet_! I wonder how many C programmers out there are going to want buy MPW Pascal so they can get future MPW upgrades on CD-ROM (at a lower price it appears) and have access to MACAPP. And conversly, I wonder how many Pascal programmers will want to buy the MPW C compiler just to get upgrades on CD-ROM. Maybe they have always wanted to tinker with C, but never thought about buying it before, back when it was reasonably priced (the cost of upgrading to the "other" language up until last Feb 28 was $50 ($245 - $195), it now costs $150.) Now it looks like a one can save some money buying the CD-ROM versions of upgrades. For example, the C/Pascal update costs $100 on floppys and only $50 on CD, but I'm not sure if this is a clever trick on the part of Apple or whether reflects the true difference in costs between production and distribution on the two mediums. Here's my suggetion, because, yes I do want to buy CD-ROM upgrades and get all those neat value added goodies that APDA promises to stock the CD with, but no I don't want to, nor do I think that I should have to, purchase MPW Pascal (as I prefer C) just for the price of admission. Put everything that is part of the MPW environment on the CD-ROM except the C and Pascal compilers, and the C++ and MACAPP tools. Each of these could be placed on a separate disk with their most recent include/header/interface,etc. files, so that APDA could continue to sell the languages as separate products. You want C, you get a CD and a disk, same with Pascal. You want C++ or MacApp, you get a CD and two disks (that's a lot better than 24 disks). Under this scenario the CD-ROM would serve as the distribution method for everything that either common to all languages, or that can only be used if the owner also owns the compiler for the language. So we're talking the shell, tools (including Asm and SADE), Rincludes, C library and includes, C++ files, Pascal libraries, MacApp files, etc., and those nifty value added goodies. The MacApp libraries can be built in all the various ways, debuggin on/off, so that a C++ programmer would have no need for the Pascal compiler. (What's that?, a voice in the distance just told me that MacApp is not a tool, it's a mass of Pascal source. That's O.K., CD-ROM only needs compiled object files, or library files.) Peter
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (05/02/90)
In article <1990May2.071040.19290@agate.berkeley.edu> 39clocks@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > I don't know about you, but I think that APDA is going about this MPW Suite > thing the wrong way. In case you are unfamiliar with the concept, I will > briefly explain it as I understand it. [Lots of good points deleted for the sake of brevity] This all sounds pretty good except for a few points: 1) (Fact) SADE is a separate beast from the MPW suite, and (Opinion) I'm pretty sure that lots of people would balk at the idea of having to pay for its inclusion on the CD-ROM. 2) (Opinion) Putting precompiled MacApp in all of the possible incarnations that people would want it in on the CD-ROM would be silly--there are too many permutations to make that practical. 3) (Opinion) if you want a good class library, MacApp is an _excellent_ class library, and it's worth buying the Pascal compiler just to be able to use it, even if you're writing in C++. 4) (Fact) it is considerably less expensive for us to produce a single CD-ROM than for us to produce 24 floppies. Basically apart from the precompiled MacApp problem, the other suggestions seem good aside from minor logistical quibbles (like that shipping a CD-ROM _and_ a couple of floppies would pose a logistical hassle). Still, I don't think that's an overriding concern. Rick? Or anyone else from APDA? __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. 1st Choice: Paul_Snively.DTS@gateway.qm.apple.com 2nd Choice: CHEWBACCA@applelink.apple.com Last Choice: chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (05/03/90)
In article <8008@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: > 1) (Fact) SADE is a separate beast from the MPW suite Oops. Sheesh--you can tell I haven't personally had to purchase MPW recently! Our friends in product management tell me that SADE _is_ part of the MPW bundles. This is one instance in which I'm happy to be corrected; that means that the MPW bundles have even more value than I thought, since our source-level debugging system is included. (For those who might not have used all of these tools together, let me tell you, SADE comes in really handy when you're wandering around in a MacApp program!) Many thanks to Jordan Mattson for pointing out the error of my ways. :-) __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. 1st Choice: Paul_Snively.DTS@gateway.qm.apple.com 2nd Choice: CHEWBACCA@applelink.apple.com Last Choice: chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (05/03/90)
In article <1990May2.071040.19290@agate.berkeley.edu> 39clocks@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >Now if I am programming in C, why would I want Pascal? Because I want to >use MPW C++ interfaces to MACAPP so that I can write programs lickity-split >style. MACAPP, of course, is written in Pascal. Don't get me wrong, I >think it is great that MPW C++ comes with interfaces to MACAPP and MACAPP is >great (or so I hear), but the real issue here is that there is no comperable >object library available for MPW C++, _yet_! Larry briefly hit on this point in his response, but I wanted to emphasize it. If you by MacApp on CD-ROM, then you get over 20 pre-built configurations. This obviates the need for Pascal (of course, this doesn't take into account that Pascal is a way cool language and doesn't need to have its existance justified :-). >Now it looks like a one can save some money buying the CD-ROM versions of >upgrades. For example, the C/Pascal update costs $100 on floppys and only >$50 on CD, but I'm not sure if this is a clever trick on the part of Apple >or whether reflects the true difference in costs between production and >distribution on the two mediums. Other people have responded to other parts of your letter. I just wanted add here that I think I heard that the breakpoint for CD-ROM prices was something like two floppies. In other words, if we were to ship something that required more than two floppies, then it's cheaper for us to ship it on CD instead. It's not some clever trick. We WANT to make things cheaper for you, and this is just one way of doing it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. --- Developer Technical Support INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "Argue for your Apple, and sure enough, it's yours" - Keith Rollin, Contusions