What's this all mean?
So what about the mac user (i.e. me) that has a new Mac right now... In two years does that make my machine unupgradeable? Will I not be able to buy the newest version of Photoshop for Mac in two years cause I'm on powerpc?
Is it even worth me helping my mom get a mac right now?
This seems like it kind of bites.
Any thoughts?
Is it even worth me helping my mom get a mac right now?
This seems like it kind of bites.
Any thoughts?
Comments
1. Why are bottom end machines going Intel first?
2. Is Intel bring out a new 64 bit chip for the professional Macs (Can I still call them Power Macs?)
3. Will Apple allow third party manufacturers possibly - HP to make OSX boxes?
4. Are the PC's (Do we call them PC's now?) loaned to developers sealed boxes, I bet you can't open them. ( where is Dorsal he was the sealed box expert)
5. Is this the end of firewire?
6. I bet OSX for PPC is done. We will get 10.4.xx updates, but no 10.5 Leopard.
7. There's got to be a seven.
Does this mean that we will have access to pro video cards?
Are macs going back to single processor?
What about programs that had alot of altivec enhancements?
Why would they spill this now? Hardware sales are gonna tank until next June.
Are they going to put those ugly, "Intel Inside" stickers on the new macs?
The only positive things that I could think of for the transition is that the new
computers may be a little cheaper.
It just seems like I woke up in BizzaroWorld today. I thought that IBM was
getting out of its funk with the news that all 3 next gen processors will be
based on the power PC. Isn't the Xbox 360 running triple-core at 3ghz? I just
had a gut feeling before the conference that Apple was gonna go multicore.
My gut was 180 degrees off on that one.
Applications compiled with X-code will produce "fat binaries" which have code for both processors. Therefore, going forward for many years Apple will support both processors.
For those applications that are compiled for PPC only then future versions of Mac OS X will include Rosetta, a translator that will execute those programs on an Intel based Mac.
Presumably there will be no such thing as an application compiled for Intel only.
Note that this gives Apple an escape hatch. In case IBM pulls a miracle out of its hat and produces a spectacular processor all of the existing Apple software would run on it.
Why would they spill this now? Hardware sales are gonna tank until next June.
Yeah it sure would seem so ~ I was planning on getting an iMac... now I don't know if that would be a good idea.
Apple has has tried -- not always successfully -- to have the highest performance PCs on the market. It was a legacy that started with the phrase, "The 68000 eats the 8086 for breakfast."
There are several reasons, I suspect, why Apple is waiting until 2007 for the high-end. Here are the big two:
1. To see if IBM is willing to talk about Cell with them.
2. To see if Intel is willing to build a new chip that dumps the stupid stuff (MMX, SSE2, stack based FPU) in favor of a beefy SIMD unit and an FPU that doesn't have it's roots in the stone age.
What's interesting is that Intel has been waiting for YEARS for a golden opportunity to advance their flagship platform architecturally. Since the X86 today is basically little different than the 970 (both have a "RISC" core fed by a microcode interpreter), there's no reason (or need) to ditch core X86 compatibility.
The Windows/PC market is too hyper-competitive for any player to take a big chance on technology that deviates from very dated standards. But Apple WANTS a semi-proprietary chip, and Intel WANTS to phase in better technology into their X86 product lineup. Apple is the perfect accomplice for Intel. I hope that by going with Intel, Apple gives Intel a chance to really stretch their chip-architecting legs, because Steve was very correct in assessing that Intel has the best minds in the industry.
I am now stuck with a G4 iBook and G5 iMac. Will FCP HD be around on the PPC platform in 3 years?
Steve Jobs could not have been any more vauge if he wanted too.
I wonder what this will do to Linux distro's?
Originally posted by debenm
Yeah it sure would seem so ~ I was planning on getting an iMac... now I don't know if that would be a good idea.
I say go for it. The iMac is a beautiful, powerful pice of hardware. Apple will support it way into the future both in terms of its hardware and the OS and apps that runs on it.
5. Is this the end of firewire?
Current PC's have firewire
Originally posted by surfacenuts
I say go for it. The iMac is a beautiful, powerful pice of hardware. Apple will support it way into the future both in terms of its hardware and the OS and apps that runs on it.
I think you are nuts. Apple basically just announced that this will be orphaned hardware in a year and a half.
Originally posted by Atrox
Current PC's have firewire
Its not the end because Apple will still design the Computers regardless of the processor. Thus they will still have firewire (unless Intel leans REALLY hard on them, USB being an Intel tech)
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I think you are nuts. Apple basically just announced that this will be orphaned hardware in a year and a half.
Orphaned?
In 2 years, if Adobe releases a new Photoshop, it will be a universal binary. The PPC Photoshop will still be there. Your iMac G5 will still be there to run it.
How in the world does this "orphan" anything?
Originally posted by lundy
Orphaned?
In 2 years, if Adobe releases a new Photoshop, it will be a universal binary. The PPC Photoshop will still be there. Your iMac G5 will still be there to run it.
How in the world does this "orphan" anything?
That's right, and that's also why Leopard would work on both platform. Since the beginning mac os X was developped for both platform PPC and X86 : why should it be different right now ?
Originally posted by lundy
Orphaned?
In 2 years, if Adobe releases a new Photoshop, it will be a universal binary. The PPC Photoshop will still be there. Your iMac G5 will still be there to run it.
How in the world does this "orphan" anything?
Exactly. In fact, this may be a good time to buy a Mac as the prices may be reduced. Hum, Dual 2.7 G5 for $1800.
Reading the replies above, it seems that we could be processor agnostic in future with all apps running on all processors. At any time Apple could just release a new machine with any processor it liked.
I can't believe that SJ would agree to "Intel Inside" though, unless it was stuck to the bottom!
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Bottom end will go first, because the X86 FPU sucks. Plus, it doesn't do SIMD. For the bottom end, though, the Pentium-M seems fine. . . Almost perfect, really.
Apple has has tried -- not always successfully -- to have the highest performance PCs on the market. It was a legacy that started with the phrase, "The 68000 eats the 8086 for breakfast."
There are several reasons, I suspect, why Apple is waiting until 2007 for the high-end. Here are the big two:
1. To see if IBM is willing to talk about Cell with them.
2. To see if Intel is willing to build a new chip that dumps the stupid stuff (MMX, SSE2, stack based FPU) in favor of a beefy SIMD unit and an FPU that doesn't have it's roots in the stone age.
What's interesting is that Intel has been waiting for YEARS for a golden opportunity to advance their flagship platform architecturally. Since the X86 today is basically little different than the 970 (both have a "RISC" core fed by a microcode interpreter), there's no reason (or need) to ditch core X86 compatibility.
The Windows/PC market is too hyper-competitive for any player to take a big chance on technology that deviates from very dated standards. But Apple WANTS a semi-proprietary chip, and Intel WANTS to phase in better technology into their X86 product lineup. Apple is the perfect accomplice for Intel. I hope that by going with Intel, Apple gives Intel a chance to really stretch their chip-architecting legs, because Steve was very correct in assessing that Intel has the best minds in the industry.
Yes the SIMD unit of the PPC is way above the ones (MMX, SSE and concort) of the Intel chips. I expect that Apple will help Intel developping a shining SIMD unit for X86 chips (because one thing is sure, those Intel chips will be based upon the X86 chip : the P4 3,6 ghz of the developper kit proove that).
The good point, is for the first time, we should really compare a software on both OS : mac os X and microsoft. That will be interesting.
1. I dont like this all either (hearing coldplay-clocks in this moment) it helps me to handle this Intel switch
2. Fact is that Intel is fast in devolping CPUs and technics. Imagine Intel had DDR2 or PCI-E 2 years ago but nobody wanted to use it immidently. Apple could do so ! And could bring state of the Art Macs before PCs could dream of that. Apple gets all help the need from Intel I think.(Intel wants them too not Apple only wants Intel
3. And for the Fact of the heat/power issuse of the Pentium 4. This Chip will die !!! It will never find a way in the Mac (except dev-box). Intel has its future in hand as they said ! The Centrino(Banias/Dothan) with 2 ghz a Dothan need less power than a G4 with impressive features and is faster than a 3,2 GHz P4 !!!! Thats the future and Intel said future chips will evulate from the Centrino in Desktop and Mobile. In 2006 we even see Dualcore Centrinos in Laptops, I Hope Powerbooks.
4. And after all, the PowerMac G5 isnt slow !!! And future Operating systems will run PPC and x86 and if you now buy a Powermac G5 you will have him 2-3 years or more than you maybe should/could switch. Since than a PowerMac G5 is better than any Pentium 4 from Intel. And dont forget 2007 will be the year of all Intel Mac and also 10.5 the next system will come end 06 but more likely 07 and this system is the first which supports PPC+x86 ! so ... For the next 2-3 years maybe even 4 no problem with software or apps .....
Buy a G5 ! I will buy the refresh in September because I still know that there is a dual core G5 and it will come ! Xbox has it and Nintendo too. So there will be dual core or simply 3 GHz so this Powermac will be mine with PCI-E and better enclosure.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I think you are nuts. Apple basically just announced that this will be orphaned hardware in a year and a half.
If Jobs is being sincere, then the life of an iMac purchased today will be as long and as fruitful as it would be if Apple stayed with IBM because OS X is apparently a dual platform OS. I was going to buy a new apple laptop today if they announced one; I will still buy one as soon as they're announced. I'll even buy a used one or current new one once I feel sure the prices have stabilized. I'll be grumpy if something I buy today drops in value by $300 tomorrow because of an update. Nothing else holds me back. Current Apples rock and will continue to until corrosion and spilled softdrinks kill them.
Originally posted by mello
Will this transition increase the chances of getting a computer virus?
My understanding: the processor has nothing to do with a computer's vulnerability; that is determined by the OS. What will make OS X vulnerable is how well it is written AND the determination of naughty young men who want to attack it, which in turn is proportional to the popularity of the OS. OS X gets more popular, then it becomes a more vulnerable target. Correct me, wise ones, if I am wrong.
Originally posted by Addison
6. I bet OSX for PPC is done. We will get 10.4.xx updates, but no 10.5 Leopard.
Ummmm...Jobs said it would be a 2 year transition starting at NEXT years WWDC, which is when 10.5 is going to be released. So you are incorrect.