Whats coming in the next year

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    It doesn't make sense to make the Powermac last to upgrade to intel for many reasons. The biggest reason is that these are the PRO machines. These are the machines that developers use more than any other machine. This is what devs will need to start porting (without renting what is avail now). This is why I call BS on the mac mini and iBooks being first to be updated. It doesn't make sense!



    And yet it does, if Apple is fairly comfortable with where the 970 will be in the next 12-18 months, even if they need to Quad up the processors to keep up, then they can wait for the pro-software developers like Adobe, Macromedia (aka Adobe), Microsoft, etc to come out with their recompiled applications. The conusmer market is more flexable for Apple since they make and supply a fair amount of the "neccessary" software for the aveage consumer in their iLife package. Also, with the exception of games, the consumer level software is less likely to rely heavily on Altivec and "machine code" programing for optimization, so one would assume that they will be easier to port over to the Intel version of the OS. I'm sure that Apple will be in contact with all of the developers that they feel are essential to the consumer and pro markets, and if the recompiling goes smoothly and Apple feels that they can push up the pro market switch then they will.
  • Reply 22 of 34
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,406member
    The point wasn't speed... the point is developers are going to want intel machines (quick ones) to work with and build their apps on. But lets say apple does this: (this will fit your plan)...



    Apple releases intel iBooks and mac minis.. and perhaps powerbooks. But at the same time offers developers MACHINES THEY CAN KEEP.. quick ones. It doesn't make any sense to me for apple to ask for these dev machines back. If they aren't ready for the market than they aren't ready... its nice they are giving a preview... but come on... lets get the devs something they can keep. Not all devs make 1k+ on their software.
  • Reply 23 of 34
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    It doesn't make sense to make the Powermac last to upgrade to intel for many reasons. The biggest reason is that these are the PRO machines. These are the machines that developers use more than any other machine. This is what devs will need to start porting (without renting what is avail now). This is why I call BS on the mac mini and iBooks being first to be updated. It doesn't make sense!



    Whether it makes sense to you or not, that is what we know is going to happen; deal.



    Top end G5's will be updated and remain competitive for a good two years yet. It is also strategic for Apple to retain IBM based machines for some time to encourage developers to to use X-Code and maintain the dual binary capability. Steve likes to keep everybody on their toes.
  • Reply 24 of 34
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,406member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinney57

    Whether it makes sense to you or not, that is what we know is going to happen; deal.



    Where is the proof? You don't know this is gonna happen yet. Apple needs a developer machine that is intel. Mac minis and ibooks are not developer machines; devs come first before consumers; deal. Just because cnet said "they heard" that was the plan, doesn't mean that's how its going to be. Powermacs were always the first to sport the transition technology. 68k->ppc, ADB->USB, USB->USB2, Single Processor->DualProcessor, DRAM->DDR, IDE->SATA, PCI->AGP, fw->fw800. There is a reason for all of this besides maybe the ram and harddrive interfaces... Developers needed them for testing and programming.



    Quote:

    It is also strategic for Apple to retain IBM based machines for some time to encourage developers to to use X-Code and maintain the dual binary capability. Steve likes to keep everybody on their toes.



    There isn't any other option for intel applications at this point in time but to use XCode and dual binary. what are you talking about? Developers won't be able to test Intel compatibility without intel machines. Developers need these machines. Not every developer out there is going to jump on the "leasing intel" idea.



    This is how its been since day 1: Devs first, Consumers second.
  • Reply 25 of 34
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,063member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JCG

    The conusmer market is more flexable for Apple since they make and supply a fair amount of the "neccessary" software for the aveage consumer in their iLife package.



    This sounds right. The first Macs to go Intel will probably be the G4s, as they are all consumer based (with the notable exception of the PowerBook) and come with all the software any home user needs already there.



    I can even see something like the eMac being first, as schools may want a computer that can run MacOS and a good VirtualPC Windows. Next, the iBook for the same reason of school purchases. Then the Mac mini.



    But since the iMac is a G5, maybe Intel will have something 64-bit ready by the time this one is ready to transition.



    This would make a great real-world test for Apple before committing the Pro Macs to Intel to see what issues arise.
  • Reply 26 of 34
    emig647emig647 Posts: 2,406member
    I agree with you guys that think that the g4's will come out first with intel chips... AS LONG AS their are intel developer machines. Without those machines... it makes no sense to produce a machine without any fully compatible software available (besides apple's and big companies). Just because you can make a FAT program on a ppc... doesn't mean it will necessarily work 100% on the intel side. Intel Developer machines are a MUST before any consumer machines. Honestly it makes more sense to move everything at once then over a transitional period.



    BTW as of 2 weeks ago, all of intels cpu's are 64bit.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    It doesn't make any sense to me for apple to ask for these dev machines back.



    That's pretty typical. Steve mentioned that he didn't want these machines "floating around out there" Meaning he doesn't want people buying and selling these things, with Apple's rep on the line.
  • Reply 28 of 34
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    It doesn't make sense to make the Powermac last to upgrade to intel for many reasons. The biggest reason is that these are the PRO machines. These are the machines that developers use more than any other machine. This is what devs will need to start porting (without renting what is avail now). This is why I call BS on the mac mini and iBooks being first to be updated. It doesn't make sense!



    No, it makes perfect sense. The dual-core Intel chips intended to replace the G5 chips will not be available until late 2006. The dual-core Intel chips intended to replace the G4 chips will be available in early 2006 and from recent reports maybe even sooner. That's why. Hell, they don't even have to wait that long to update the consumer Macs. They could build one with a single-core Pentium M right now if they want. That's all they need for the Mac mini and iBook really.
  • Reply 29 of 34
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 1984

    No, it makes perfect sense. The dual-core Intel chips intended to replace the G5 chips will not be available until late 2006. The dual-core Intel chips intended to replace the G4 chips will be available in early 2006 and from recent reports maybe even sooner. That's why. Hell, they don't even have to wait that long to update the consumer Macs. They could build one with a single-core Pentium M right now if they want. That's all they need for the Mac mini and iBook really.



    Beyond that, wouldn't a dual core chip require a new motherboard design? Why would Apple produce a new motherboard for a model of powermac which will only last a year tops?



    As well, Apple is going to be careful so that the first batch of Intel powermacs perform better than the PPC's they will be replacing. dual core 3Ghz G5's will be tough to top in that regards, especially with velocity engine apps.
  • Reply 30 of 34
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Beyond that, wouldn't a dual core chip require a new motherboard design? Why would Apple produce a new motherboard for a model of powermac which will only last a year tops?



    As well, Apple is going to be careful so that the first batch of Intel powermacs perform better than the PPC's they will be replacing. dual core 3Ghz G5's will be tough to top in that regards, especially with velocity engine apps.




    Remember when SJ said there were lots of great PPC products in the pipeline? They have been working on them for quite some time. It would be foolish for them to just throw out all that time and effort and just let the PowerMacs rot until suitable Intel chips become available. They already have the next PPC based PowerMacs under developement so they might as well put them to use.



    Also, I doubt very much that we will see a dual-core G5 running at 3 GHz. This is about as likely as peace in the Middle East. More likely the first dual-core G5 will top out at 2.3 GHz and even that is unlikely. This is IBM we are talking about.
  • Reply 31 of 34
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by emig647

    Where is the proof? You don't know this is gonna happen yet.



    Er.. yeah we do actually; various statements by Apple, the keynote, the Intel roadmap, the PPC roadmap blah, blah, balh. All perfectly logical.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by 1984

    Remember when SJ said there were lots of great PPC products in the pipeline? [quote]



    Come on, this is "Steve Jobs" EVERYTHING Apple makes is great





    Quote:

    They have been working on them for quite some time. It would be foolish for them to just throw out all that time and effort and just let the PowerMacs rot until suitable Intel chips become available. They already have the next PPC based PowerMacs under developement so they might as well put them to use.



    Thats true, I do hope the Powermac goes out with a bang as opposed to a whimper.



    Quote:

    This is IBM we are talking about.



    Speaking of IBM, I wonder how those 3.2 GHZ Xbox chips are coming?
  • Reply 33 of 34
    brendonbrendon Posts: 642member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Beyond that, wouldn't a dual core chip require a new motherboard design? Why would Apple produce a new motherboard for a model of powermac which will only last a year tops?



    As well, Apple is going to be careful so that the first batch of Intel powermacs perform better than the PPC's they will be replacing. dual core 3Ghz G5's will be tough to top in that regards, especially with velocity engine apps.




    Agreed...



    Yohna based Macs first, then the PowerMacs.



    iBooks, Powerbooks, minis, maybe iMacs, and later in 2006 Intel will be shipping the chips that Apple will use in the PowerMacs. I see no reason for Apple to spend the resources to make a new MB so they can switch in one year or less for the PowerMac.
  • Reply 34 of 34
    pbpb Posts: 4,233member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Speaking of IBM, I wonder how those 3.2 GHZ Xbox chips are coming?



    Those Xbox chips are rather simple processors (compared to a G5) and can be clocked high. If the G5 evolution in the last 2 years can be an indication, I would say that IBM is struggling with the G5 in the lab. No wonder why the Apple/IBM relation did go to the trash can, given the technical issues, requiring huge investment from IBM's part to be solved, and the rather low absolute income from the Power Mac following the G5 release.
Sign In or Register to comment.