I saw a lot of OS9-boot PowerMacs being sold at my University's shop after it was learned that OS9 boot Macs were on their way out. Just as there are people always looking for the latest greatesst, there are people happy to hang on to the current state of affairs as long as possible. I still have some odd-ball software I use that requires classic. I love OSX with classic support and will consider buying the last of the PPC Macs just to make sure I have a way of using the old software.
No bs,
Just look at the price of MDD OS 9 Mac's on Ebay. They are going for about as much as iMac G5's. I would bet they would still sell if Apple made them. Also remember, Intel Mac's Intel Mac's won't have Classic. So the PM G5's will be in damand for a while. Many production companies have custom softwear that will take a while to port over. . A q u a M a c .
... what makes you think OSX will be a laggard in performance? Why wouldn't Apple go to great lengths to optimize their funky hi tech unix for X86? Microsoft is the one who has a plethora of hardware their OS must run on; Apple can tightly control the hardware platform and optimize for that platform (X86, X86-64, etc)...
Apple and its developers has a couple obstacles in order to beat Windows in performance.
1. The OS and its apps has to run on two completely different platforms. You didn't really think that Apple will abandon PPC on the day that the Intel Mac arrives? The dual support will need to continue for a few more years. OTOH, Microsoft only has to support one platform. Apple and developers need to do double the work with less resources than the Windows side.
2. All of the current apps are PPC optimized and it won't be Intel optimized overnight. A Wintel machine running a optimized photoshop vs. a Mac running a unoptimized photoshop. Who is likely to win? Steve mentioned how easy it is to make a Cocoa app run on Intel. But running on Intel and being fully-optimized are two different things.
That being said, I'm not worried about the OS. OS X has been leading a double-life for quite a while now. I'm sure Intel OS X will be fully optimized by the time it's released. It's the apps that I'm worried about.
Compiling for two architectures does NOT "double the work" for developers. Not even close.
You've clearly never run, eg:, Linux, which supports virtually every architecture out there. I run Gentoo, on my powerbook, because it allows me to OPTIMISE the linux software for my specific model of G4, the 7450. And while GCC, a PLATFORM INDEPENDANT compiler, compiles pretty good code on G4 and possibly G5 (never run a G5 system myself), where it REALLY sings is compiling for...
...anyone?...
...X86. Because far more people run X86, way more work is put into it. The only people working on optimizing GCC output for PPC970 is like 3 guys at IBM.
I've encountered maybe 3 endian issues on PPC over 4 years. All have been fixed.
People, computers do MATH, and MATH is not platform specific.
The same C, C++, C#, Objective C, Fortran, whatever, code can be compiled for almost all architectures.
And by using your same flawed logic, PC developers will have less work to do in porting to Mactel than MacPPC. Capiche?
Um, the UI for starters. Seriously, Linux is reknowned for fugly UI's, like KDE themes and such, but XP is bested by many linux UI's in terms of classiness and usability. No kidding, every time I see a Windows XP screenshot, I mistake it for linux, and think Jesus H Christ, that's a fugly theme they're running on KDE. God, X11 really looks rough. Oh wait... that's Windows?!!
Web browsing, for another, which has led to unprecedented success with Mozilla Firefox. HTTP pipelining, multiple open sockets, tabbed browsing, etc.
Windows has been standing still for... a long time. Longhorn may change all that, but of course we won't know for... a long time.
What, another year and a half? And face it, 1.0 releases from Microsoft have a bad legacy going on...
And by using your same flawed logic, PC developers will have less work to do in porting to Mactel than MacPPC. Capiche?
1337_5L4Xx0R,
Calm down a little. Did I personally attack you in some way?
I was just mentioning a possibility that crossed my mind. If I was worried about nothing. No problem. I will accept that. But please remember that this is just a forum. We exchange ideas here. No need to get excited about it.
Um, the UI for starters. Seriously, Linux is reknowned for fugly UI's, like KDE themes and such, but XP is bested by many linux UI's in terms of classiness and usability.
That's a very general statement which contains very little useful information. I could say the same about OSX UI.
If you don't like it, change it. XP allows you to change UI however you want to.
Quote:
Web browsing, for another, which has led to unprecedented success with Mozilla Firefox. HTTP pipelining, multiple open sockets, tabbed browsing, etc.
Web browsing is an application and not part of OS.
Quote:
Windows has been standing still for... a long time.
Again, I can say the same thing about OSX. The statement contains very little useful information.
Anything else?
Quote:
Longhorn may change all that, but of course we won't know for... a long time.
Originally posted by snoopy I half expect Apple to make a presentation about the transition, aimed at customers and stock holders alike. If you think about it, the switch to Intel can be spun into something very positive for the present, eliminating most concerns about PPC Macs.
There isn't much positive spin to put on it, other than what we heard at WWDC. Apple is switching to an all PC lineup. Two brains are indeed better than one, but a brain transplant is a terrifically risky venture. The company is gambling its future. Apple is apparently hoping that uninformed customers will continue to purchase Macs. We'll find out over the next year and a half what percentage of Apple's base is informed. (I'm not saying those of you who choose to purchase Macs are uninformed, yet many of you are probably drinking too much of the company's special Kool-Aid, thereby distorting your vision of what this transition will necessarily entail.) Apple and its BoD apparently felt backed into a corner, and assuming that was the case the company did what it needed to do. But let's not treat this transition as anything other than what it is - an immense trial by fire that may prove to be Apple's Waterloo. Let's hope the decision was made for the right reasons. (It is not unfathomable to envision a minor spat with IBM leading an irate Jobs to this course, but such a scenario has to be most unlikely, right?)
The company is gambling its future. Apple is apparently hoping that uninformed customers will continue to purchase Macs. We'll find out over the next year and a half what percentage of Apple's base is informed. (I'm not saying those of you who choose to purchase Macs are uninformed, yet many of you are probably drinking too much of the company's special Kool-Aid, thereby distorting your vision of what this transition will necessarily entail.)
So if I need more speed and Apple releases a dual processor dual core Power Mac G5 next month, I'm either uninformed or an Apple fan boy if I buy it?
Steve probably has his programmers locked up in some cell programming away to make sure that OS X will be fully Intel optimized. But will Adobe (and others) do the same? Not likely.
Why not? Adobe can reuse the Intel optimized code in the Mac OS X versions of their apps.
So if I need more speed and Apple releases a dual processor dual core Power Mac G5 next month, I'm either uninformed or an Apple fan boy if I buy it?
No, I didn't say that. The geek-vanguard of Apple's user base does, however, fall into one of four categories: Those who will purchase Macs because they legitimately desire them, those who will purchase Macs just for the sake of it (fan-boys), those who will wait for Mactels before purchasing again, and those who are making their Linux contingency plans. I adore my G5 and love the Macintosh platform. I love Apple. But the platform I love is phased for extinction, to be replaced by a line of Apple PCs that will run OS X. We don't know how well or poorly this transition will play out, but I do know my purchasing plans and recommendations were very different in May.
No they aren't. The PowerPC Macs will be replaced by a line of x86 based Macs.
If a Mac is a Mac because of the processor, a PowerPC Mac wouldn't be a Mac either then.
If these were Macs, Apple's entire future would not be in serious jeopardy. This transition represents a considerable discontinuity with all that has come before. This is decidedly unlike the PPC transition a decade ago. These are not Macs. I hope and pray that a couple of years from now I will have been proven wrong, the transition will have gone well, and Apple's Mactels will truly merit being called Macs. Right now, at best, I can call them Mactels.
If these were Macs, Apple's entire future would not be in serious jeopardy. This transition represents a considerable discontinuity with all that has come before. This is decidedly unlike the PPC transition a decade ago.
Hmm, a transition to a new processor, fat binaries - sounds about the same to me.
And who says that Apple's future is in serious jeopardy?
If these were Macs, Apple's entire future would not be in serious jeopardy. This transition represents a considerable discontinuity with all that has come before. . .
I posted these comments in another thread, but they seem applicable here. Sorry to be picky, but only a few things about this move to Intel could put Apple in jeopardy.
1) Going with a supplier that cannot deliver the goods? We can forget this one, as Apple will be better off than ever with regard to supply of chips of every kind.
2) Loss of customers? I don't know about this one, but I sense Apple will attract as many new customers as it alienates current customers. Likely however, most folks care more about performance than what CPU is inside.
3) Loss of developers? I got a call from a developer just before the WWDC keynote, while he was waiting for Steve to come on stage . Neither he nor the others with him believed the rumors about Intel. Afterward, he was almost in disbelief. Now, he is rather enthusiastic about it and thinks the move to Intel will work fine. That's what I see. Maybe you see something different?
Big Mac, if someone sat you down in front of a mac with intel chips in it, you'd have no idea what was inside it and would assume it had a PPC.
This is because processors do math, whether it is a G4 or a P4.
To say 'it is not a mac because it has a pentium chipset in it' is, as someone pointed out, like saying 'it is not a mac because it does not have a 680x0 processor in it'
Apple's finally doing something about their all too frequently really lame system specs, finally achieve permanent processor parity with the Wintel world, and all you can do is complain, and say the sky is falling.
I'm first in line for a Yonah powerbook. It WON'T have a 166mhz system bus, I can promise you that.
You've been drinking the mac koolaid for so long, you've clearly no idea what Intel has coming, versus what Freescale and IBM have coming. If you did, you wouldn't complain, believe me.
BTW, I don't give a shit what is what according to MS or its mother.
Quote:
There isn't much positive spin to put on it, other than what we heard at WWDC.
You have consider one things:
=> At WWDC Jobs was addressing the geek developer crowd. So of course he couldn't tell them that it's going to be as easy as pie. They would laugh at him.
Quote:
Two brains are indeed better than one, but a brain transplant is a terrifically risky venture. The company is gambling its future.
No shit. That's why it's left upto the pros.
And in high tech sector, constantly gambling your future in THE ONLY WAY to succeed, to stay competitive.
The ignorant among us will not know the differece.
The curious among us will try it and make their own conclusions.
If Apple gets the software transition right, which I'm sure they will, the hardware will not disappoint.
Comments
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
I saw a lot of OS9-boot PowerMacs being sold at my University's shop after it was learned that OS9 boot Macs were on their way out. Just as there are people always looking for the latest greatesst, there are people happy to hang on to the current state of affairs as long as possible. I still have some odd-ball software I use that requires classic. I love OSX with classic support and will consider buying the last of the PPC Macs just to make sure I have a way of using the old software.
No bs,
Just look at the price of MDD OS 9 Mac's on Ebay. They are going for about as much as iMac G5's. I would bet they would still sell if Apple made them. Also remember, Intel Mac's Intel Mac's won't have Classic. So the PM G5's will be in damand for a while. Many production companies have custom softwear that will take a while to port over. . A q u a M a c .
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
... what makes you think OSX will be a laggard in performance? Why wouldn't Apple go to great lengths to optimize their funky hi tech unix for X86? Microsoft is the one who has a plethora of hardware their OS must run on; Apple can tightly control the hardware platform and optimize for that platform (X86, X86-64, etc)...
Apple and its developers has a couple obstacles in order to beat Windows in performance.
1. The OS and its apps has to run on two completely different platforms. You didn't really think that Apple will abandon PPC on the day that the Intel Mac arrives? The dual support will need to continue for a few more years. OTOH, Microsoft only has to support one platform. Apple and developers need to do double the work with less resources than the Windows side.
2. All of the current apps are PPC optimized and it won't be Intel optimized overnight. A Wintel machine running a optimized photoshop vs. a Mac running a unoptimized photoshop. Who is likely to win? Steve mentioned how easy it is to make a Cocoa app run on Intel. But running on Intel and being fully-optimized are two different things.
That being said, I'm not worried about the OS. OS X has been leading a double-life for quite a while now. I'm sure Intel OS X will be fully optimized by the time it's released. It's the apps that I'm worried about.
You've clearly never run, eg:, Linux, which supports virtually every architecture out there. I run Gentoo, on my powerbook, because it allows me to OPTIMISE the linux software for my specific model of G4, the 7450. And while GCC, a PLATFORM INDEPENDANT compiler, compiles pretty good code on G4 and possibly G5 (never run a G5 system myself), where it REALLY sings is compiling for...
...anyone?...
...X86. Because far more people run X86, way more work is put into it. The only people working on optimizing GCC output for PPC970 is like 3 guys at IBM.
I've encountered maybe 3 endian issues on PPC over 4 years. All have been fixed.
People, computers do MATH, and MATH is not platform specific.
The same C, C++, C#, Objective C, Fortran, whatever, code can be compiled for almost all architectures.
And by using your same flawed logic, PC developers will have less work to do in porting to Mactel than MacPPC. Capiche?
Microsoft, OTOH, releases every few years... look at Xp and how, IMHO, dated it is.
What is exactly so outdated in XP now? In YHO, of course.
Just like OS X, XP recieves major upgrades. They're called service packs. The only thing is, unlike Apple, MS doesn't charge for them.
Web browsing, for another, which has led to unprecedented success with Mozilla Firefox. HTTP pipelining, multiple open sockets, tabbed browsing, etc.
Windows has been standing still for... a long time. Longhorn may change all that, but of course we won't know for... a long time.
What, another year and a half? And face it, 1.0 releases from Microsoft have a bad legacy going on...
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
And by using your same flawed logic, PC developers will have less work to do in porting to Mactel than MacPPC. Capiche?
1337_5L4Xx0R,
Calm down a little. Did I personally attack you in some way?
I was just mentioning a possibility that crossed my mind. If I was worried about nothing. No problem. I will accept that. But please remember that this is just a forum. We exchange ideas here. No need to get excited about it.
Um, the UI for starters. Seriously, Linux is reknowned for fugly UI's, like KDE themes and such, but XP is bested by many linux UI's in terms of classiness and usability.
That's a very general statement which contains very little useful information. I could say the same about OSX UI.
If you don't like it, change it. XP allows you to change UI however you want to.
Web browsing, for another, which has led to unprecedented success with Mozilla Firefox. HTTP pipelining, multiple open sockets, tabbed browsing, etc.
Web browsing is an application and not part of OS.
Windows has been standing still for... a long time.
Again, I can say the same thing about OSX. The statement contains very little useful information.
Anything else?
Longhorn may change all that, but of course we won't know for... a long time.
Change what?
If Mac sales are cool to frigid, do you think this will accelerate the timetable for the debut of Intel-based Macs?
Originally posted by snoopy I half expect Apple to make a presentation about the transition, aimed at customers and stock holders alike. If you think about it, the switch to Intel can be spun into something very positive for the present, eliminating most concerns about PPC Macs.
There isn't much positive spin to put on it, other than what we heard at WWDC. Apple is switching to an all PC lineup. Two brains are indeed better than one, but a brain transplant is a terrifically risky venture. The company is gambling its future. Apple is apparently hoping that uninformed customers will continue to purchase Macs. We'll find out over the next year and a half what percentage of Apple's base is informed. (I'm not saying those of you who choose to purchase Macs are uninformed, yet many of you are probably drinking too much of the company's special Kool-Aid, thereby distorting your vision of what this transition will necessarily entail.) Apple and its BoD apparently felt backed into a corner, and assuming that was the case the company did what it needed to do. But let's not treat this transition as anything other than what it is - an immense trial by fire that may prove to be Apple's Waterloo. Let's hope the decision was made for the right reasons. (It is not unfathomable to envision a minor spat with IBM leading an irate Jobs to this course, but such a scenario has to be most unlikely, right?)
Originally posted by skatman
Just like OS X, XP recieves major upgrades. They're called service packs. The only thing is, unlike Apple, MS doesn't charge for them.
Originally posted by skatman
Web browsing is an application and not part of OS.
Not according to MS.
Originally posted by Big Mac
The company is gambling its future. Apple is apparently hoping that uninformed customers will continue to purchase Macs. We'll find out over the next year and a half what percentage of Apple's base is informed. (I'm not saying those of you who choose to purchase Macs are uninformed, yet many of you are probably drinking too much of the company's special Kool-Aid, thereby distorting your vision of what this transition will necessarily entail.)
So if I need more speed and Apple releases a dual processor dual core Power Mac G5 next month, I'm either uninformed or an Apple fan boy if I buy it?
Originally posted by BeigeUser
Steve probably has his programmers locked up in some cell programming away to make sure that OS X will be fully Intel optimized. But will Adobe (and others) do the same? Not likely.
Why not? Adobe can reuse the Intel optimized code in the Mac OS X versions of their apps.
Originally posted by JLL
So if I need more speed and Apple releases a dual processor dual core Power Mac G5 next month, I'm either uninformed or an Apple fan boy if I buy it?
No, I didn't say that. The geek-vanguard of Apple's user base does, however, fall into one of four categories: Those who will purchase Macs because they legitimately desire them, those who will purchase Macs just for the sake of it (fan-boys), those who will wait for Mactels before purchasing again, and those who are making their Linux contingency plans. I adore my G5 and love the Macintosh platform. I love Apple. But the platform I love is phased for extinction, to be replaced by a line of Apple PCs that will run OS X. We don't know how well or poorly this transition will play out, but I do know my purchasing plans and recommendations were very different in May.
Originally posted by Big Mac
But the platform I love is phased for extinction, to be replaced by a line of Apple PCs that will run OS X.
No they aren't. The PowerPC Macs will be replaced by a line of x86 based Macs.
If a Mac is a Mac because of the processor, a PowerPC Mac wouldn't be a Mac either then.
Originally posted by JLL
No they aren't. The PowerPC Macs will be replaced by a line of x86 based Macs.
If a Mac is a Mac because of the processor, a PowerPC Mac wouldn't be a Mac either then.
If these were Macs, Apple's entire future would not be in serious jeopardy. This transition represents a considerable discontinuity with all that has come before. This is decidedly unlike the PPC transition a decade ago. These are not Macs. I hope and pray that a couple of years from now I will have been proven wrong, the transition will have gone well, and Apple's Mactels will truly merit being called Macs. Right now, at best, I can call them Mactels.
Originally posted by Big Mac
If these were Macs, Apple's entire future would not be in serious jeopardy. This transition represents a considerable discontinuity with all that has come before. This is decidedly unlike the PPC transition a decade ago.
Hmm, a transition to a new processor, fat binaries - sounds about the same to me.
And who says that Apple's future is in serious jeopardy?
Originally posted by Big Mac
If these were Macs, Apple's entire future would not be in serious jeopardy. This transition represents a considerable discontinuity with all that has come before. . .
I posted these comments in another thread, but they seem applicable here. Sorry to be picky, but only a few things about this move to Intel could put Apple in jeopardy.
1) Going with a supplier that cannot deliver the goods? We can forget this one, as Apple will be better off than ever with regard to supply of chips of every kind.
2) Loss of customers? I don't know about this one, but I sense Apple will attract as many new customers as it alienates current customers. Likely however, most folks care more about performance than what CPU is inside.
3) Loss of developers? I got a call from a developer just before the WWDC keynote, while he was waiting for Steve to come on stage . Neither he nor the others with him believed the rumors about Intel. Afterward, he was almost in disbelief. Now, he is rather enthusiastic about it and thinks the move to Intel will work fine. That's what I see. Maybe you see something different?
Originally posted by JLL
Indeed. Where's Billy Goat Gruff when you need him?
This is because processors do math, whether it is a G4 or a P4.
To say 'it is not a mac because it has a pentium chipset in it' is, as someone pointed out, like saying 'it is not a mac because it does not have a 680x0 processor in it'
Apple's finally doing something about their all too frequently really lame system specs, finally achieve permanent processor parity with the Wintel world, and all you can do is complain, and say the sky is falling.
I'm first in line for a Yonah powerbook. It WON'T have a 166mhz system bus, I can promise you that.
You've been drinking the mac koolaid for so long, you've clearly no idea what Intel has coming, versus what Freescale and IBM have coming. If you did, you wouldn't complain, believe me.
Not according to MS.
Who at the MS did you ask?
BTW, I don't give a shit what is what according to MS or its mother.
There isn't much positive spin to put on it, other than what we heard at WWDC.
You have consider one things:
=> At WWDC Jobs was addressing the geek developer crowd. So of course he couldn't tell them that it's going to be as easy as pie. They would laugh at him.
Two brains are indeed better than one, but a brain transplant is a terrifically risky venture. The company is gambling its future.
No shit. That's why it's left upto the pros.
And in high tech sector, constantly gambling your future in THE ONLY WAY to succeed, to stay competitive.
The ignorant among us will not know the differece.
The curious among us will try it and make their own conclusions.
If Apple gets the software transition right, which I'm sure they will, the hardware will not disappoint.