I cannot imagine Powerbooks on which no one can run a native version of Photoshop for almost one year.
Why can't you imagine it? Actually, I don't think you'd have to imagine it; were you around for the transition from OS 9 to OS X? Apple didn't wait on the heavy hitters to port their software before shipping OS X machines. If I recall correctly, there was a quite a span of time that if you wanted to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc, on new machines, it had to be under emulation (classic).
My bet would be that Apple is going to pull the trigger on Intel when they're confident that the hardware is right and their own software house is in order. I doubt Apple would put their transition plans on hold and twiddle their thumbs waiting for specific apps, be it Photoshop, ProTools, or anyone. Shipping Intel hardware is going to provide a nice impetus for everyone else to race to the finish line as quickly as possible.
I keep seeing this posited on discussion boards: "Apple won't move the pro machines to Intel until ________ (Photoshop, Quark, Word, fill in your favorite 'pro' app) is running native." I think that's bologna and I don't believe history supports this.
And there were thousands of people that had bought OS X but weren't running it because it was an unnacceptable situation for professional use... but it's not like you can magically install a PPC in your Intel PowerBook if the environment doesn't suit getting work done.
Why can't you imagine it? Actually, I don't think you'd have to imagine it; were you around for the transition from OS 9 to OS X? Apple didn't wait on the heavy hitters to port their software before shipping OS X machines. If I recall correctly, there was a quite a span of time that if you wanted to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc, on new machines, it had to be under emulation (classic).
Not everyone likes emulation. First of all, Rosetta can't run altivec code. Some apps will slow down because of this. Some software will not run at all. If you depended on an app that requires Altivec, you can't buy an Intel Mac.
Remember that Apple sold machines that were dual-bootable for quite a while after OS X appeared. Some users went straight to X. Some stuck with OS 9 until the time was right for them. It was the users choice.
Unless Apple makes computers that have both a PowerPC and an Intel processor, your OS 9 to OS X transition does not set a good example of whats to come.
Even more than the OS 9 to X transition, Apple needs to make sure that all the major apps are ported to Intel. Which is why Apple may take a little more time for this transition.
Not everyone likes emulation. First of all, Rosetta can't run altivec code. <snip>
Remember that Apple sold machines that were dual-bootable for quite a while after OS X appeared. Some users went straight to X. Some stuck with OS 9 until the time was right for them. It was the users choice.
Unless Apple makes computers that have both a PowerPC and an Intel processor, your OS 9 to OS X transition does not set a good example of whats to come. <snip>
I'll admit that the exact timeline of the history is a bit foggy to me these days, but I'm quite certain that Apple was shipping OS X-only booting hardware *before* some of the major apps appeared, including Photoshop, and almost certainly Quark, which came very late. If this recollection is accurate, the analogy holds fine.
I'm less certain of this, but I also seem to recall that the Powerbook was among the earlier machines to ship in an OS X-only booting form. This would actually carry the analogy further...
Regardless, I think the emulation solutions are commendable, but for me they are worthless. The heart of my computer interest is music apps, which did not run at all in the classic environment and will not be supported in Rosetta (due to their calls to hardware and system-level stuff that is not supported by the emulation environments). So from my perspective, an Intel-based computer that is available before music apps are ported is worthless. I don't think Apple cares, as long as some level of porting critical mass is achieved and emulation is available to hold over most of the rest.
If you don't like my 9 > 10 analogy, there are plenty of examples where Apple pushed something completely new out the door well ahead of any support existing in the marketplace. Did the fact that there were no USB peripherals supporting the Mac stop Apple from summarily dropping printer port/serial port/modem port support in favor of USB? How about completely dropping support for PCI in favor of PCI-Express in the new PowerMacs, even though there are currently no PCI-Express cards that support the Mac and it is not backwards compatible? This puts many pro users considering new PowerMacs in a bind for the short term, but that is Apple's style. Be the pusher.
One last, tangential thought on emulation. Jobs demo-ed Photoshop under Rosetta at WWDC, seemingly running quite well. I believe he failed to point out, however, that he was running the older CS1, rather than CS2 which was out at the time, because CS2 now requires a G4 and therefore won't run under Rosetta. So I believe that anyone counting on Rosetta to run Photoshop would actually have to own and run the outdated CS1 version. I realize that this is another argument for holding-off the switch to Intel. But I'd bet it will be another argument that will be ignored and they'll pull the trigger anyway.
The next Pb, I don't know ? but the next I book will certainly use an intel chip. It will allow a small case, low consumption, and thus high autonomy, with decent power.
The major cons of the intel ibook is the switch to the intel world. Considering that the I book is not a professional computer, and that most of it's users will be appy with the I apps, It will be a good candidate to be the first Intelmac. Same apply for the Imac mini.
Pro users won't switch if their professionals applications are not updated for X86 . If Apple will release in time X86 I applications, I doubt that Adobe and consorts do the same. You will have to pay for those updates. People will only do the investissement, if their news computers are really a big plus.
At the light of these considerations my guessed intel transition roadmap is this one :
I agree with you, Powerdoc, regarding the iBook and mini being the first; but I think there is another possibility. Apple could intro a new line of machines, presumably minitowers, for developers, using an intel cpu. This line would not supplant the PowerMac immediately.
I could see apple ship an intel Powerbook for consumers alongside a G4 Powerbook for those that still need unported pro apps. Consumers buy Powerbooks too and some of them like bigger screens, the extra features, not being white, more power, or just having the current top of the line laptop.
When the hardware is ready is more important than the software.
I'm starting to think Apple is just stringing along the market, releasing the bare minimum they think they can get away with, to make what products they can get from Freescale and IBM go as far as possible. Likely Freescale and IBM are only obligated to develop products already in the pipeline, and Apple doesn't want to get caught releasing too much too quickly.
I've already seen people who could have benefitted greatly from faster systems give up and buy Apple's most recently released laptops when the value proposition isn't nearly what it should be for them to upgrade. I suspect in the spring we will see faster CPUs in the Powerbooks, as possibly the last update before fall Intel machines.
Let's all remember Apple's priority isn't to get us the fastest machines they can, but to maintain constant sales growth from quarter to quarter. I don't quite buy 100% the "engineer shortage" or Freescale delivery stories. While they are probably part of the equation, since we got largely cosmetic upgrades (but obviously with a new memory interface since we went from DDR to DDR2), and Apple introduced higher res screens before I think they want to (no OS GUI scaling yet)?I doubt Apple is done with PPC quite yet. There's just too much of a competitive functionality gap. Especially if Apple wants it's Aperture gambit to entice pro photographers, they are going to need faster laptops.
Did anyone see Aperture running on a PowerBook in any of the demos? I don't remember seeing it.
If the iBook goes Intel first, it will probably be faster than the PowerBook. That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Not if they only use a single core intel chip. Perhaps dual core chips will be only for powerbooks.
Quote:
I agree with you, Powerdoc, regarding the iBook and mini being the first; but I think there is another possibility. Apple could intro a new line of machines, presumably minitowers, for developers, using an intel cpu. This line would not supplant the PowerMac immediately.
Yes Apple might intro a second generation kit machine. That's said, the developper kit machine, was supposed to last one year (after one year you have to sent it back).
I rewatched Steve's keynote from WWDC and he said that they "wanted to have these [Mactels] in the market" by the time of the next WWDC. This sounds an awful lot like he expects to release them some time beforehand.
Of course, there'd be nothing stopping them from having both a PPC and an Intel version of their transitional product lines if they chose to do so.
I rewatched Steve's keynote from WWDC and he said that they "wanted to have these [Mactels] in the market" by the time of the next WWDC. This sounds an awful lot like he expects to release them some time beforehand.
Of course, there'd be nothing stopping them from having both a PPC and an Intel version of their transitional product lines if they chose to do so.
Yes, I don't think it's very difficult to design a new machine like this one. The difficult thing is to made many applications ready for the X86 OS X code. We learned that Apple was working for an X86 version of mac os X for years (5 precisely), but we do not know if they did the same for the others softwares ...
If the iBook goes Intel first, it will probably be faster than the PowerBook. That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Not if they only use a single core intel chip. Perhaps dual core chips will be only for powerbooks.
It can't be, I suppose you know that today's single core P-Ms eat G4s for breakfast. Let alone tomorrow's.
For this reason I find it difficult to believe that first the iBook will get Intel processors. It will clearly outperform the Powerbook, if the latter stays as it is now. Besides the iBook is not in such a need for improved performance, something that the Powerbooks need badly after the last update. If there is a line needing to go as soon as possible to Intel, this is the Powerbook since it has the worst performance/price ratio as of now.
First of all, its MacIntel. Don´t force me to fire up the autocorrect function
I think Apple will start out with the mini and let it be alone for a month or so. As I understood the latest conference call the Mini has not been to earthbreaking succes APple had hoped for so should some thing fail they don´t have to deal with a lot of machines. The mini is a comparable simple machine and Apple is able to fix the general issues with the Intel macs fairly cheap (better to replace some $500 machines than $2000 ones). When they are sure general bugs aren´t present they can move on to the more complex ones.
Comments
Originally posted by PB
I cannot imagine Powerbooks on which no one can run a native version of Photoshop for almost one year.
Why can't you imagine it? Actually, I don't think you'd have to imagine it; were you around for the transition from OS 9 to OS X? Apple didn't wait on the heavy hitters to port their software before shipping OS X machines. If I recall correctly, there was a quite a span of time that if you wanted to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc, on new machines, it had to be under emulation (classic).
My bet would be that Apple is going to pull the trigger on Intel when they're confident that the hardware is right and their own software house is in order. I doubt Apple would put their transition plans on hold and twiddle their thumbs waiting for specific apps, be it Photoshop, ProTools, or anyone. Shipping Intel hardware is going to provide a nice impetus for everyone else to race to the finish line as quickly as possible.
I keep seeing this posited on discussion boards: "Apple won't move the pro machines to Intel until ________ (Photoshop, Quark, Word, fill in your favorite 'pro' app) is running native." I think that's bologna and I don't believe history supports this.
Paul
I'm sorry but the analogy doesn't hold.
Originally posted by paulumos
Why can't you imagine it? Actually, I don't think you'd have to imagine it; were you around for the transition from OS 9 to OS X? Apple didn't wait on the heavy hitters to port their software before shipping OS X machines. If I recall correctly, there was a quite a span of time that if you wanted to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, etc, on new machines, it had to be under emulation (classic).
Not everyone likes emulation. First of all, Rosetta can't run altivec code. Some apps will slow down because of this. Some software will not run at all. If you depended on an app that requires Altivec, you can't buy an Intel Mac.
Remember that Apple sold machines that were dual-bootable for quite a while after OS X appeared. Some users went straight to X. Some stuck with OS 9 until the time was right for them. It was the users choice.
Unless Apple makes computers that have both a PowerPC and an Intel processor, your OS 9 to OS X transition does not set a good example of whats to come.
Even more than the OS 9 to X transition, Apple needs to make sure that all the major apps are ported to Intel. Which is why Apple may take a little more time for this transition.
Edit: ChevalierMalFet beat me to the point.
Originally posted by BeigeUser
Not everyone likes emulation. First of all, Rosetta can't run altivec code. <snip>
Remember that Apple sold machines that were dual-bootable for quite a while after OS X appeared. Some users went straight to X. Some stuck with OS 9 until the time was right for them. It was the users choice.
Unless Apple makes computers that have both a PowerPC and an Intel processor, your OS 9 to OS X transition does not set a good example of whats to come. <snip>
I'll admit that the exact timeline of the history is a bit foggy to me these days, but I'm quite certain that Apple was shipping OS X-only booting hardware *before* some of the major apps appeared, including Photoshop, and almost certainly Quark, which came very late. If this recollection is accurate, the analogy holds fine.
I'm less certain of this, but I also seem to recall that the Powerbook was among the earlier machines to ship in an OS X-only booting form. This would actually carry the analogy further...
Regardless, I think the emulation solutions are commendable, but for me they are worthless. The heart of my computer interest is music apps, which did not run at all in the classic environment and will not be supported in Rosetta (due to their calls to hardware and system-level stuff that is not supported by the emulation environments). So from my perspective, an Intel-based computer that is available before music apps are ported is worthless. I don't think Apple cares, as long as some level of porting critical mass is achieved and emulation is available to hold over most of the rest.
If you don't like my 9 > 10 analogy, there are plenty of examples where Apple pushed something completely new out the door well ahead of any support existing in the marketplace. Did the fact that there were no USB peripherals supporting the Mac stop Apple from summarily dropping printer port/serial port/modem port support in favor of USB? How about completely dropping support for PCI in favor of PCI-Express in the new PowerMacs, even though there are currently no PCI-Express cards that support the Mac and it is not backwards compatible? This puts many pro users considering new PowerMacs in a bind for the short term, but that is Apple's style. Be the pusher.
One last, tangential thought on emulation. Jobs demo-ed Photoshop under Rosetta at WWDC, seemingly running quite well. I believe he failed to point out, however, that he was running the older CS1, rather than CS2 which was out at the time, because CS2 now requires a G4 and therefore won't run under Rosetta. So I believe that anyone counting on Rosetta to run Photoshop would actually have to own and run the outdated CS1 version. I realize that this is another argument for holding-off the switch to Intel. But I'd bet it will be another argument that will be ignored and they'll pull the trigger anyway.
Paul
The major cons of the intel ibook is the switch to the intel world. Considering that the I book is not a professional computer, and that most of it's users will be appy with the I apps, It will be a good candidate to be the first Intelmac. Same apply for the Imac mini.
Pro users won't switch if their professionals applications are not updated for X86 . If Apple will release in time X86 I applications, I doubt that Adobe and consorts do the same. You will have to pay for those updates. People will only do the investissement, if their news computers are really a big plus.
At the light of these considerations my guessed intel transition roadmap is this one :
- first the ibook and the Imac mini
- second the powerbook
- third, the imac
- fourth, the powermac
When the hardware is ready is more important than the software.
I've already seen people who could have benefitted greatly from faster systems give up and buy Apple's most recently released laptops when the value proposition isn't nearly what it should be for them to upgrade. I suspect in the spring we will see faster CPUs in the Powerbooks, as possibly the last update before fall Intel machines.
Let's all remember Apple's priority isn't to get us the fastest machines they can, but to maintain constant sales growth from quarter to quarter. I don't quite buy 100% the "engineer shortage" or Freescale delivery stories. While they are probably part of the equation, since we got largely cosmetic upgrades (but obviously with a new memory interface since we went from DDR to DDR2), and Apple introduced higher res screens before I think they want to (no OS GUI scaling yet)?I doubt Apple is done with PPC quite yet. There's just too much of a competitive functionality gap. Especially if Apple wants it's Aperture gambit to entice pro photographers, they are going to need faster laptops.
Did anyone see Aperture running on a PowerBook in any of the demos? I don't remember seeing it.
Originally posted by wmf
If the iBook goes Intel first, it will probably be faster than the PowerBook. That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Not if they only use a single core intel chip. Perhaps dual core chips will be only for powerbooks.
I agree with you, Powerdoc, regarding the iBook and mini being the first; but I think there is another possibility. Apple could intro a new line of machines, presumably minitowers, for developers, using an intel cpu. This line would not supplant the PowerMac immediately.
Yes Apple might intro a second generation kit machine. That's said, the developper kit machine, was supposed to last one year (after one year you have to sent it back).
Of course, there'd be nothing stopping them from having both a PPC and an Intel version of their transitional product lines if they chose to do so.
Originally posted by ElBaroni
I rewatched Steve's keynote from WWDC and he said that they "wanted to have these [Mactels] in the market" by the time of the next WWDC. This sounds an awful lot like he expects to release them some time beforehand.
Of course, there'd be nothing stopping them from having both a PPC and an Intel version of their transitional product lines if they chose to do so.
Yes, I don't think it's very difficult to design a new machine like this one. The difficult thing is to made many applications ready for the X86 OS X code. We learned that Apple was working for an X86 version of mac os X for years (5 precisely), but we do not know if they did the same for the others softwares ...
Originally posted by wmf
If the iBook goes Intel first, it will probably be faster than the PowerBook. That doesn't sound like a good idea.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Not if they only use a single core intel chip. Perhaps dual core chips will be only for powerbooks.
It can't be, I suppose you know that today's single core P-Ms eat G4s for breakfast. Let alone tomorrow's.
For this reason I find it difficult to believe that first the iBook will get Intel processors. It will clearly outperform the Powerbook, if the latter stays as it is now. Besides the iBook is not in such a need for improved performance, something that the Powerbooks need badly after the last update. If there is a line needing to go as soon as possible to Intel, this is the Powerbook since it has the worst performance/price ratio as of now.
I think Apple will start out with the mini and let it be alone for a month or so. As I understood the latest conference call the Mini has not been to earthbreaking succes APple had hoped for so should some thing fail they don´t have to deal with a lot of machines. The mini is a comparable simple machine and Apple is able to fix the general issues with the Intel macs fairly cheap (better to replace some $500 machines than $2000 ones). When they are sure general bugs aren´t present they can move on to the more complex ones.