That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Powerbooks being dual core
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.
I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.
I'm going into the "It'll blow in Rosetta" category. I can't imagine its built on the Cocoa frameworks, and my guess it uses as much built-in OS X carbon frameworks as the OS 9 version did (i.e. not much - they like to write it all themselves). So more would have to be actually emulated vs. just rosetta'ing the code to use the Intel versions.
Oh, and before we start blowing too much smoke about how fast such and such machine will run PPC code, maybe we should actually wait and find out what type of hardware these powerbooks or macs will actually be running. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the new chips will be so wickedly fast that emulation won't be a concern (gee, and I remember the same talk when they went to PPC).
Really? Why? It's hardly taxing on the CPU so that's exactly the kind of app that would work well in Rosetta.
Well, the theory might be "Why buy a new powerbook if all your major apps are going to be emulated. Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability (remember that it took years to get people to switch to OS X to OS 9, regardless of Clasic). Of course, he could also be of the mind of "Hey, I don't need to run out and buy a new mac just because Apple releases one!"
Oh, and on the topic of the Altivec emulation, don't get too excited until someone actually spills the beans about how it emulates it. I also remember SoftwareFPU for the original PPC macs, which converted FPU code to standard PPC code. It was slow (but it allowed some apps to work that otherwise refused to).
That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Even if Rosetta is multi threaded, a single threaded app will only use one thread on either core at any point in time, so you're not likely to see a speed up from that.
Quote:
Powerbooks being dual core
They had better be or I can't see the attraction in upgrading. Other vendors will be pumping out dual-core Intel laptops. Apple will have to do the same if they're going to compete at the high end.
Quote:
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
Well its looking encouraging. See this register article on a performance comparison between Yonah and other Intel and AMD cpu's. Intel are closing the gap, plus power consumption looks pretty good too.
Quote:
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.
I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.
As sweet as it would be for MS to do a full cocoa port I'm not holding my breath on that one either. However, MS do have bags more experience with building and tuning for the Intel compiler, so I'm quietly hopeful that there will be a noticeable performance boost just from making the switch.
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Just to be accurate about this I fired up MS Word and Excel and looked to see if they were multi-threaded or not. The result:
MS Word has 4 threads
MS Excel has 7 threads
See for yourself, run: ps axMw | more in a Terminal window. Scroll through each page using the space-bar and when you find /Applications/Microsoft Office 2004/Microsoft Word count it, plus the number of lines underneath that have the same PID number (second column) and a blank command column (they're the extra threads).
You'll find it easier to spot if you maximize your Terminal window first. Also, that command is case sensitive. The M has to be upper-case as a lower-case m will sort by memory usage instead of showing the threads.
The entire Mactel situation is interesting and, at this point in time, open for speculation - some intelligent, some just hopeful.
My money is that Apple will release the first Mactels in January and they may introduce as many as 4 lines: Mac mini, iBook, iMac and PB. Figure that Apple went full speed for close to a year before the announcement - and this after all versions of OS X running on Mactels for 5 years. They were more than aware of where they needed to go and what they needed to do. The key factor at the time of the announcement was to get some developer boxes out and get as much information from the developers as possible.
I believe that Apple is ready with all of their apps (except for AppleWorks, which I think is EOL) and this is the core need for selling to consumers. Some third party developers were announcing they were "Mactel Ready" within months of the Mactel announcement and I believe that others will make that announcement as soon as the Mactels are released.
Lots of software will be available, but two big companies are going to struggle for a while: Adobe and MS. Adobe has a real problem in that they need to convert both the pro and consumer levels of PS, which will probably be announced around August. MS will need to rework Office, but it is a profitable venture for them so I believe there are a lot of programmers working long hours to get it ready. Until Office for Mactel is delivered I believe that users will be happy with the current apps, plus will be taking a look at iWork, which should be filled out in January. It's not going to slow Mactel sales. (I use a PB in my business and have shifted most of the wp work to Pages and am looking forward to moving from Excel when iWork 06 comes out.)
VPC presents a different challenge. While Office will be reprogramming an existing app, VPC is going to need to cover a different approach to having Windows run on a Mactel. The problem MS faces is the fact that there will be other companies (or individuals) working on the same project. Some very long hours for the VPC team.
On the engineering & design side one only has to look at some recent hardware (including the iPod range) to get the feeling that it is not going to be another Dull box. They are ready to go and we're going to drool over each of the lines.
Thats what were hoping for,droolworthy macs... the word pentium makes me sick,they better keep the G thing and NO stickers!!!!
I dont see why everyone is so excited about the Intel thing,because i have played with some of the latest Pee Sea stuff and they arent fast! they studder stammer stick freeze and produce alot of heat! especially the portables!
The latest dells could double as home heating Units and leaf blowers.
To use my girlfreinds dell laptop i have to put headphones on because i cant hear anything otherwise because the fan is so loud,I`m not Kidding! and it runs constantly,and its a 2.8 meghertz p4 brand new........
you know this whole thing is scary for us mac purists "You Know? Those of us who are praying for the Swift death of the Mighty mouse."
"bad name/bad Idea"
Apple needs chips especially designed for them, quality chips, that way speed will be in the way its designed like it has been with the ppc... megahertz doesnt and shouldnt mean Dick!
I have lots of experience with either platform nothing is more fast and more smooth/productive than any Mac with mondo ram and PPC. THUS FAR.
Hell my ibook with 1.5 Gigs of ram is faster at almost everything than my freinds alienware.
I know! its the OS right? good code means good performance? I hope so for apples sake...
but Stevo did say for us not to worry were going to make the best damn computers in the world... while announcing the Intel switch.
Well i`m still worried and i wont be sane until i play with the first Intel mac
Very intersting post, Ken. You make a lot of good points.
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
The entire Mactel situation is interesting and, at this point in time, open for speculation - some intelligent, some just hopeful.
My money is that Apple will release the first Mactels in January and they may introduce as many as 4 lines: Mac mini, iBook, iMac and PB. ...
Yep, they'll definitely do the iBook and mini, and probably the PowerBook. But the iMac is pretty strong and was recently updated. My guess is that the iMac won't be updated yet.
And PowerBooks are in desperate need of a speed boost, regardless of whether Adobe's apps are ready. OTOH, Apple often updates their own pro apps (FCP, DVDSP, Motion) at a pro-video conference in April, so maybe new PowerBooks will come out then.
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
I believe that Apple is ready with all of their apps (except for AppleWorks, which I think is EOL) and this is the core need for selling to consumers. ...
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Lots of software will be available, but two big companies are going to struggle for a while: Adobe and MS. Adobe has a real problem in that they need to convert both the pro and consumer levels of PS, which will probably be announced around August. ...
Interestingly, Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac wasn't released at the same time as the Windows version this past August. It's supposed to be out "later". Maybe it's already Intel enabled? It would make sense to test out their Intel port on Elements first, and use feedback to improve their Pro software before it's released.
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
MS will need to rework Office, but it is a profitable venture for them so I believe there are a lot of programmers working long hours to get it ready. Until Office for Mactel is delivered I believe that users will be happy with the current apps, plus will be taking a look at iWork, which should be filled out in January. ...
Office is on sale now--a big hint that MS is worried about iWork 06.
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
VPC presents a different challenge. While Office will be reprogramming an existing app, VPC is going to need to cover a different approach to having Windows run on a Mactel. ...
If Apple creates a free software solution to using Intel's virtualization technology (e.g., Fast User Switching-type thing to a Windows desktop running in a separate VM), then VPC may become a too-expensive solution for many people (but some will still want VPC's integration).
Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability
Emulation isn't always slower. There was a MIPS machine that ran an advanced emulator of itself and applications running in the emulator ran faster than on the raw hardware due to excellent runtime optimizations in the emulator.
Apple's talking 70% - if the new machines are > 30% faster it will be a wash.
Well, the theory might be "Why buy a new powerbook if all your major apps are going to be emulated. Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability (remember that it took years to get people to switch to OS X to OS 9, regardless of Clasic). Of course, he could also be of the mind of "Hey, I don't need to run out and buy a new mac just because Apple releases one!"
Oh, and on the topic of the Altivec emulation, don't get too excited until someone actually spills the beans about how it emulates it. I also remember SoftwareFPU for the original PPC macs, which converted FPU code to standard PPC code. It was slow (but it allowed some apps to work that otherwise refused to).
The advantage is that the OS is native, and seems to have performance advantages. Also, many of Apple's programs will be ready, or close to it. Possibly including FCStudio, etc.
Many 3rd party programs are ready now.
Even a single core 2.16GHz Yonah has a significant performance boost over the 1.67GHz 7447a. If Freescale had been able to supply the 7448 at 1.8 GHz, in October, when it was expected, that might have made it a closer race. But, of course, they didn't. Whether we will ever see it is a question whose answer is becoming more negative every day.
SoftwareFPU is something that I used back when. It's not a comparable situation. That was for a chip that had NO FPU. It just allowed you to run the software = very slowly.
This is different. In this case both SSE 2 and 3 are very compatible according to Apple. They even offer advantages over Altivec. The old MMX code, which is what most Apple users seem to remember is just a bad memory.
Go down the page to Special Cases. There are several articles dealing with it. At the bottom is an article more specific to Rosetta. It's been updated in November, but I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if the latest changes are reflected there. Sometimes Apple updates these articles only after a week or two has gone by.
But this page will give a quick overview of SSe vs Altivec, and its advantages.
Note that the biggest complaint about Altivec; the lack of double precision FP is present in SSE, and are IEEE-754 compliant, which in Altivec were not.
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.
iWork is *the* poster child for Cocoa loveliness IMHO so I imagine it'd port across in no time at all. I reckon they'll add in a whole bunch of Core Image stuff this time round and if they've not bought Intaglio's drawing app to add to it then I'd be surprised as it's such a good fit.
Yep, they'll definitely do the iBook and mini, and probably the PowerBook. But the iMac is pretty strong and was recently updated. My guess is that the iMac won't be updated yet.
And PowerBooks are in desperate need of a speed boost, regardless of whether Adobe's apps are ready. OTOH, Apple often updates their own pro apps (FCP, DVDSP, Motion) at a pro-video conference in April, so maybe new PowerBooks will come out then.
It seems to me that Apple should move the PB's over the same time as the iBook. Otherwise we are in the disconcerting situation of having iBook running faster than the pro line. If it's just a month or so, that might be fine, but more more than that would kill sales. If Apple goes with a dual Yinah for the PB's to start, it could work. But if they want to wait for the Merom, there could be a problem.
The iMac can wait. These portable Yonahs can't compete with that.
Quote:
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.
The problem with iWorks, which my daughter now uses, is that it is not selling at all well. Apple has resorted to giving it away more than once already with a purchase. It needs to be significantly upgraded in the next version. I think that Apple needs to put a basic version of Filemaker in the package. Otherwise, it's lacking. AppleWorks was a very good program for many years. So far iWork is no where near to taking its place.
Quote:
Interestingly, Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac wasn't released at the same time as the Windows version this past August. It's supposed to be out "later". Maybe it's already Intel enabled? It would make sense to test out their Intel port on Elements first, and use feedback to improve their Pro software before it's released.
The reason for the "delay" for Elements 4 is because, at first, Adobe said that there wouldn't be a Mac version at all. There were NO plans for it. Now, we'll see.
Quote:
Office is on sale now--a big hint that MS is worried about iWork 06.
Only if Apple can make it comparable in some way. Pages and Keynote aren't nearly enough.
Quote:
If Apple creates a free software solution to using Intel's virtualization technology (e.g., Fast User Switching-type thing to a Windows desktop running in a separate VM), then VPC may become a too-expensive solution for many people (but some will still want VPC's integration).
Personally I expect big things from iWork 06. I use Pages now and, except for a few limitations, prefer it over Word. No doubt there will be a spreadsheet and I believe that the only thing that kept it back for 05 was being able to export it to Excel, like Pages can be exported to a .doc format.
I'm also looking for a FileMaker compatible database, if not FileMaker Express. I believe that has been held back for iWork 06 for internal reasons.
Throw in a stack of templates and wizards and iWork 06 will be a powerful incentive for MS to get Office for Mactels out the door.
Personally I expect big things from iWork 06. I use Pages now and, except for a few limitations, prefer it over Word. No doubt there will be a spreadsheet and I believe that the only thing that kept it back for 05 was being able to export it to Excel, like Pages can be exported to a .doc format.
I'm also looking for a FileMaker compatible database, if not FileMaker Express. I believe that has been held back for iWork 06 for internal reasons.
Throw in a stack of templates and wizards and iWork 06 will be a powerful incentive for MS to get Office for Mactels out the door.
My thought is that Apple might be able to rework a Filemaker derivative to be both a spreadsheet as well as a database.
In many ways each type of program can be used for work done by the other. There are enough similarities. As Apple owns the database (a very popular one), it might make sense for it to work in dual modes. they don't have a spreadsheet, except for the primitive, and old, one in Appleworks.
My thought is that Apple might be able to rework a Filemaker derivative to be both a spreadsheet as well as a database.
In many ways each type of program can be used for work done by the other.
Usually incorrectly. \
Spreadsheets deal with calculations between relatively free-form data. (Think of a timesheet--it has your hours for each day and calculates the total hours for the week)
Databases deal with very structured data in often large quantities. (Think of an employee database--it has the timesheet info for each employee for many years, as well as contact information, etc.)
Microsoft separates both the applications (Excel, Access) and their data file formats (.XLS, MDB) for good reasons. Apple would probably do the same.
What is likely, however, is that iWorks' database app and spreadsheet app will share many user interface elements, including layout & formatting tools--much as Keynote and Pages do.
Spreadsheets deal with calculations between relatively free-form data. (Think of a timesheet--it has your hours for each day and calculates the total hours for the week)
Databases deal with very structured data in often large quantities. (Think of an employee database--it has the timesheet info for each employee for many years, as well as contact information, etc.)
Microsoft separates both the applications (Excel, Access) and their data file formats (.XLS, MDB) for good reasons. Apple would probably do the same.
What is likely, however, is that iWorks' database app and spreadsheet app will share many user interface elements, including layout & formatting tools--much as Keynote and Pages do.
I hate to have to inform you of this but these apps have been used that way for decades. Before you were born. Many times spreadsheets are used for simple databases, and databases are used for simple spreadsheets.
I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions.
The differences in concept aren't as great as you seem to think they are. The difference is mostly in the focus of the programs.
A contextual change could easily be made to have the one program act as both.
Apple is trying to keep the price of iWorks down as much as possible. Writing,
and supporting two additional programs might be more than they want to do.
You seem to have more energy invested in trying to find a way to say that I'm wrong about something than you do in thinking it out for yourself.
I hate to have to inform you of this but these apps have been used that way for decades.
As I said, "incorrectly." I'm not disputing they're used that way--only disputing whether they should be used that way.
Quote:
I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions.
<scratches head>
So you're saying it shouldn't be (as in "users shouldn't use it that way") but it should be (as in "Apple should implement it that way")? You lost me on that one.
Quote:
A contextual change could easily be made to have the one program act as both.
What format would you store the data in?
Quote:
You seem to have more energy invested in trying to find a way to say that I'm wrong about something than you do in thinking it out for yourself.
Sad.
Sorry, but I have no interest in proving any one person correct or incorrect. I'd question that particular post no matter who posted it.
In terms of thinking it out for oneself, I think our posts speak for themselves. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
Back on the immediate subject ...
AppleWorks had modules but iWorks is a collection of separate apps that share many UI tools. It just seems likely that Apple would continue that with separate spreadsheet and database apps. I could be wrong. No big deal.
[B]As I said, "incorrectly." I'm not disputing they're used that way--only disputing whether they should be used that way.
Sometimes, if something works, and nothing more sophisticated is needed, then it's fine.
Quote:
So you're saying it shouldn't be (as in "users shouldn't use it that way") but it should be (as in "Apple should implement it that way")? You lost me on that one.
You're changing my words, and meaning. I said:
"I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions."
That's very different. I didn't say that "users shouldn't use it that way", meaning that they shouldn't use the program as a spreadsheet AT ALL. I said that with some additions, it could be used that way.
We may not agree on some things, but I grant you the intellegence to understand that.
Quote:
What format would you store the data in?
For database use, it would be Filemaker, for Spreedsheet use, it could be Excell.
Quote:
Sorry, but I have no interest in proving any one person correct or incorrect. I'd question that particular post no matter who posted it.
Then your first line was unnecessary, don't you think? I could have said the same thing.
Quote:
In terms of thinking it out for oneself, I think our posts speak for themselves. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
Back on the immediate subject ...
AppleWorks had modules but iWorks is a collection of separate apps that share many UI tools. It just seems likely that Apple would continue that with separate spreadsheet and database apps. I could be wrong. No big deal.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm just thinking about cost, and time to market. Unless they took the spreadsheet from Appleworks, and expanded it, they would have to either come up with one from scratch, or buy one (which Apple has done many times before). But which one?
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Powerbooks being dual core
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.
I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.
I'm going into the "It'll blow in Rosetta" category. I can't imagine its built on the Cocoa frameworks, and my guess it uses as much built-in OS X carbon frameworks as the OS 9 version did (i.e. not much - they like to write it all themselves). So more would have to be actually emulated vs. just rosetta'ing the code to use the Intel versions.
Oh, and before we start blowing too much smoke about how fast such and such machine will run PPC code, maybe we should actually wait and find out what type of hardware these powerbooks or macs will actually be running. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that the new chips will be so wickedly fast that emulation won't be a concern (gee, and I remember the same talk when they went to PPC).
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Really? Why? It's hardly taxing on the CPU so that's exactly the kind of app that would work well in Rosetta.
Well, the theory might be "Why buy a new powerbook if all your major apps are going to be emulated. Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability (remember that it took years to get people to switch to OS X to OS 9, regardless of Clasic). Of course, he could also be of the mind of "Hey, I don't need to run out and buy a new mac just because Apple releases one!"
Oh, and on the topic of the Altivec emulation, don't get too excited until someone actually spills the beans about how it emulates it. I also remember SoftwareFPU for the original PPC macs, which converted FPU code to standard PPC code. It was slow (but it allowed some apps to work that otherwise refused to).
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That remains to be seen. There's a lot to speculate on there including...
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Even if Rosetta is multi threaded, a single threaded app will only use one thread on either core at any point in time, so you're not likely to see a speed up from that.
Powerbooks being dual core
They had better be or I can't see the attraction in upgrading. Other vendors will be pumping out dual-core Intel laptops. Apple will have to do the same if they're going to compete at the high end.
CPU speed being significantly faster than currently.
Well its looking encouraging. See this register article on a performance comparison between Yonah and other Intel and AMD cpu's. Intel are closing the gap, plus power consumption looks pretty good too.
How much of the infrastructure the application uses that is native.
I've no handle on how much of Office v.X or 2003 is Microsoft's own cobbled together frameworks or how much is Apple's. I presume it's not cocoa and they've got their own weird carbon-esque UI crap in there last I used v.X and briefly watched someone else's Office2003 with it's horrible fading toolbar. Ugh.
As sweet as it would be for MS to do a full cocoa port I'm not holding my breath on that one either. However, MS do have bags more experience with building and tuning for the Intel compiler, so I'm quietly hopeful that there will be a noticeable performance boost just from making the switch.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Rosetta using both cores even for single threaded apps
Just to be accurate about this I fired up MS Word and Excel and looked to see if they were multi-threaded or not. The result:
MS Word has 4 threads
MS Excel has 7 threads
See for yourself, run: ps axMw | more in a Terminal window. Scroll through each page using the space-bar and when you find /Applications/Microsoft Office 2004/Microsoft Word count it, plus the number of lines underneath that have the same PID number (second column) and a blank command column (they're the extra threads).
You'll find it easier to spot if you maximize your Terminal window first. Also, that command is case sensitive. The M has to be upper-case as a lower-case m will sort by memory usage instead of showing the threads.
My money is that Apple will release the first Mactels in January and they may introduce as many as 4 lines: Mac mini, iBook, iMac and PB. Figure that Apple went full speed for close to a year before the announcement - and this after all versions of OS X running on Mactels for 5 years. They were more than aware of where they needed to go and what they needed to do. The key factor at the time of the announcement was to get some developer boxes out and get as much information from the developers as possible.
I believe that Apple is ready with all of their apps (except for AppleWorks, which I think is EOL) and this is the core need for selling to consumers. Some third party developers were announcing they were "Mactel Ready" within months of the Mactel announcement and I believe that others will make that announcement as soon as the Mactels are released.
Lots of software will be available, but two big companies are going to struggle for a while: Adobe and MS. Adobe has a real problem in that they need to convert both the pro and consumer levels of PS, which will probably be announced around August. MS will need to rework Office, but it is a profitable venture for them so I believe there are a lot of programmers working long hours to get it ready. Until Office for Mactel is delivered I believe that users will be happy with the current apps, plus will be taking a look at iWork, which should be filled out in January. It's not going to slow Mactel sales. (I use a PB in my business and have shifted most of the wp work to Pages and am looking forward to moving from Excel when iWork 06 comes out.)
VPC presents a different challenge. While Office will be reprogramming an existing app, VPC is going to need to cover a different approach to having Windows run on a Mactel. The problem MS faces is the fact that there will be other companies (or individuals) working on the same project. Some very long hours for the VPC team.
On the engineering & design side one only has to look at some recent hardware (including the iPod range) to get the feeling that it is not going to be another Dull box. They are ready to go and we're going to drool over each of the lines.
Thats what were hoping for,droolworthy macs... the word pentium makes me sick,they better keep the G thing and NO stickers!!!!
I dont see why everyone is so excited about the Intel thing,because i have played with some of the latest Pee Sea stuff and they arent fast! they studder stammer stick freeze and produce alot of heat! especially the portables!
The latest dells could double as home heating Units and leaf blowers.
To use my girlfreinds dell laptop i have to put headphones on because i cant hear anything otherwise because the fan is so loud,I`m not Kidding! and it runs constantly,and its a 2.8 meghertz p4 brand new........
you know this whole thing is scary for us mac purists "You Know? Those of us who are praying for the Swift death of the Mighty mouse."
"bad name/bad Idea"
Apple needs chips especially designed for them, quality chips, that way speed will be in the way its designed like it has been with the ppc... megahertz doesnt and shouldnt mean Dick!
I have lots of experience with either platform nothing is more fast and more smooth/productive than any Mac with mondo ram and PPC. THUS FAR.
Hell my ibook with 1.5 Gigs of ram is faster at almost everything than my freinds alienware.
I know! its the OS right? good code means good performance? I hope so for apples sake...
but Stevo did say for us not to worry were going to make the best damn computers in the world... while announcing the Intel switch.
Well i`m still worried and i wont be sane until i play with the first Intel mac
0.2 cents
Originally posted by kenaustus
The entire Mactel situation is interesting and, at this point in time, open for speculation - some intelligent, some just hopeful.
My money is that Apple will release the first Mactels in January and they may introduce as many as 4 lines: Mac mini, iBook, iMac and PB. ...
Yep, they'll definitely do the iBook and mini, and probably the PowerBook. But the iMac is pretty strong and was recently updated. My guess is that the iMac won't be updated yet.
And PowerBooks are in desperate need of a speed boost, regardless of whether Adobe's apps are ready. OTOH, Apple often updates their own pro apps (FCP, DVDSP, Motion) at a pro-video conference in April, so maybe new PowerBooks will come out then.
Originally posted by kenaustus
I believe that Apple is ready with all of their apps (except for AppleWorks, which I think is EOL) and this is the core need for selling to consumers. ...
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.
Originally posted by kenaustus
Lots of software will be available, but two big companies are going to struggle for a while: Adobe and MS. Adobe has a real problem in that they need to convert both the pro and consumer levels of PS, which will probably be announced around August. ...
Interestingly, Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac wasn't released at the same time as the Windows version this past August. It's supposed to be out "later". Maybe it's already Intel enabled? It would make sense to test out their Intel port on Elements first, and use feedback to improve their Pro software before it's released.
Originally posted by kenaustus
MS will need to rework Office, but it is a profitable venture for them so I believe there are a lot of programmers working long hours to get it ready. Until Office for Mactel is delivered I believe that users will be happy with the current apps, plus will be taking a look at iWork, which should be filled out in January. ...
Office is on sale now--a big hint that MS is worried about iWork 06.
Originally posted by kenaustus
VPC presents a different challenge. While Office will be reprogramming an existing app, VPC is going to need to cover a different approach to having Windows run on a Mactel. ...
If Apple creates a free software solution to using Intel's virtualization technology (e.g., Fast User Switching-type thing to a Windows desktop running in a separate VM), then VPC may become a too-expensive solution for many people (but some will still want VPC's integration).
Originally posted by Chucker
You do realize you are encouraging people to breach contracts here?
Maybe he's just encouraging people who've already stolen a copy to do the benchmarking...
Originally posted by Louzer
Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability
Emulation isn't always slower. There was a MIPS machine that ran an advanced emulator of itself and applications running in the emulator ran faster than on the raw hardware due to excellent runtime optimizations in the emulator.
Apple's talking 70% - if the new machines are > 30% faster it will be a wash.
Originally posted by Louzer
Well, the theory might be "Why buy a new powerbook if all your major apps are going to be emulated. Of course, I'm also one to keep in mind that emulation isn't just about a speed penalty, but a concern over stability/reliability (remember that it took years to get people to switch to OS X to OS 9, regardless of Clasic). Of course, he could also be of the mind of "Hey, I don't need to run out and buy a new mac just because Apple releases one!"
Oh, and on the topic of the Altivec emulation, don't get too excited until someone actually spills the beans about how it emulates it. I also remember SoftwareFPU for the original PPC macs, which converted FPU code to standard PPC code. It was slow (but it allowed some apps to work that otherwise refused to).
The advantage is that the OS is native, and seems to have performance advantages. Also, many of Apple's programs will be ready, or close to it. Possibly including FCStudio, etc.
Many 3rd party programs are ready now.
Even a single core 2.16GHz Yonah has a significant performance boost over the 1.67GHz 7447a. If Freescale had been able to supply the 7448 at 1.8 GHz, in October, when it was expected, that might have made it a closer race. But, of course, they didn't. Whether we will ever see it is a question whose answer is becoming more negative every day.
SoftwareFPU is something that I used back when. It's not a comparable situation. That was for a chip that had NO FPU. It just allowed you to run the software = very slowly.
This is different. In this case both SSE 2 and 3 are very compatible according to Apple. They even offer advantages over Altivec. The old MMX code, which is what most Apple users seem to remember is just a bad memory.
See what Apple has to say about it:
http://developer.apple.com/transition/index.html?ht
Go down the page to Special Cases. There are several articles dealing with it. At the bottom is an article more specific to Rosetta. It's been updated in November, but I haven't read it yet, so I don't know if the latest changes are reflected there. Sometimes Apple updates these articles only after a week or two has gone by.
But this page will give a quick overview of SSe vs Altivec, and its advantages.
Note that the biggest complaint about Altivec; the lack of double precision FP is present in SSE, and are IEEE-754 compliant, which in Altivec were not.
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...ion/index.html
Originally posted by bikertwin
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.
iWork is *the* poster child for Cocoa loveliness IMHO so I imagine it'd port across in no time at all. I reckon they'll add in a whole bunch of Core Image stuff this time round and if they've not bought Intaglio's drawing app to add to it then I'd be surprised as it's such a good fit.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Yep, they'll definitely do the iBook and mini, and probably the PowerBook. But the iMac is pretty strong and was recently updated. My guess is that the iMac won't be updated yet.
And PowerBooks are in desperate need of a speed boost, regardless of whether Adobe's apps are ready. OTOH, Apple often updates their own pro apps (FCP, DVDSP, Motion) at a pro-video conference in April, so maybe new PowerBooks will come out then.
It seems to me that Apple should move the PB's over the same time as the iBook. Otherwise we are in the disconcerting situation of having iBook running faster than the pro line. If it's just a month or so, that might be fine, but more more than that would kill sales. If Apple goes with a dual Yinah for the PB's to start, it could work. But if they want to wait for the Merom, there could be a problem.
The iMac can wait. These portable Yonahs can't compete with that.
It's interesting to speculate as to whether the decision to kill off AppleWorks in favor of iWork was made when they decided to go to Intel. If AppleWorks won't be on the Intel machines at all, then iWork will need both a spreadsheet and (at least minimally) a database in January. iWorks 06 should be a tremendous upgrade.
The problem with iWorks, which my daughter now uses, is that it is not selling at all well. Apple has resorted to giving it away more than once already with a purchase. It needs to be significantly upgraded in the next version. I think that Apple needs to put a basic version of Filemaker in the package. Otherwise, it's lacking. AppleWorks was a very good program for many years. So far iWork is no where near to taking its place.
Interestingly, Photoshop Elements 4 for Mac wasn't released at the same time as the Windows version this past August. It's supposed to be out "later". Maybe it's already Intel enabled? It would make sense to test out their Intel port on Elements first, and use feedback to improve their Pro software before it's released.
The reason for the "delay" for Elements 4 is because, at first, Adobe said that there wouldn't be a Mac version at all. There were NO plans for it. Now, we'll see.
Office is on sale now--a big hint that MS is worried about iWork 06.
Only if Apple can make it comparable in some way. Pages and Keynote aren't nearly enough.
If Apple creates a free software solution to using Intel's virtualization technology (e.g., Fast User Switching-type thing to a Windows desktop running in a separate VM), then VPC may become a too-expensive solution for many people (but some will still want VPC's integration).
Very true.
I'm also looking for a FileMaker compatible database, if not FileMaker Express. I believe that has been held back for iWork 06 for internal reasons.
Throw in a stack of templates and wizards and iWork 06 will be a powerful incentive for MS to get Office for Mactels out the door.
Originally posted by kenaustus
Personally I expect big things from iWork 06. I use Pages now and, except for a few limitations, prefer it over Word. No doubt there will be a spreadsheet and I believe that the only thing that kept it back for 05 was being able to export it to Excel, like Pages can be exported to a .doc format.
I'm also looking for a FileMaker compatible database, if not FileMaker Express. I believe that has been held back for iWork 06 for internal reasons.
Throw in a stack of templates and wizards and iWork 06 will be a powerful incentive for MS to get Office for Mactels out the door.
My thought is that Apple might be able to rework a Filemaker derivative to be both a spreadsheet as well as a database.
In many ways each type of program can be used for work done by the other. There are enough similarities. As Apple owns the database (a very popular one), it might make sense for it to work in dual modes. they don't have a spreadsheet, except for the primitive, and old, one in Appleworks.
Originally posted by melgross
My thought is that Apple might be able to rework a Filemaker derivative to be both a spreadsheet as well as a database.
In many ways each type of program can be used for work done by the other.
Usually incorrectly.
Spreadsheets deal with calculations between relatively free-form data. (Think of a timesheet--it has your hours for each day and calculates the total hours for the week)
Databases deal with very structured data in often large quantities. (Think of an employee database--it has the timesheet info for each employee for many years, as well as contact information, etc.)
Microsoft separates both the applications (Excel, Access) and their data file formats (.XLS, MDB) for good reasons. Apple would probably do the same.
What is likely, however, is that iWorks' database app and spreadsheet app will share many user interface elements, including layout & formatting tools--much as Keynote and Pages do.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Usually incorrectly.
Spreadsheets deal with calculations between relatively free-form data. (Think of a timesheet--it has your hours for each day and calculates the total hours for the week)
Databases deal with very structured data in often large quantities. (Think of an employee database--it has the timesheet info for each employee for many years, as well as contact information, etc.)
Microsoft separates both the applications (Excel, Access) and their data file formats (.XLS, MDB) for good reasons. Apple would probably do the same.
What is likely, however, is that iWorks' database app and spreadsheet app will share many user interface elements, including layout & formatting tools--much as Keynote and Pages do.
I hate to have to inform you of this but these apps have been used that way for decades. Before you were born. Many times spreadsheets are used for simple databases, and databases are used for simple spreadsheets.
I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions.
The differences in concept aren't as great as you seem to think they are. The difference is mostly in the focus of the programs.
A contextual change could easily be made to have the one program act as both.
Apple is trying to keep the price of iWorks down as much as possible. Writing,
and supporting two additional programs might be more than they want to do.
You seem to have more energy invested in trying to find a way to say that I'm wrong about something than you do in thinking it out for yourself.
Sad.
Originally posted by melgross
I hate to have to inform you of this but these apps have been used that way for decades.
As I said, "incorrectly."
I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions.
<scratches head>
So you're saying it shouldn't be (as in "users shouldn't use it that way") but it should be (as in "Apple should implement it that way")? You lost me on that one.
A contextual change could easily be made to have the one program act as both.
What format would you store the data in?
You seem to have more energy invested in trying to find a way to say that I'm wrong about something than you do in thinking it out for yourself.
Sad.
Sorry, but I have no interest in proving any one person correct or incorrect. I'd question that particular post no matter who posted it.
In terms of thinking it out for oneself, I think our posts speak for themselves. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
Back on the immediate subject ...
AppleWorks had modules but iWorks is a collection of separate apps that share many UI tools. It just seems likely that Apple would continue that with separate spreadsheet and database apps. I could be wrong. No big deal.
Originally posted by GregAlexander
ps. The creative applications may not emulate as well as they could, but graphic artists rarely use laptops.
Wrong.
Originally posted by melgross
...and databases are used for simple spreadsheets.
Originally posted by bikertwin
[B]As I said, "incorrectly."
Sometimes, if something works, and nothing more sophisticated is needed, then it's fine.
So you're saying it shouldn't be (as in "users shouldn't use it that way") but it should be (as in "Apple should implement it that way")? You lost me on that one.
You're changing my words, and meaning. I said:
"I didn't say that Filemaker, as it is, should be used as a spreadsheet, but it could easily be, with some additions."
That's very different. I didn't say that "users shouldn't use it that way", meaning that they shouldn't use the program as a spreadsheet AT ALL. I said that with some additions, it could be used that way.
We may not agree on some things, but I grant you the intellegence to understand that.
What format would you store the data in?
For database use, it would be Filemaker, for Spreedsheet use, it could be Excell.
Sorry, but I have no interest in proving any one person correct or incorrect. I'd question that particular post no matter who posted it.
Then your first line was unnecessary, don't you think? I could have said the same thing.
In terms of thinking it out for oneself, I think our posts speak for themselves. Isn't that how it's supposed to be?
Back on the immediate subject ...
AppleWorks had modules but iWorks is a collection of separate apps that share many UI tools. It just seems likely that Apple would continue that with separate spreadsheet and database apps. I could be wrong. No big deal.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm just thinking about cost, and time to market. Unless they took the spreadsheet from Appleworks, and expanded it, they would have to either come up with one from scratch, or buy one (which Apple has done many times before). But which one?