IGiven the magtnitude of this change, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple sold PPC and Intel Macs side-by-side for a while. Especially PB's, since there will surely be pro folks who need new machines but don't want to rush into bleeding-edge x86 issues.
Absolutely. I would be shocked if Apple didn't sell BOTH the old and the new. Giving a choice would really help a lot of people through this transition. It lets the transition happen when YOU want it
Apple and Steve Jobs have "kept selling the old generation on the side" several times in recent years. Now is a great time to do it again.
Or another interesting possibility: reverse the emphasis. Sell an "early adopter" Intel model or two, alongside the "main" PowerPC PowerBooks.
Either way, I get my Intel PowerBook sooner, and people who depend on certain PowerPC apps have something to buy too.
The thing is, they may have known EXACTLY what that date was going to be. They just didn't want anyone to know because of that so called Osbourn Effect.
Sharon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh I ugh I ugh ugh bb bring my my Pod thi thing i want to hook it up to the new intel mac and Listen to bl bl aaack sabbath in my underwear.
I've been reading about Rob Glaser CEO of Real complaining about Apple not opening Fairplay.
What I found interesting is over the past couple of years Real has been complaining about the iPod their music service didn't even work on the Mac.
The other part is the fact that if Microsoft or Real had invented the iPod they would not likely enable it to run on the Mac either.
Two points that counter Glaser's complaint. Is the fact you can play several music formats on the iPod. You really don't have to buy any music from iTunes at all.
The second is that Apple developed iPod and iTunes and are completely free to choose who they share it with or not share it at all.
The fact that no one else's DRM can play on the iPod is not anticompetative or wrong in any way.
Any company is free to come up with their own iPod + iTunes like service.
Given everything that we are hearing, I wonder whether the first generation x86 Macs will be limited to non-PowerMac and to portables. The reason I say this is because the current high end PPC chips are filling in well the needs of the "extreme power users". What the PPC is failing to get right at the moment is performance with a lower power consumption, something that is critical for portable computers.
I am not sure that it would be wise to move the whole line in one go, since it is a lot to manage and that the new x86 chip doesn't yet provide what is needed for the high end systems. I wouldn't be surprised if we had to wait four months for the x86 PowerMacs.
I wouldn't be surprised if we had to wait four months for the x86 PowerMacs.
Four months? I think there's a consensus that the PowerMac isn't likely to switch for a year or more. Like you said, the G5 is still a kick-ass chip, and the serious M-derived desktop chips (Conroe?) aren't due for a while yet. Apple may surprise, but until the Intel option can toast a four-way G5, I would expect them to leave the PowerMac on PPC.
Four months? I think there's a consensus that the PowerMac isn't likely to switch for a year or more. Like you said, the G5 is still a kick-ass chip, and the serious M-derived desktop chips (Conroe?) aren't due for a while yet. Apple may surprise, but until the Intel option can toast a four-way G5, I would expect them to leave the PowerMac on PPC.
Actually I think I was being a little conservative and that a time scale greater than four months would be more realistic. What will be interesting is to see how the market, and the stock market, reacts to a line of computers that has two types of chips.
Actually I think I was being a little conservative and that a time scale greater than four months would be more realistic. What will be interesting is to see how the market, and the stock market, reacts to a line of computers that has two types of chips.
The only machines that Apple would have a problem changing over until close to 2007 is the PM and XServes.
The rest can go. There will be plenty of criticsm if the iMacs go 32 bit (sorry Booga and aplnub). But there has been a lot of chatter at this time that OS X x86 only supports IA-32. The statements haven't been pleasant to read.
The only machines that Apple would have a problem changing over until close to 2007 is the PM and XServes.
The rest can go. There will be plenty of criticsm if the iMacs go 32 bit (sorry Booga and aplnub). But there has been a lot of chatter at this time that OS X x86 only supports IA-32. The statements haven't been pleasant to read.
heh. winxp 64bit is like, whatever. no loss if there is no 64bit macintels for the whole of 2006. sse2 and sse3 can do a lot of the heavy lifting the so-called "hardcore" pc jocks will laugh but they're all running winxp32bit anyway because games run better on xp 32bit native rather than via windows-on-windows emulation for xp 64bit.
ps. mel i got your PM, i sent you that PM months ago!! in the user controlpanel for appleinsider forums you can always see if your inbox has PMs (but i always get an email when i have a PM)
The only machines that Apple would have a problem changing over until close to 2007 is the PM and XServes.
The rest can go. There will be plenty of criticsm if the iMacs go 32 bit (sorry Booga and aplnub). But there has been a lot of chatter at this time that OS X x86 only supports IA-32. The statements haven't been pleasant to read.
heh. winxp 64bit is like, whatever. no loss if there is no 64bit macintels for the whole of 2006. sse2 and sse3 can do a lot of the heavy lifting the so-called "hardcore" pc jocks will laugh but they're all running winxp32bit anyway because games run better on xp 32bit native rather than via windows-on-windows emulation for xp 64bit.
ps. mel i got your PM, i sent you that PM months ago!! in the user controlpanel for appleinsider forums you can always see if your inbox has PMs (but i always get an email when i have a PM)
Yeah, I don't care that much either. But there are a lot of people, even on these boards who have expressed actual *anger* over the fact that Apple won't be 64 bit right out of the box. I try to explain that Apple has been working on this OS for years as a 32 bit OS - there was no 64 bit Win OS out either for almost all of this time.
I think that Leopard will be a 64 bit Mactel OS, and the PM and XServe will wait for that, at least. Then everything else can also go 64 bit as Merom will be out. But as there won't be a single core Merom, we might not see the iBook use it for some time. Possibly the same for the Mini, unless Apple has other plans for it where it needs the power, such as a media hub decoding H 264 and such.
And no, I never get an e-mail when I get a message. It's a flaw in the software they use here. There should be some indicator when we are here in the forum that there is a message. A blinking spot or something. I don't like to seem impolite by not responding to a message. I sent messages to some others that were never read. Maybe they didn't want to read them because it was from me , or they didn't know they got them.
I click on the pm spot in my own post window to see my messages, but I often don't think to check.
The bigger test for OS X x86 will not be the "bitness" of the OS but rather how many 3rd party applications are ready for the launch and what word about the conversion of Adobe's and Microsofts applications are going, hopefully with an expected timeline for when they will be ready for the Intel Macs. If there are a good number of titles from developers ready with a focus on the market sector that Apple releases hardware in first then the transition will go relatively smooth (as long as there are no major hardware problems). Then if there is a timeline for the transition of other major software, notibly Adobe's creative suite and Microsoft Office, then the rest of the transition will go well since there will have been a 6-18 month shakedown for the basic hardware/OS in the real world to work out any major problems.
The bigger test for OS X x86 will not be the "bitness" of the OS but rather how many 3rd party applications are ready for the launch and what word about the conversion of Adobe's and Microsofts applications are going, hopefully with an expected timeline for when they will be ready for the Intel Macs. If there are a good number of titles from developers ready with a focus on the market sector that Apple releases hardware in first then the transition will go relatively smooth (as long as there are no major hardware problems). Then if there is a timeline for the transition of other major software, notibly Adobe's creative suite and Microsoft Office, then the rest of the transition will go well since there will have been a 6-18 month shakedown for the basic hardware/OS in the real world to work out any major problems.
You're right. But we're not talking about something that makes sense, we're talking about some people's reaction to it.
hmmm... i'm thinking the iMac will go overclocked-dualcore-yonah within the first 5 months of 2006. (overclocked because of the headroom for heat given the dualcore yonah powerdraw of only 65W or something like that...) of course, total conjecture (but interesting, no?) on my part...
hmmm... i'm thinking the iMac will go overclocked-dualcore-yonah within the first 5 months of 2006. (overclocked because of the headroom for heat given the dualcore yonah powerdraw of only 65W or something like that...) of course, total conjecture (but interesting, no?) on my part...
I'm tempted to say "no" just in an attempt to be agreeable.
I'm not sure why Apple would do that unless Merom comes out near the end of 2006, rather than close to the middle. Jobs would surely love to announce a Merom based iMac in June.
As Merom looks to be ahead of schedule, that could happen. Conroe is also ahead of schedule.
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
Or will Leopard be out sooner than we expect? All we know is that Leopard should be out around the end of the year, or somewhat sooner. End of July could be possible. He's done it several times before.
Comments
Originally posted by Towel
IGiven the magtnitude of this change, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple sold PPC and Intel Macs side-by-side for a while. Especially PB's, since there will surely be pro folks who need new machines but don't want to rush into bleeding-edge x86 issues.
Absolutely. I would be shocked if Apple didn't sell BOTH the old and the new. Giving a choice would really help a lot of people through this transition. It lets the transition happen when YOU want it
Apple and Steve Jobs have "kept selling the old generation on the side" several times in recent years. Now is a great time to do it again.
Or another interesting possibility: reverse the emphasis. Sell an "early adopter" Intel model or two, alongside the "main" PowerPC PowerBooks.
Either way, I get my Intel PowerBook sooner, and people who depend on certain PowerPC apps have something to buy too.
The thing is, they may have known EXACTLY what that date was going to be. They just didn't want anyone to know because of that so called Osbourn Effect.
Sharon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ugh I ugh I ugh ugh bb bring my my Pod thi thing i want to hook it up to the new intel mac and Listen to bl bl aaack sabbath in my underwear.
LOL sorry I couldnt resist
Its a mix between the G4 Cube and iPod mini.
Would be good for Apple to have some type of small tower.
The G4 Cube design was great.
What I found interesting is over the past couple of years Real has been complaining about the iPod their music service didn't even work on the Mac.
The other part is the fact that if Microsoft or Real had invented the iPod they would not likely enable it to run on the Mac either.
Two points that counter Glaser's complaint. Is the fact you can play several music formats on the iPod. You really don't have to buy any music from iTunes at all.
The second is that Apple developed iPod and iTunes and are completely free to choose who they share it with or not share it at all.
The fact that no one else's DRM can play on the iPod is not anticompetative or wrong in any way.
Any company is free to come up with their own iPod + iTunes like service.
[i]
Oops, I'd better sell my stock now, it just took another leap, and if that happens, it will plummet. [/B]
Yeah the stock is so hyper inflated right now that I am really getting concerned about what it will do if there is any perceived "bad" news.
Some analysts have set their target price at $79 and we now see $86, but what happens if the iPod numbers are just a little lower than people expect?
Thud.
When is the next quarterly report?
Originally posted by WelshDog
When is the next quarterly report?
Mid-Jan, i.e. pretty much a week after MWSF, IIRC.
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, well, don't forget that Yonah is also 32 bit. And will iMac buyers miss the 64 bitness?
Sure I will miss it. It is a bragging right with my neighbor that has a dual core intel 64 bit dell.
If dual core yonahs will render and run FC Studio faster, I don't care if they were 8 bit processors.
I am not sure that it would be wise to move the whole line in one go, since it is a lot to manage and that the new x86 chip doesn't yet provide what is needed for the high end systems. I wouldn't be surprised if we had to wait four months for the x86 PowerMacs.
Originally posted by ajmas
I wouldn't be surprised if we had to wait four months for the x86 PowerMacs.
Four months? I think there's a consensus that the PowerMac isn't likely to switch for a year or more. Like you said, the G5 is still a kick-ass chip, and the serious M-derived desktop chips (Conroe?) aren't due for a while yet. Apple may surprise, but until the Intel option can toast a four-way G5, I would expect them to leave the PowerMac on PPC.
Originally posted by Towel
Four months? I think there's a consensus that the PowerMac isn't likely to switch for a year or more. Like you said, the G5 is still a kick-ass chip, and the serious M-derived desktop chips (Conroe?) aren't due for a while yet. Apple may surprise, but until the Intel option can toast a four-way G5, I would expect them to leave the PowerMac on PPC.
Actually I think I was being a little conservative and that a time scale greater than four months would be more realistic. What will be interesting is to see how the market, and the stock market, reacts to a line of computers that has two types of chips.
Originally posted by ajmas
Actually I think I was being a little conservative and that a time scale greater than four months would be more realistic. What will be interesting is to see how the market, and the stock market, reacts to a line of computers that has two types of chips.
The only machines that Apple would have a problem changing over until close to 2007 is the PM and XServes.
The rest can go. There will be plenty of criticsm if the iMacs go 32 bit (sorry Booga and aplnub). But there has been a lot of chatter at this time that OS X x86 only supports IA-32. The statements haven't been pleasant to read.
Sure I will miss it. It is a bragging right with my neighbor that has a dual core intel 64 bit dell.
If dual core yonahs will render and run FC Studio faster, I don't care if they were 8 bit processors.
actually, 8bit would be ultracool in a retro kinda way. particularly for electronic music people
The only machines that Apple would have a problem changing over until close to 2007 is the PM and XServes.
The rest can go. There will be plenty of criticsm if the iMacs go 32 bit (sorry Booga and aplnub). But there has been a lot of chatter at this time that OS X x86 only supports IA-32. The statements haven't been pleasant to read.
heh. winxp 64bit is like, whatever. no loss if there is no 64bit macintels for the whole of 2006. sse2 and sse3 can do a lot of the heavy lifting
ps. mel i got your PM, i sent you that PM months ago!!
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
The only machines that Apple would have a problem changing over until close to 2007 is the PM and XServes.
The rest can go. There will be plenty of criticsm if the iMacs go 32 bit (sorry Booga and aplnub). But there has been a lot of chatter at this time that OS X x86 only supports IA-32. The statements haven't been pleasant to read.
heh. winxp 64bit is like, whatever. no loss if there is no 64bit macintels for the whole of 2006. sse2 and sse3 can do a lot of the heavy lifting
ps. mel i got your PM, i sent you that PM months ago!!
Yeah, I don't care that much either. But there are a lot of people, even on these boards who have expressed actual *anger* over the fact that Apple won't be 64 bit right out of the box. I try to explain that Apple has been working on this OS for years as a 32 bit OS - there was no 64 bit Win OS out either for almost all of this time.
I think that Leopard will be a 64 bit Mactel OS, and the PM and XServe will wait for that, at least. Then everything else can also go 64 bit as Merom will be out. But as there won't be a single core Merom, we might not see the iBook use it for some time. Possibly the same for the Mini, unless Apple has other plans for it where it needs the power, such as a media hub decoding H 264 and such.
And no, I never get an e-mail when I get a message. It's a flaw in the software they use here. There should be some indicator when we are here in the forum that there is a message. A blinking spot or something. I don't like to seem impolite by not responding to a message. I sent messages to some others that were never read. Maybe they didn't want to read them because it was from me
I click on the pm spot in my own post window to see my messages, but I often don't think to check.
Originally posted by JCG
The bigger test for OS X x86 will not be the "bitness" of the OS but rather how many 3rd party applications are ready for the launch and what word about the conversion of Adobe's and Microsofts applications are going, hopefully with an expected timeline for when they will be ready for the Intel Macs. If there are a good number of titles from developers ready with a focus on the market sector that Apple releases hardware in first then the transition will go relatively smooth (as long as there are no major hardware problems). Then if there is a timeline for the transition of other major software, notibly Adobe's creative suite and Microsoft Office, then the rest of the transition will go well since there will have been a 6-18 month shakedown for the basic hardware/OS in the real world to work out any major problems.
You're right. But we're not talking about something that makes sense, we're talking about some people's reaction to it.
I think its more likely the iMac will have dualcore PowerPC and not go intel 32 bit.
PC fanatics would have a field day if iMac's stepped back to 32 bit.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I don't think any G5 Mac will switch until there is a corresponding intel chip.
I think its more likely the iMac will have dualcore PowerPC and not go intel 32 bit.
PC fanatics would have a field day if iMac's stepped back to 32 bit.
That's what I'm saying as well. Of course, with Steve in charge.
Originally posted by sunilraman
hmmm... i'm thinking the iMac will go overclocked-dualcore-yonah within the first 5 months of 2006. (overclocked because of the headroom for heat given the dualcore yonah powerdraw of only 65W or something like that...) of course, total conjecture (but interesting, no?) on my part...
I'm tempted to say "no" just in an attempt to be agreeable.
I'm not sure why Apple would do that unless Merom comes out near the end of 2006, rather than close to the middle. Jobs would surely love to announce a Merom based iMac in June.
As Merom looks to be ahead of schedule, that could happen. Conroe is also ahead of schedule.
But, the 64 bitness may depend upon Leopard, which will likely bring the OS to 64 bits. would Apple intro a 64 bit machine before the OS that would drive it?
Or will Leopard be out sooner than we expect? All we know is that Leopard should be out around the end of the year, or somewhat sooner. End of July could be possible. He's done it several times before.