Apple has already incorporated Touch in some of their Macs in a smart way. They are using the touchpad to allow for more advanced and complex maneuvers. And it doesn't require an awkward touching of the monitor to do it.
Exactly, but more-so the show CSI Miami brings this into more light. Last night I was watching an episode where an audio track was being filtered. On the "screen" (it wasn't your typically display output) was the audio track, but on the table was a set of faders and such with touch-control.
I could see a totally different approach here. MS has you reach up and touch the laptop display as in the demo, but Apple makes a touch screen keyboard surface you interact with.
Exactly, but more-so the show CSI Miami brings this into more light. Last night I was watching an episode where an audio track was being filtered. On the "screen" (it wasn't your typically display output) was the audio track, but on the table was a set of faders and such with touch-control.
there's been a mock up of an MBP like that floating around here for about a year or so...
Not only do I believe it since it sounds so Apple to rush to drop old hardware, I will also NEVER buy Apple Care again since it last longer than Apple's system requirements. When iLife 08 came out half of it didn't work on my 2, yes 2 year old PowerBook. So what's the point of a 3 year service plan on a computer that only can keep up for 2 years?
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS4 (which they announced as 32bit only on the Mac)
Final Cut Studio
Any application using Carbon...
Sorry, this is the most rediculous rumour I've heard in ages.
You mean like the switch to Intel processors rumor that was also labeled ridiculous? Were Apple is concerned no rumor is too shocking to believe. We all know in our hearts this is coming sooner or later.
I know someone who still runs Mac OS 8.5 on a PPC 603 (I don't remember the exact model). And I still keep my OS 9.2 Wallstreet. Time to see if it can boot again.
What possible relevance could that have to this discussion. If they're still running 8.5 on a 603, it doesn't matter one bit whether 10.6 supports PPC or not.
The issue is not how many Mac users are still running PPC. It's a question of how many still run PPC AND WOULD UPGRADE TO 10.6 IF IT SUPPORTS PPC. Then, reduce this number by the number who would buy a new computer to run 10.6.
I suspect the remaining number is quite small. Compared with the complexity of continuing to support two platforms, it may or may not make sense. I'm sure Apple has done the math before reaching whatever decision they've really made.
What possible relevance could that have to this discussion. If they're still running 8.5 on a 603, it doesn't matter one bit whether 10.6 supports PPC or not.
The issue is not how many Mac users are still running PPC. It's a question of how many still run PPC AND WOULD UPGRADE TO 10.6 IF IT SUPPORTS PPC. Then, reduce this number by the number who would buy a new computer to run 10.6.
I suspect the remaining number is quite small. Compared with the complexity of continuing to support two platforms, it may or may not make sense. I'm sure Apple has done the math before reaching whatever decision they've really made.
The possible relevance might be that one's computer might not be obsolete simply because it is not eligible for new operating systems.
That said, this feels too soon to me. It is only with 10.5.3 that Leopard has actually started to feel stable and workable on my computer, a one year old 17 MBP. And Leopard is only now beginning to be supported by many professional apps that I use. It would feel irresponsible to abandon Leopard only months after it became widely and reliably useable.
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior<snip>
My understanding was that OSX is already designed to allow a seamless use of 32 and 64 bit applications (on 64 bit chips) but only a small portion takes advantage of this.
If the OS goes 64 bit, that seamlessness would remain available to applications.
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
Thing there apple does not have a $800 - $2100 desktop system like they did back in the PPC days and the imacs screen is not good for photo work as well. The mini is over priced and weak.
But if the baby is microscopic should Apple care? The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. I say let them keep running their legacy apps but do so with an OS suited for their legacy app.
I'd also like to see Apple reduce the amount of testing they have to do. For users who are staying current we stand to see faster delivery, better performance and stability and more features implemented.
It's time to get most development on Cocoa and push 64-bit and threading. PPC is dead weight.
So you are saying that the number of Intel-based Mac owners who have the need to run a PPC program from time-to-time is "microscopic"? I'm sure glad you aren't my business advisor! MS Office is a perfect example for me. I have Office 2004 (on my Leopard MBP). I have no need to upgrade it, but I do occasionally need to run it. If Apple followed your advice, the cost for me to upgrade to 10.6 would be over $500 (OS + Office). And there are a few other apps that would fall into the same category. Short answer...ain't gonna happen.
Dropping Classic support in Leopard was enough to make me wait over 6 months before upgrading, and then it was only because I wanted a faster computer for Aperture. And I still keep a PPC mini around to run Classic occasionally. But while I can live without Classic, no PPC would be a totally different ball game.
There is a middle-ground. Apple could get away with the OS only running on Intel as long as PPC apps can still be run (Rosetta support continues). Dropping PPC support entirely would be bad.
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
Quote:
Originally Posted by petermac
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Apple needs to stay on X86 maybe they can move to AMD.
AMD has better on board video with it being able to use side port ram, They 2+ cpu systems can use desktop ram or ecc ram not high cost and high heat FB-DIMM's, You can use any HT based NB chipset in the systems. Intel is working a GPU in the CPU but in the past Intel on board video has sucked next to others so amd gpu in the cpu will be better and likely you will be able to add a pci-e ati video card to use hybrid crossfire.
They can use a PPC chip on a add in card and put it on the cpu bus you can also make video cards and put them in HTX slots.
Thing there apple does not have a $800 - $2100 desktop system like they did back in the PPC days and the imacs screen is not good for photo work as well. The mini is over priced and weak.
Relevance?
Or are you just another "I want a Mac mini-tower" troll?
Though it seems like it sometimes. Web standards are getting more complicated, and web pages generally aren't getting simpler and smaller either.
Going on with this discussion, I doubt that Apple is going to make another PPC desktop or notebook.
Maybe they'll drop PPC in the big OS in 10.6. They haven't made new G5 machines for a couple years now, and a year from now, almost all PPC and G5 machines will be 3+ years old. Back when they were all PPCs, maybe they could justify the little bit of work it takes to make 3 to 5 year old machines work with the new OS. Now they're using a new platform now, so they have to divide their testing among two platforms, as well as 32 and 64 bit versions of each.
I don't know about going 64 bit only. That seems a bit much seeing that they were making 32 bit systems even last year.
There is a middle-ground. Apple could get away with the OS only running on Intel as long as PPC apps can still be run (Rosetta support continues). Dropping PPC support entirely would be bad.
I think a quick look at Apple history proves that the new Macs + OSX will run the old apps perfectly well. The chip migrations (68000 to PPC), the OS migration (OS9 to OSX), and the chip migration#2 (PPC to Intel) all ran the old software very well.
And as I said a few posts above - OSX already has a combination of 64bit and 32bit code it's just mostly 32bit. I'm almost positive it's not an issue (and I'm not one to ever say I'm positive.. almost always give myself a way out!)
Three plausible reasons come to my mind for Apple making this move (if they do):
1) Features in 10.6 won't work acceptably on slower PPC hardware anyway (avoid the Vista mistake of pretending they do).
2) Simplify their own development process as I doubt anything is as straightforward as just clicking a "PPC box" on compiling software.
3) Introduce a significant file system change that would be incompatible or poorly compatible with PPC architecture.
With all that Apple has been doing with Bonjour, media streaming, Time Capsule, etc., I can see advantages of moving in the direction of ZFS and employing it in ways that aren't so obvious right now. Could 10.6 be the first real shot across the bow for Mac OS X with ZFS?
Thing there apple does not have a $800 - $2100 desktop system like they did back in the PPC days and the imacs screen is not good for photo work as well. The mini is over priced and weak.
You can plug an external monitor into the iMac. That's how I do it. Keep the palette on the iMac screen, do the photo work on the other.
So sick of the "you can't do photo work on the iMac" argument. Think past your nose people. And by the time 10.6 is actually released your PPC Mac will be at least 3 years old. They've already eliminated a huge number of computers from the Leopard upgrade. You have likely more than a year to save up for a new computer if you absolutely have to have the latest software. It isn't like all PowerPC Macs are going to stop working when 10.6 is released.
My understanding was that OSX is already designed to allow a seamless use of 32 and 64 bit applications (on 64 bit chips) but only a small portion takes advantage of this.
If the OS goes 64 bit, that seamlessness would remain available to applications.
Right?
The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.
It's pretty nuts to drop PPC support too IMHO although I can see that possibly happening - like Apple have dropped Classic and dropped 64bit Carbon for mostly strategic reasons rather than technical.
What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.
Comments
64-bit doesn't help performance. It helps run apps that need >4Gigs memory. I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.
Heh, basically web browsers are the only piece of software on my Macbook that I've seen crashing due to the virtual memory limit of 32bit OS X.
Apple has already incorporated Touch in some of their Macs in a smart way. They are using the touchpad to allow for more advanced and complex maneuvers. And it doesn't require an awkward touching of the monitor to do it.
Exactly, but more-so the show CSI Miami brings this into more light. Last night I was watching an episode where an audio track was being filtered. On the "screen" (it wasn't your typically display output) was the audio track, but on the table was a set of faders and such with touch-control.
I could see a totally different approach here. MS has you reach up and touch the laptop display as in the demo, but Apple makes a touch screen keyboard surface you interact with.
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS4 (which they announced as 32bit only on the Mac)
Final Cut Studio
Any application using Carbon...
Sorry, this is the most rediculous rumour I've heard in ages.
being re-written atm, cocoa based version should be out next year, iirc.
Exactly, but more-so the show CSI Miami brings this into more light. Last night I was watching an episode where an audio track was being filtered. On the "screen" (it wasn't your typically display output) was the audio track, but on the table was a set of faders and such with touch-control.
there's been a mock up of an MBP like that floating around here for about a year or so...
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS4 (which they announced as 32bit only on the Mac)
Final Cut Studio
Any application using Carbon...
Sorry, this is the most rediculous rumour I've heard in ages.
You mean like the switch to Intel processors rumor that was also labeled ridiculous? Were Apple is concerned no rumor is too shocking to believe. We all know in our hearts this is coming sooner or later.
I know someone who still runs Mac OS 8.5 on a PPC 603 (I don't remember the exact model). And I still keep my OS 9.2 Wallstreet. Time to see if it can boot again.
What possible relevance could that have to this discussion. If they're still running 8.5 on a 603, it doesn't matter one bit whether 10.6 supports PPC or not.
The issue is not how many Mac users are still running PPC. It's a question of how many still run PPC AND WOULD UPGRADE TO 10.6 IF IT SUPPORTS PPC. Then, reduce this number by the number who would buy a new computer to run 10.6.
I suspect the remaining number is quite small. Compared with the complexity of continuing to support two platforms, it may or may not make sense. I'm sure Apple has done the math before reaching whatever decision they've really made.
What possible relevance could that have to this discussion. If they're still running 8.5 on a 603, it doesn't matter one bit whether 10.6 supports PPC or not.
The issue is not how many Mac users are still running PPC. It's a question of how many still run PPC AND WOULD UPGRADE TO 10.6 IF IT SUPPORTS PPC. Then, reduce this number by the number who would buy a new computer to run 10.6.
I suspect the remaining number is quite small. Compared with the complexity of continuing to support two platforms, it may or may not make sense. I'm sure Apple has done the math before reaching whatever decision they've really made.
The possible relevance might be that one's computer might not be obsolete simply because it is not eligible for new operating systems.
That said, this feels too soon to me. It is only with 10.5.3 that Leopard has actually started to feel stable and workable on my computer, a one year old 17 MBP. And Leopard is only now beginning to be supported by many professional apps that I use. It would feel irresponsible to abandon Leopard only months after it became widely and reliably useable.
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior<snip>
My understanding was that OSX is already designed to allow a seamless use of 32 and 64 bit applications (on 64 bit chips) but only a small portion takes advantage of this.
If the OS goes 64 bit, that seamlessness would remain available to applications.
Right?
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
Thing there apple does not have a $800 - $2100 desktop system like they did back in the PPC days and the imacs screen is not good for photo work as well. The mini is over priced and weak.
Then we can get a score
See who has their finger on the pulse of Apple!
But if the baby is microscopic should Apple care? The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. I say let them keep running their legacy apps but do so with an OS suited for their legacy app.
I'd also like to see Apple reduce the amount of testing they have to do. For users who are staying current we stand to see faster delivery, better performance and stability and more features implemented.
It's time to get most development on Cocoa and push 64-bit and threading. PPC is dead weight.
So you are saying that the number of Intel-based Mac owners who have the need to run a PPC program from time-to-time is "microscopic"? I'm sure glad you aren't my business advisor! MS Office is a perfect example for me. I have Office 2004 (on my Leopard MBP). I have no need to upgrade it, but I do occasionally need to run it. If Apple followed your advice, the cost for me to upgrade to 10.6 would be over $500 (OS + Office). And there are a few other apps that would fall into the same category. Short answer...ain't gonna happen.
Dropping Classic support in Leopard was enough to make me wait over 6 months before upgrading, and then it was only because I wanted a faster computer for Aperture. And I still keep a PPC mini around to run Classic occasionally. But while I can live without Classic, no PPC would be a totally different ball game.
There is a middle-ground. Apple could get away with the OS only running on Intel as long as PPC apps can still be run (Rosetta support continues). Dropping PPC support entirely would be bad.
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Apple needs to stay on X86 maybe they can move to AMD.
AMD has better on board video with it being able to use side port ram, They 2+ cpu systems can use desktop ram or ecc ram not high cost and high heat FB-DIMM's, You can use any HT based NB chipset in the systems. Intel is working a GPU in the CPU but in the past Intel on board video has sucked next to others so amd gpu in the cpu will be better and likely you will be able to add a pci-e ati video card to use hybrid crossfire.
They can use a PPC chip on a add in card and put it on the cpu bus you can also make video cards and put them in HTX slots.
Thing there apple does not have a $800 - $2100 desktop system like they did back in the PPC days and the imacs screen is not good for photo work as well. The mini is over priced and weak.
Relevance?
Or are you just another "I want a Mac mini-tower" troll?
I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.
Though it seems like it sometimes. Web standards are getting more complicated, and web pages generally aren't getting simpler and smaller either.
Going on with this discussion, I doubt that Apple is going to make another PPC desktop or notebook.
Maybe they'll drop PPC in the big OS in 10.6. They haven't made new G5 machines for a couple years now, and a year from now, almost all PPC and G5 machines will be 3+ years old. Back when they were all PPCs, maybe they could justify the little bit of work it takes to make 3 to 5 year old machines work with the new OS. Now they're using a new platform now, so they have to divide their testing among two platforms, as well as 32 and 64 bit versions of each.
I don't know about going 64 bit only. That seems a bit much seeing that they were making 32 bit systems even last year.
There is a middle-ground. Apple could get away with the OS only running on Intel as long as PPC apps can still be run (Rosetta support continues). Dropping PPC support entirely would be bad.
I think a quick look at Apple history proves that the new Macs + OSX will run the old apps perfectly well. The chip migrations (68000 to PPC), the OS migration (OS9 to OSX), and the chip migration#2 (PPC to Intel) all ran the old software very well.
And as I said a few posts above - OSX already has a combination of 64bit and 32bit code it's just mostly 32bit. I'm almost positive it's not an issue (and I'm not one to ever say I'm positive.. almost always give myself a way out!)
1) Features in 10.6 won't work acceptably on slower PPC hardware anyway (avoid the Vista mistake of pretending they do).
2) Simplify their own development process as I doubt anything is as straightforward as just clicking a "PPC box" on compiling software.
3) Introduce a significant file system change that would be incompatible or poorly compatible with PPC architecture.
With all that Apple has been doing with Bonjour, media streaming, Time Capsule, etc., I can see advantages of moving in the direction of ZFS and employing it in ways that aren't so obvious right now. Could 10.6 be the first real shot across the bow for Mac OS X with ZFS?
Thing there apple does not have a $800 - $2100 desktop system like they did back in the PPC days and the imacs screen is not good for photo work as well. The mini is over priced and weak.
You can plug an external monitor into the iMac. That's how I do it. Keep the palette on the iMac screen, do the photo work on the other.
So sick of the "you can't do photo work on the iMac" argument. Think past your nose people. And by the time 10.6 is actually released your PPC Mac will be at least 3 years old. They've already eliminated a huge number of computers from the Leopard upgrade. You have likely more than a year to save up for a new computer if you absolutely have to have the latest software. It isn't like all PowerPC Macs are going to stop working when 10.6 is released.
My understanding was that OSX is already designed to allow a seamless use of 32 and 64 bit applications (on 64 bit chips) but only a small portion takes advantage of this.
If the OS goes 64 bit, that seamlessness would remain available to applications.
Right?
The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.
It's pretty nuts to drop PPC support too IMHO although I can see that possibly happening - like Apple have dropped Classic and dropped 64bit Carbon for mostly strategic reasons rather than technical.
What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.