Well, the fact that you can probably run the forthcoming 'sexa-Mac Pro' 12 hard cores through a '27.5' inch iMac is a state of things to come. You basically turbo your prosumer workstation with the 'render farm' Pro box.
It doesn't look like the 'mid tower' is coming. But it's not like they can't fit it in their line up. The Mac Mini is still under powered and expensive to me. STILL no discrete gpu and where's the quad core option? At least offer the option. And if it's too small...make a bigger special edition one.
It's not like Apple's desktop options are overcrowded with choice.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're not just paying for hardware in the case of any Apple. Their machines come with a decent software package and Apple has been less greedy over the years when it comes to their OS. You don't have various grades of the OS, some costing ridiculous amounts of money. There's one OS and it costs less to keep up with the latest version than it does keeping up in the PC world.
Granted, the Mini is still underpowered for the needs of some but with each version that number keeps on shrinking. Instead of looking at this in relative terms, i.e. what do you get spec-wise vs. a similarly priced PC, it needs to be looked at in the context of what the heck are you going to do with the machine, once you set it up. In the case of the current Mini, the answer is quite a lot, especially if you do what I did, namely hook up a 7200 RPM terabyte drive via Firewire 800.
It may be true that the Mini will always be a step or two behind in terms of its core technology but when that technology reaches the performance levels that get the job done, what does it matter? Looking ahead, bringing up the rear the Mini will come with quad-core chips and not as an expensive option but rather as part of the basic configuration. No doubt even quad-core will be tame compared to what a Mini circa 2014 will be based on. While it might seem outrageous now, there will come a time when performance levels in the Mini form factor will surpass what will soon be available in the Mac Pro line. My current Mini is far superior to the then state-of-the-art tower I bought a few years back. Sunk $7,000 Cdn. into the thing and got a couple hundred when I traded it in back in '06. The Mini that cost me less than $700, meanwhile, I just traded in for roughly half the original cost and it had more horsepower than the $7,000 tower (the original dual-core G4).
Truth is that right now, most amateurs can get by with the latest Mini. I'm doing tons of Photoshop, working on an HD video, etc. I'd love more speed, sure, but it's getting the job done rather well, all things considered. In about three or four years time I'll likely be able to trade my latest Mini in, get a decent dollar for it, and pick up a Mini with a lot more horsepower. I'll be able to do this for less than $1,000. From where I sit, life is good for Mac customers like me, much better than the days of $7,000 towers.
I wonder if there will still be 4 core versions made on the 32nm process sold alongside the 6 cores for less money.
There was a report some time ago that the desktop version of Gulftown would be an "Extreme Edition" part and so would coexist with 45 nm quad-core Bloomfields. I wonder if we'll see something similar for the Xeon Gulftown. The fewer models of Gulftown there will be released, the more chance there is for more Gainestown models to remain. Kinda like the 2007 Clovertown update (except I expect the upcoming update to be more substantial).
We may see 4 core Mac Pros just because Gulftown appears to be high priced.
The only reason for a tower is expandability and with video professionals moving to tapeless storage and with the necessity of external storage the need for a big box that holds a lot of "stuff" is waning.
The i7 is the first iMac that is somewhat suitable for Prosumer work regarding speed. I think that if Light Peak takes off it'll allow for very fast exernal storage and other peripherals. Basically all the content creator needs in front on him/her is a good display setup and the grunt power.
I would describe the G5's as capable of doing some prosumer work, then Apple took some steps backwards with the Intel iMacs. Then again, they did give you a choice back then. You could have a PowerMac or iMac with the same CPU for the same money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician
There was a report some time ago that the desktop version of Gulftown would be an "Extreme Edition" part and so would coexist with 45 nm quad-core Bloomfields. I wonder if we'll see something similar for the Xeon Gulftown. The fewer models of Gulftown there will be released, the more chance there is for more Gainestown models to remain. Kinda like the 2007 Clovertown update (except I expect the upcoming update to be more substantial).
We may see 4 core Mac Pros just because Gulftown appears to be high priced.
They're raised the PowerMac/Mac Pro prices $1000 in the last five years. I don't think charing a bit more for gulftown would be a problem.
Sure you would, but it would be at the expense of a iMac or Mac Mini, which is why Apple isn't going to release it. Not to mention it wouldn't be making it's typical twenty to thirty percent profit.
I'm one of those people that has already have two nice displays that would love an apple desktop solution now that I've moved to a MBP for my laptop, but I don't have any interest in an underpowered mac mini or the imac which costs $2,000 to get the performance I want. And I don't want to spend the $ for a Mac Pro when I can get better performance for less from a windows box. If Apple made a mid range tower I'd buy it and it wouldn't be costing Apple a sale
I'm one of those people that has already have two nice displays that would love an apple desktop solution now that I've moved to a MBP for my laptop, but I don't have any interest in an underpowered mac mini or the imac which costs $2,000 to get the performance I want. And I don't want to spend the $ for a Mac Pro when I can get better performance for less from a windows box. If Apple made a mid range tower I'd buy it and it wouldn't be costing Apple a sale
Better performance from a windows box has always been there. There's really no need for a midrange tower at this point. Sure there are a handful of people that bring it up routinely but I'm not convinced in the least that there's an untapped market for people that want a $1300-1700 box aimed at crowd that doesn't want a Mac Pro. There's just no room for it.
This begs the following question: when will Apple (and others) re-write their software to take full advantage of these multi-core processors? I've had Compressor encoding jobs last over 2 days (really long HD projects, different output formats). Same with Color rendering.
When will we see the following take advantage of OpenCL, GCD, and become 64-bit?
Final Cut Pro
Color
DVD Studio Pro
Compressor
Photoshop
etc etc.....
We are waiting for this updated MacPro and hoping that Apple starts eating its own dog food (rewrite its own software to take advantage of its own OS techs).
Those are all Carbon apps. Rewriting them will be a massive project complicated by the executive decision not to release a 64-bit Carbon library.
Since these are pro apps, and there's a lot of money riding on the fact that they work consistently and a lot of training built around the way they work, Apple can't do what they did when they released the first Cocoa iMovie. Remember that? They actually had to offer the old Carbon one for download.
I have no doubt that there are phalanxes of engineers working on rewriting all these apps to 64 bit Cocoa. I do not envy any of them their jobs.
[edit: I just noticed Photoshop in that list. That's a whole new kind of hurt for Adobe. They have a single codebase, built by rolling Carbon into the core classes of the existing Photoshop for Windows. They can't just rewrite the Mac version. They are now facing the exact same situation they faced when Apple announced Rhapsody, but Apple's the company in the driver's seat this time. I really don't envy those engineers.]
Those are all Carbon apps. Rewriting them will be a massive project complicated by the executive decision not to release a 64-bit Carbon library.
Since these are pro apps, and there's a lot of money riding on the fact that they work consistently and a lot of training built around the way they work, Apple can't do what they did when they released the first Cocoa iMovie. Remember that? They actually had to offer the old Carbon one for download.
I have no doubt that there are phalanxes of engineers working on rewriting all these apps to 64 bit Cocoa. I do not envy any of them their jobs.
Apple?s pro apps, iLife and iTunes are surely being rewritten as 32/64-bit Cocoa apps but I?d wager the more complex the app the longer it will take. These aren?t apps like QuickTime X which can be pushed out as much simpler versions of their predecessor. They have to be nearly feature complete when they hot they hit the ground.
I am pretty certain they?ll be using the ?X? designation for all these 32/64-bit Cocoa apps and expect most of them to come in 2010. I?d also stay away from using them as my primary app until I am certain there are no detrimental bugs or missing features that one may not be able to live without.
I think so. Any Mac Pro in a company should have a proper enterprise level back up solution or SAN/NAS. The only thing I can think of is to have a stripped array for performance reasons? Surely 3 bars are enough for that.
Apple?s pro apps, iLife and iTunes are surely being rewritten as 32/64-bit Cocoa apps but I?d wager the more complex the app the longer it will take. These aren?t apps like QuickTime X which can be pushed out as much simpler versions of their predecessor. They have to be nearly feature complete when they hot they hit the ground.
The punchline is that QuickTime X could be pushed out quickly because when it's given a task it can't do it simply punts it to the old 32 bit QuickTime under the covers. QuickTime can thereby be transitioned to Cocoa slowly, gracefully and more or less transparently.
Unfortunately, you can't do that so easily with end-user applications. The UI and controller code are Cocoa or they aren't. The business logic is Grand Central savvy or it isn't. The app is 64 bit or it isn't. Apple's decision to kill 64-bit Carbon has given application developers a bright line to cross, and Apple is just as surely affected by that decision as any of their partners.
Like I said, I wouldn't want to be one of the engineers tasked with rewriting those apps. On the plus side, once they're rewritten and the worst bugs and glitches are shaken out, they should fly on multicore hardware.
The punchline is that QuickTime X could be pushed out quickly because when it's given a task it can't do it simply punts it to the old 32 bit QuickTime under the covers. QuickTime can thereby be transitioned to Cocoa slowly, gracefully and more or less transparently.
Unfortunately, you can't do that so easily with end-user applications. The UI and controller code are Cocoa or they aren't. The business logic is Grand Central savvy or it isn't. The app is 64 bit or it isn't. Apple's decision to kill 64-bit Carbon has given application developers a bright line to cross, and Apple is just as surely affected by that decision as any of their partners.
Like I said, I wouldn't want to be one of the engineers tasked with rewriting those apps. On the plus side, once they're rewritten and the worst bugs and glitches are shaken out, they should fly on multicore hardware.
I'm sure that writing the pro apps, or even the consumer apps, in Cocoa is a difficult proposition. But when did Apple kill 64 bit Carbon and force developers to move to Cocoa? Wasn't that in 2007? Even before then Apple was telling developers that Cocoa was the "future' and to write their apps in Cocoa. I know this is rehashing previous debates on how Apple has handled the 32 to 64 bit transition, but my point is that Apple should have been working on 'Cocoafying' the Apple apps a long time ago. Just like they told everyone else to do. If they haven't they have no one to blame but themselves.
If Apple can't get some Cocoa apps out in 2010, iLIfe and/or pro apps, I think its a fair question to ask 'what the hell is going on'.
I'm sure that writing the pro apps, or even the consumer apps, in Cocoa is a difficult proposition. But when did Apple kill 64 bit Carbon and force developers to move to Cocoa? Wasn't that in 2007? Even before then Apple was telling developers that Cocoa was the "future' and to write their apps in Cocoa. I know this is rehashing previous debates on how Apple has handled the 32 to 64 bit transition, but my point is that Apple should have been working on 'Cocoafying' the Apple apps a long time ago. Just like they told everyone else to do. If they haven't they have no one to blame but themselves.
If Apple can't get some Cocoa apps out in 2010, iLIfe and/or pro apps, I think its a fair question to ask 'what the hell is going on'.
I don?t think he was implying that they didn?t start the changeover awhile back, just that it?s going to take awhile for the complete rewrite while making it look, feel and act just like the Carbon app, at least in all the important parts.
I think 2010?s WWDC is when we?ll see most of the Pro apps appearing with iTunes X coming along with the iPod Special event in the early fall. I have no idea when iLife could hit. Maybe with the release of the next Pro Macs (and new LED backlit ACDs) in Jan/Feb. Now that the Snow Leopard launch has been completed it?s time to start pushing they revised apps out. At least, that is how I?d work it providing there are not other odd delays we don?t know about.
my point is that Apple should have been working on 'Cocoafying' the Apple apps a long time ago. Just like they told everyone else to do. If they haven't they have no one to blame but themselves.
This is exactly the point. Apple should be one of the first developers to use their own technologies instead of telling developers "do as I say not as I do." Apple's Pro apps would benefit greatly just from GCD optimization, now imagine if they were also 64-bit and/or optimized for OpenCL? I am looking forward to the day when these apps can take full advantage of these multi-core processors. Maybe next year.
[edit: I just noticed Photoshop in that list. That's a whole new kind of hurt for Adobe. They have a single codebase, built by rolling Carbon into the core classes of the existing Photoshop for Windows. They can't just rewrite the Mac version. They are now facing the exact same situation they faced when Apple announced Rhapsody, but Apple's the company in the driver's seat this time. I really don't envy those engineers.]
If Adobe could make the right move and implement Cocoa across both Windows and Mac platforms, this wouldn't be an issue. Cocotron or GNUstep could totally do this, and would most likely allow them to offer more uniform products (not to mention uniform codebases) across OSes. Adobe makes some great headway in their non CS endeavors but often leaves them for dead (Alchemy), maybe this will change some day.
That's neat in getting a 50% boost in processing while saving 50% in power. Must be the smaller die size of the chips.
Now that AMD has a billion and a half or more of Intel's money we may see some good products coming from them. Maybe then Apple will offer AMD procs in their wares.
It's an amazing thing. Especially if true. As I was saying yesterday if it is trru asbmany oc know heat is the enemy of overclocking so if true, we'll be seeing hacntosh machines running at almost double the speed. Or better, a 6 core oc double equalling a 12 is even better. Really, I know some think oh cheesy, but seriously, if you like mac software, are a musician, editor, you can get really nice rack cases upward of $300 just for the case.
I still think Apple is missing out with no mid range. Huge market.
Gamers
musicians
prosumers
editors just starring out
rendering farms in which I see huge mac front end but all PC farms due to price and performance.
I think I read not to long ago. Not only were they dropping shake but the pro app development team is tiny compared to consumer now which is a shame as they could have it all and then some. They just have to realize smaller studios and just starting out companies need power AND upgrabilility.
If Adobe could make the right move and implement Cocoa across both Windows and Mac platforms, this wouldn't be an issue. Cocotron or GNUstep could totally do this, and would most likely allow them to offer more uniform products (not to mention uniform codebases) across OSes. Adobe makes some great headway in their non CS endeavors but often leaves them for dead (Alchemy), maybe this will change some day.
Firstly, GNUstep isn't ready. Close, but not ready. Secondly, it's GPL. Adobe will use LGPL but not GPL regarding their code base.
Better performance from a windows box has always been there. There's really no need for a midrange tower at this point. Sure there are a handful of people that bring it up routinely but I'm not convinced in the least that there's an untapped market for people that want a $1300-1700 box aimed at crowd that doesn't want a Mac Pro. There's just no room for it.
Let's take away starting editors, musicians, who must by tthe way have a lot of ram for all thier virtual instruments and extreme horsepower to run it all together, take away the enthusiasts and look at gamers.
Gamers alone, by themself, make up MORE sales then music and video COMBINED.
I don't know why Apple refuses to see this. Or why some see this problem as only a handful. The truth of the matter is a great gaming machine equates a great musician or Pro Apps machine and Apple has this silly notion Bravo, NBC, HBO, CBS etcetera, will stop buying Pro machines and buy theses instead. The irony is the pro market is far, far, far from their bread and butter. A midrange machine with iPhones and then dedicated Gpu to all laptops and Apple runs away with the market for quite some time allowing for better apps, more frequent updates to Pro apps and so on.
No offense to you but hardly is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Again, it's all about apple and what they perceive as good graphics running PronApps. Once they get over that fear, the money will make them soon forget.
Let's take away starting editors, musicians, who must by tthe way have a lot of ram for all thier virtual instruments and extreme horsepower to run it all together, take away the enthusiasts and look at gamers.
Gamers alone, by themself, make up MORE sales then music and video COMBINED.
I don't know why Apple refuses to see this. Or why some see this problem as only a handful. The truth of the matter is a great gaming machine equates a great musician or Pro Apps machine and Apple has this silly notion Bravo, NBC, HBO, CBS etcetera, will stop buying Pro machines and buy theses instead. The irony is the pro market is far, far, far from their bread and butter. A midrange machine with iPhones and then dedicated Gpu to all laptops and Apple runs away with the market for quite some time allowing for better apps, more frequent updates to Pro apps and so on.
No offense to you but hardly is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Again, it's all about apple and what they perceive as good graphics running PronApps. Once they get over that fear, the money will make them soon forget.
Peace
Please don't tell us how pc gamers are an important market for Apple to capture. They aren't. They are a dying breed (see above chart and the 50% decrease in pc game sales form 1998 through 2007). Notice how much love Infinity Ward gave them with the latest version of MW2? Go over to Ars and read the comments from the pc gamers about the pc version of that game. If the software game developers don't treat pc gamers as first class citizens, why the hell would Apple?
Comments
Well, the fact that you can probably run the forthcoming 'sexa-Mac Pro' 12 hard cores through a '27.5' inch iMac is a state of things to come. You basically turbo your prosumer workstation with the 'render farm' Pro box.
It doesn't look like the 'mid tower' is coming. But it's not like they can't fit it in their line up. The Mac Mini is still under powered and expensive to me. STILL no discrete gpu and where's the quad core option? At least offer the option. And if it's too small...make a bigger special edition one.
It's not like Apple's desktop options are overcrowded with choice.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're not just paying for hardware in the case of any Apple. Their machines come with a decent software package and Apple has been less greedy over the years when it comes to their OS. You don't have various grades of the OS, some costing ridiculous amounts of money. There's one OS and it costs less to keep up with the latest version than it does keeping up in the PC world.
Granted, the Mini is still underpowered for the needs of some but with each version that number keeps on shrinking. Instead of looking at this in relative terms, i.e. what do you get spec-wise vs. a similarly priced PC, it needs to be looked at in the context of what the heck are you going to do with the machine, once you set it up. In the case of the current Mini, the answer is quite a lot, especially if you do what I did, namely hook up a 7200 RPM terabyte drive via Firewire 800.
It may be true that the Mini will always be a step or two behind in terms of its core technology but when that technology reaches the performance levels that get the job done, what does it matter? Looking ahead, bringing up the rear the Mini will come with quad-core chips and not as an expensive option but rather as part of the basic configuration. No doubt even quad-core will be tame compared to what a Mini circa 2014 will be based on. While it might seem outrageous now, there will come a time when performance levels in the Mini form factor will surpass what will soon be available in the Mac Pro line. My current Mini is far superior to the then state-of-the-art tower I bought a few years back. Sunk $7,000 Cdn. into the thing and got a couple hundred when I traded it in back in '06. The Mini that cost me less than $700, meanwhile, I just traded in for roughly half the original cost and it had more horsepower than the $7,000 tower (the original dual-core G4).
Truth is that right now, most amateurs can get by with the latest Mini. I'm doing tons of Photoshop, working on an HD video, etc. I'd love more speed, sure, but it's getting the job done rather well, all things considered. In about three or four years time I'll likely be able to trade my latest Mini in, get a decent dollar for it, and pick up a Mini with a lot more horsepower. I'll be able to do this for less than $1,000. From where I sit, life is good for Mac customers like me, much better than the days of $7,000 towers.
I wonder if there will still be 4 core versions made on the 32nm process sold alongside the 6 cores for less money.
There was a report some time ago that the desktop version of Gulftown would be an "Extreme Edition" part and so would coexist with 45 nm quad-core Bloomfields. I wonder if we'll see something similar for the Xeon Gulftown. The fewer models of Gulftown there will be released, the more chance there is for more Gainestown models to remain. Kinda like the 2007 Clovertown update (except I expect the upcoming update to be more substantial).
We may see 4 core Mac Pros just because Gulftown appears to be high priced.
A midrange tower is not coming folks.
The only reason for a tower is expandability and with video professionals moving to tapeless storage and with the necessity of external storage the need for a big box that holds a lot of "stuff" is waning.
The i7 is the first iMac that is somewhat suitable for Prosumer work regarding speed. I think that if Light Peak takes off it'll allow for very fast exernal storage and other peripherals. Basically all the content creator needs in front on him/her is a good display setup and the grunt power.
I would describe the G5's as capable of doing some prosumer work, then Apple took some steps backwards with the Intel iMacs. Then again, they did give you a choice back then. You could have a PowerMac or iMac with the same CPU for the same money.
There was a report some time ago that the desktop version of Gulftown would be an "Extreme Edition" part and so would coexist with 45 nm quad-core Bloomfields. I wonder if we'll see something similar for the Xeon Gulftown. The fewer models of Gulftown there will be released, the more chance there is for more Gainestown models to remain. Kinda like the 2007 Clovertown update (except I expect the upcoming update to be more substantial).
We may see 4 core Mac Pros just because Gulftown appears to be high priced.
They're raised the PowerMac/Mac Pro prices $1000 in the last five years. I don't think charing a bit more for gulftown would be a problem.
What's the problem with the current design?
More. Drive. Bays.
Sure you would, but it would be at the expense of a iMac or Mac Mini, which is why Apple isn't going to release it. Not to mention it wouldn't be making it's typical twenty to thirty percent profit.
I'm one of those people that has already have two nice displays that would love an apple desktop solution now that I've moved to a MBP for my laptop, but I don't have any interest in an underpowered mac mini or the imac which costs $2,000 to get the performance I want. And I don't want to spend the $ for a Mac Pro when I can get better performance for less from a windows box. If Apple made a mid range tower I'd buy it and it wouldn't be costing Apple a sale
I'm one of those people that has already have two nice displays that would love an apple desktop solution now that I've moved to a MBP for my laptop, but I don't have any interest in an underpowered mac mini or the imac which costs $2,000 to get the performance I want. And I don't want to spend the $ for a Mac Pro when I can get better performance for less from a windows box. If Apple made a mid range tower I'd buy it and it wouldn't be costing Apple a sale
Better performance from a windows box has always been there. There's really no need for a midrange tower at this point. Sure there are a handful of people that bring it up routinely but I'm not convinced in the least that there's an untapped market for people that want a $1300-1700 box aimed at crowd that doesn't want a Mac Pro. There's just no room for it.
This begs the following question: when will Apple (and others) re-write their software to take full advantage of these multi-core processors? I've had Compressor encoding jobs last over 2 days (really long HD projects, different output formats). Same with Color rendering.
When will we see the following take advantage of OpenCL, GCD, and become 64-bit?
Final Cut Pro
Color
DVD Studio Pro
Compressor
Photoshop
etc etc.....
We are waiting for this updated MacPro and hoping that Apple starts eating its own dog food (rewrite its own software to take advantage of its own OS techs).
Those are all Carbon apps. Rewriting them will be a massive project complicated by the executive decision not to release a 64-bit Carbon library.
Since these are pro apps, and there's a lot of money riding on the fact that they work consistently and a lot of training built around the way they work, Apple can't do what they did when they released the first Cocoa iMovie. Remember that? They actually had to offer the old Carbon one for download.
I have no doubt that there are phalanxes of engineers working on rewriting all these apps to 64 bit Cocoa. I do not envy any of them their jobs.
[edit: I just noticed Photoshop in that list. That's a whole new kind of hurt for Adobe. They have a single codebase, built by rolling Carbon into the core classes of the existing Photoshop for Windows. They can't just rewrite the Mac version. They are now facing the exact same situation they faced when Apple announced Rhapsody, but Apple's the company in the driver's seat this time. I really don't envy those engineers.]
More. Drive. Bays.
Four is enough for a desktop machine, surely?
Those are all Carbon apps. Rewriting them will be a massive project complicated by the executive decision not to release a 64-bit Carbon library.
Since these are pro apps, and there's a lot of money riding on the fact that they work consistently and a lot of training built around the way they work, Apple can't do what they did when they released the first Cocoa iMovie. Remember that? They actually had to offer the old Carbon one for download.
I have no doubt that there are phalanxes of engineers working on rewriting all these apps to 64 bit Cocoa. I do not envy any of them their jobs.
Apple?s pro apps, iLife and iTunes are surely being rewritten as 32/64-bit Cocoa apps but I?d wager the more complex the app the longer it will take. These aren?t apps like QuickTime X which can be pushed out as much simpler versions of their predecessor. They have to be nearly feature complete when they hot they hit the ground.
I am pretty certain they?ll be using the ?X? designation for all these 32/64-bit Cocoa apps and expect most of them to come in 2010. I?d also stay away from using them as my primary app until I am certain there are no detrimental bugs or missing features that one may not be able to live without.
Four is enough for a desktop machine, surely?
I think so. Any Mac Pro in a company should have a proper enterprise level back up solution or SAN/NAS. The only thing I can think of is to have a stripped array for performance reasons? Surely 3 bars are enough for that.
Apple?s pro apps, iLife and iTunes are surely being rewritten as 32/64-bit Cocoa apps but I?d wager the more complex the app the longer it will take. These aren?t apps like QuickTime X which can be pushed out as much simpler versions of their predecessor. They have to be nearly feature complete when they hot they hit the ground.
The punchline is that QuickTime X could be pushed out quickly because when it's given a task it can't do it simply punts it to the old 32 bit QuickTime under the covers. QuickTime can thereby be transitioned to Cocoa slowly, gracefully and more or less transparently.
Unfortunately, you can't do that so easily with end-user applications. The UI and controller code are Cocoa or they aren't. The business logic is Grand Central savvy or it isn't. The app is 64 bit or it isn't. Apple's decision to kill 64-bit Carbon has given application developers a bright line to cross, and Apple is just as surely affected by that decision as any of their partners.
Like I said, I wouldn't want to be one of the engineers tasked with rewriting those apps. On the plus side, once they're rewritten and the worst bugs and glitches are shaken out, they should fly on multicore hardware.
The punchline is that QuickTime X could be pushed out quickly because when it's given a task it can't do it simply punts it to the old 32 bit QuickTime under the covers. QuickTime can thereby be transitioned to Cocoa slowly, gracefully and more or less transparently.
Unfortunately, you can't do that so easily with end-user applications. The UI and controller code are Cocoa or they aren't. The business logic is Grand Central savvy or it isn't. The app is 64 bit or it isn't. Apple's decision to kill 64-bit Carbon has given application developers a bright line to cross, and Apple is just as surely affected by that decision as any of their partners.
Like I said, I wouldn't want to be one of the engineers tasked with rewriting those apps. On the plus side, once they're rewritten and the worst bugs and glitches are shaken out, they should fly on multicore hardware.
I'm sure that writing the pro apps, or even the consumer apps, in Cocoa is a difficult proposition. But when did Apple kill 64 bit Carbon and force developers to move to Cocoa? Wasn't that in 2007? Even before then Apple was telling developers that Cocoa was the "future' and to write their apps in Cocoa. I know this is rehashing previous debates on how Apple has handled the 32 to 64 bit transition, but my point is that Apple should have been working on 'Cocoafying' the Apple apps a long time ago. Just like they told everyone else to do. If they haven't they have no one to blame but themselves.
If Apple can't get some Cocoa apps out in 2010, iLIfe and/or pro apps, I think its a fair question to ask 'what the hell is going on'.
I'm sure that writing the pro apps, or even the consumer apps, in Cocoa is a difficult proposition. But when did Apple kill 64 bit Carbon and force developers to move to Cocoa? Wasn't that in 2007? Even before then Apple was telling developers that Cocoa was the "future' and to write their apps in Cocoa. I know this is rehashing previous debates on how Apple has handled the 32 to 64 bit transition, but my point is that Apple should have been working on 'Cocoafying' the Apple apps a long time ago. Just like they told everyone else to do. If they haven't they have no one to blame but themselves.
If Apple can't get some Cocoa apps out in 2010, iLIfe and/or pro apps, I think its a fair question to ask 'what the hell is going on'.
I don?t think he was implying that they didn?t start the changeover awhile back, just that it?s going to take awhile for the complete rewrite while making it look, feel and act just like the Carbon app, at least in all the important parts.
I think 2010?s WWDC is when we?ll see most of the Pro apps appearing with iTunes X coming along with the iPod Special event in the early fall. I have no idea when iLife could hit. Maybe with the release of the next Pro Macs (and new LED backlit ACDs) in Jan/Feb. Now that the Snow Leopard launch has been completed it?s time to start pushing they revised apps out. At least, that is how I?d work it providing there are not other odd delays we don?t know about.
my point is that Apple should have been working on 'Cocoafying' the Apple apps a long time ago. Just like they told everyone else to do. If they haven't they have no one to blame but themselves.
This is exactly the point. Apple should be one of the first developers to use their own technologies instead of telling developers "do as I say not as I do." Apple's Pro apps would benefit greatly just from GCD optimization, now imagine if they were also 64-bit and/or optimized for OpenCL? I am looking forward to the day when these apps can take full advantage of these multi-core processors. Maybe next year.
[edit: I just noticed Photoshop in that list. That's a whole new kind of hurt for Adobe. They have a single codebase, built by rolling Carbon into the core classes of the existing Photoshop for Windows. They can't just rewrite the Mac version. They are now facing the exact same situation they faced when Apple announced Rhapsody, but Apple's the company in the driver's seat this time. I really don't envy those engineers.]
If Adobe could make the right move and implement Cocoa across both Windows and Mac platforms, this wouldn't be an issue. Cocotron or GNUstep could totally do this, and would most likely allow them to offer more uniform products (not to mention uniform codebases) across OSes. Adobe makes some great headway in their non CS endeavors but often leaves them for dead (Alchemy), maybe this will change some day.
That's neat in getting a 50% boost in processing while saving 50% in power. Must be the smaller die size of the chips.
Now that AMD has a billion and a half or more of Intel's money we may see some good products coming from them. Maybe then Apple will offer AMD procs in their wares.
It's an amazing thing. Especially if true. As I was saying yesterday if it is trru asbmany oc know heat is the enemy of overclocking so if true, we'll be seeing hacntosh machines running at almost double the speed. Or better, a 6 core oc double equalling a 12 is even better. Really, I know some think oh cheesy, but seriously, if you like mac software, are a musician, editor, you can get really nice rack cases upward of $300 just for the case.
I still think Apple is missing out with no mid range. Huge market.
Gamers
musicians
prosumers
editors just starring out
rendering farms in which I see huge mac front end but all PC farms due to price and performance.
I think I read not to long ago. Not only were they dropping shake but the pro app development team is tiny compared to consumer now which is a shame as they could have it all and then some. They just have to realize smaller studios and just starting out companies need power AND upgrabilility.
If Adobe could make the right move and implement Cocoa across both Windows and Mac platforms, this wouldn't be an issue. Cocotron or GNUstep could totally do this, and would most likely allow them to offer more uniform products (not to mention uniform codebases) across OSes. Adobe makes some great headway in their non CS endeavors but often leaves them for dead (Alchemy), maybe this will change some day.
Firstly, GNUstep isn't ready. Close, but not ready. Secondly, it's GPL. Adobe will use LGPL but not GPL regarding their code base.
Better performance from a windows box has always been there. There's really no need for a midrange tower at this point. Sure there are a handful of people that bring it up routinely but I'm not convinced in the least that there's an untapped market for people that want a $1300-1700 box aimed at crowd that doesn't want a Mac Pro. There's just no room for it.
Let's take away starting editors, musicians, who must by tthe way have a lot of ram for all thier virtual instruments and extreme horsepower to run it all together, take away the enthusiasts and look at gamers.
Gamers alone, by themself, make up MORE sales then music and video COMBINED.
I don't know why Apple refuses to see this. Or why some see this problem as only a handful. The truth of the matter is a great gaming machine equates a great musician or Pro Apps machine and Apple has this silly notion Bravo, NBC, HBO, CBS etcetera, will stop buying Pro machines and buy theses instead. The irony is the pro market is far, far, far from their bread and butter. A midrange machine with iPhones and then dedicated Gpu to all laptops and Apple runs away with the market for quite some time allowing for better apps, more frequent updates to Pro apps and so on.
No offense to you but hardly is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Again, it's all about apple and what they perceive as good graphics running PronApps. Once they get over that fear, the money will make them soon forget.
Peace
Let's take away starting editors, musicians, who must by tthe way have a lot of ram for all thier virtual instruments and extreme horsepower to run it all together, take away the enthusiasts and look at gamers.
Gamers alone, by themself, make up MORE sales then music and video COMBINED.
I don't know why Apple refuses to see this. Or why some see this problem as only a handful. The truth of the matter is a great gaming machine equates a great musician or Pro Apps machine and Apple has this silly notion Bravo, NBC, HBO, CBS etcetera, will stop buying Pro machines and buy theses instead. The irony is the pro market is far, far, far from their bread and butter. A midrange machine with iPhones and then dedicated Gpu to all laptops and Apple runs away with the market for quite some time allowing for better apps, more frequent updates to Pro apps and so on.
No offense to you but hardly is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Again, it's all about apple and what they perceive as good graphics running PronApps. Once they get over that fear, the money will make them soon forget.
Peace
Please don't tell us how pc gamers are an important market for Apple to capture. They aren't. They are a dying breed (see above chart and the 50% decrease in pc game sales form 1998 through 2007). Notice how much love Infinity Ward gave them with the latest version of MW2? Go over to Ars and read the comments from the pc gamers about the pc version of that game. If the software game developers don't treat pc gamers as first class citizens, why the hell would Apple?