[quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
<strong>
This would tie in to what appears to be Apple's 3-year product lifecycle , with MWSF03 used for the launch of PMac G5 (which I think is 3 years after G4), and MWSF04 used for TiBook G5 (equally 3 years after TiBook G4, which I'm sure was when I purchased mine).
The launch of smaller, more thermally efficient G5s for 2004 could also imply 4-way servers in a dense package (3U anyone) which would be neat for a number of markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G4 was announced at New York, a year later they moved to DP G4's due to lack of speed improvements to the G4. The next year they bumped the speed up. I'n not sure if the original release was 3 or 4 years ago for the G4 though...
[QB]The item about future mobos not able to boot from OS 9 is interesting...<hr></blockquote>
Of course this is just a rumor, but this would be a big mistake from my perspective as a Mac audio person. Music production is the one area where the tools are still seriously lacking under X. Of the major sequencers, I believe only two have even announced X plans (Cubase and Logic), but neither is shipping yet. I don?t believe ProTools or Performer have even acknowledged the existence of X. Peak, Live, and Reason are shipping, but those 3 programs alone will serve very few musicians? needs. Essential plug-ins such as Waves, the entire line of NI programs, and key hardware drivers are non-existent.
These applications do not run in Classic mode due to their need to directly access hardware. At least based on the current iteration of Classic, these applications will require a machine that boots directly in 9.
The Mac audio community may represent only a small portion of Apple?s customer base, but I believe this is an important segment. Because virtual instruments and plug-in effects require real-time horsepower, musicians are probably among the most demanding users and the most likely to jump at the latest, greatest, and most powerful machine. Personally, I feel the big iron is more important for my music applications than for FCP, Photoshop, or any other application I own. In FCP, the slower my machine, the longer it takes me to render a transition, perhaps I can?t use real time effects, etc. But with patience, I can still get the work done. However, if I?m trying to play around with a couple of Reaktor instruments within Cubase and I hit the performance ceiling, the game is over. The audio dies and I can?t get the work done.
Bottom line: I believe musicians are among the most power-hungry Mac users out there, and Apple would be shooting itself in the foot if the next PowerMacs exclude this market segment from buying. (Unless the announcement were to come in tandem with a slew of software announcements. Or Apple?s own rumored sequencer. However, I personally can?t recall audio app developers ever being part of a MacWorld Keynote.)
No support for 9 in the new chips may inspire Quark to get off its ass and get a version of quarks ready for osX
I have been using indesign for about 2 months and I am really beginning to like this software.
Publishing will want to make this change to OSX, the capabilites of the unix core for specialized apps is going to be great for publishers, unfortunately the move will not be painless.
10.2 will make easier than 10.1 was (huge networking issues
WRT pro audio people moving over to OSX, I think the hardware drivers issue is every bit as important as the apps themselves. If I can't get one of my MOTU interfaces to work, it doesn't help me one bit if every single digital audio sequencer gets an OSX version. As far as I can tell, the only audio interfaces with X drivers are the midiman stuff, and there are a lot of studios out there with different interfaces. The software doesn't help if I can't get my audio in & out of the machine, under OSX!
[quote]OSX is fine for consumers - but no print /graphic design professional office is gonna have anything to do with it.<hr></blockquote>
Um...I'm a publication designer and OS X has been my default startup since the day Office v.X was released. Since InDesign 2.0 and Photoshop 7 landed on my desk, I go for days without booting Classic.
I wanted to switch from Quark to InDesign, and when I asked my film shop if that would present any problems, they told me "We think InDesign sucks!" So I'm thinking of finding a new film shop and getting InDesign.
<strong>someone needs to smack QUARK on the back of the head. otherwise, they are going to get ****ed by InDesign</strong><hr></blockquote>
it may be too late already. our whole agency switched to indesign and while all the art directors are griping because the interface is completely different, i'm quite happy.
i started using indesign 1.5 when i knew the migration was coming. 1.5 sucked ass. 2.0 is pretty good. and 2 on x is nice. it has many features that blow quark away. screw quark. they're a lousy company that sat on their asses while they had the monopoly on the market and only started getting interested in their own product again when adobe threw their hat into the ring. i hope they go under personally. they're the syquest of the new decade.
[quote] I believe musicians are among the most power-hungry Mac users out there, and Apple would be shooting itself in the foot if the next PowerMacs exclude this market segment from buying. <hr></blockquote>
Great post Paulumos. As someone who does a fair number of sessions, I can tell you that half of the studios in this town (Nashville) run Pro Tools, and over half of those do so on a Mac. Everybody wants faster gear and most people want to either see Classic continue or a swift and painless migration to OS X. So far, that migration just isn't happening.
As much as I understand and even, as a shareholder, appreciate Apple's canniness with release info, they really need to do a better job of reassuring key niche sectors like audio of their intentions and prospects.
[quote]I wanted to switch from Quark to InDesign, and when I asked my film shop if that would present any problems, they told me "We think InDesign sucks!" So I'm thinking of finding a new film shop and getting InDesign. <hr></blockquote>
I've sent InDesign 2.0 files to half a dozen different shops and haven't heard a peep. And that incudes files with drop shadows, transparency and even native Photoshop files in place.
Once you see how ID renders raster graphics and CMYK TIFF files, you'll wonder how you ever laid out pages with jagged, low-res images.
<strong>I wanted to switch from Quark to InDesign, and when I asked my film shop if that would present any problems, they told me "We think InDesign sucks!" So I'm thinking of finding a new film shop and getting InDesign.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the sound of it, that's a service bureau that deserves to lose a few customers.
<strong>I wanted to switch from Quark to InDesign, and when I asked my film shop if that would present any problems, they told me "We think InDesign sucks!" So I'm thinking of finding a new film shop and getting InDesign.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't they take PDF files?
Even in a "lagging behind on everything" city like Vancouver. There are over 70% of print shops take PDF files. Those who don't accept this format will be f*cked sooner or later.
I've sent InDesign 2.0 files to half a dozen different shops and haven't heard a peep. And that incudes files with drop shadows, transparency and even native Photoshop files in place.<hr></blockquote>
Idem ditto for me too !
Indy rocks ! Once you do page layout with it... you can't go back to "the dead-horse"...
And I have no problem with it. I give PDF files to my service bureau. That's much faster to create than in "the dead-horse"
Go back to the topic...
I think will be seeing the G5 or whatever as soon as MWNY 02 or as late MWNY 03. In the meantime, i *HOPE* we will see faster G4 with a revamp full DDR mobo with all the bells and whistles like: FW2, USB2, Faster Airport, Bluetooth, Second Drive Bay, Better Audio, etc.
Apple can't stay with the same 133 Mhz architecture anymore... But who knows?
Perhaps it's the mobo of the G5 that will not be able to boot under mac os 9.
Is someone now here, if the xserve can boot from mac os 9 ? If it's the case then the revised mobo of the G4 (a variation of the Xserve mobo) will do the same, in the contrary i am afraid that we cannot boot anymore from mac os 9.
Apple's senior director of hardware (Greg Joswiak) has been quoted as saying "the g4 still has a long life ahead of it. Rumors are circulating that the newer g4s will have many features of the g5 but still be considered g5.
I think Apple needs a bus speed increase and a switch to DDR RAM. While seemingly small changes they certainly pave the way for bigger things.
Keep in mind the current 867 g4 gives a 2 ghz Pent4 a run for its money.
Just saw this article on the new Power 4 servers from IBM over at CNET (news.com) "IBM to release cheaper Power4 servers" A couple of things of interest.
[quote] Along with the new package for the Power4, IBM will be able to adjust the configurations of the new server by varying the internal configuration of the Power4 chip. <hr></blockquote>
also
[quote] IBM, though, also makes a version of the chip with only one active processor core, sources said. By halving the number of cores in the chip, IBM effectively doubles the amount of cache--a performance-enhancing pool of memory located close to the processor for rapid data access. <hr></blockquote>
Maybe, just maybe, one of these single core chips could make its way into a Mac, especially if it is priced much lower. If MOT is not getting their butt in gear to produce a G5 in the the near future, Apple just might switch over to IBM to provide their next generation chip.
Comments
<strong>
This would tie in to what appears to be Apple's 3-year product lifecycle , with MWSF03 used for the launch of PMac G5 (which I think is 3 years after G4), and MWSF04 used for TiBook G5 (equally 3 years after TiBook G4, which I'm sure was when I purchased mine).
The launch of smaller, more thermally efficient G5s for 2004 could also imply 4-way servers in a dense package (3U anyone) which would be neat for a number of markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G4 was announced at New York, a year later they moved to DP G4's due to lack of speed improvements to the G4. The next year they bumped the speed up. I'n not sure if the original release was 3 or 4 years ago for the G4 though...
Um, wasn't the G3 only in Pro Desktops for 18-20 months?
People... rumors are one thing, but these are dots that can't be connected.
Apple will release the best machine they can as soon as the can. It's pure physical availability, financial feasibility and economics.
[QB]The item about future mobos not able to boot from OS 9 is interesting...<hr></blockquote>
Of course this is just a rumor, but this would be a big mistake from my perspective as a Mac audio person. Music production is the one area where the tools are still seriously lacking under X. Of the major sequencers, I believe only two have even announced X plans (Cubase and Logic), but neither is shipping yet. I don?t believe ProTools or Performer have even acknowledged the existence of X. Peak, Live, and Reason are shipping, but those 3 programs alone will serve very few musicians? needs. Essential plug-ins such as Waves, the entire line of NI programs, and key hardware drivers are non-existent.
These applications do not run in Classic mode due to their need to directly access hardware. At least based on the current iteration of Classic, these applications will require a machine that boots directly in 9.
The Mac audio community may represent only a small portion of Apple?s customer base, but I believe this is an important segment. Because virtual instruments and plug-in effects require real-time horsepower, musicians are probably among the most demanding users and the most likely to jump at the latest, greatest, and most powerful machine. Personally, I feel the big iron is more important for my music applications than for FCP, Photoshop, or any other application I own. In FCP, the slower my machine, the longer it takes me to render a transition, perhaps I can?t use real time effects, etc. But with patience, I can still get the work done. However, if I?m trying to play around with a couple of Reaktor instruments within Cubase and I hit the performance ceiling, the game is over. The audio dies and I can?t get the work done.
Bottom line: I believe musicians are among the most power-hungry Mac users out there, and Apple would be shooting itself in the foot if the next PowerMacs exclude this market segment from buying. (Unless the announcement were to come in tandem with a slew of software announcements. Or Apple?s own rumored sequencer. However, I personally can?t recall audio app developers ever being part of a MacWorld Keynote.)
Paul.
I have been using indesign for about 2 months and I am really beginning to like this software.
Publishing will want to make this change to OSX, the capabilites of the unix core for specialized apps is going to be great for publishers, unfortunately the move will not be painless.
10.2 will make easier than 10.1 was (huge networking issues
Lemon Bon Bon
Hmm. I'm back to thinking that a G5 may come at San Fran in light of previous history with the G4.
I remember waiting for it at the time. Apple said it was ages away and then they launched it way ahead of the speculator's best estimates!
I hope they do the same with the G5.
No reason they couldn't split the 'power'Mac line in two. Low and Middle/G4. High and ultra/G5.
Suspicious though. Is OS X-boot-only even technically possible?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Certainly. For significantly different hardware, Apple may deem it not worth the effort to put out a revamped enabler.
Classic would still work, however, since it uses a different enabler which in many cases calls through to Mac OS X.
Um...I'm a publication designer and OS X has been my default startup since the day Office v.X was released. Since InDesign 2.0 and Photoshop 7 landed on my desk, I go for days without booting Classic.
<strong>someone needs to smack QUARK on the back of the head. otherwise, they are going to get ****ed by InDesign</strong><hr></blockquote>
it may be too late already. our whole agency switched to indesign and while all the art directors are griping because the interface is completely different, i'm quite happy.
i started using indesign 1.5 when i knew the migration was coming. 1.5 sucked ass. 2.0 is pretty good. and 2 on x is nice. it has many features that blow quark away. screw quark. they're a lousy company that sat on their asses while they had the monopoly on the market and only started getting interested in their own product again when adobe threw their hat into the ring. i hope they go under personally. they're the syquest of the new decade.
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
Great post Paulumos. As someone who does a fair number of sessions, I can tell you that half of the studios in this town (Nashville) run Pro Tools, and over half of those do so on a Mac. Everybody wants faster gear and most people want to either see Classic continue or a swift and painless migration to OS X. So far, that migration just isn't happening.
As much as I understand and even, as a shareholder, appreciate Apple's canniness with release info, they really need to do a better job of reassuring key niche sectors like audio of their intentions and prospects.
---------------------------------------
Still Waiting in Nashville
I've sent InDesign 2.0 files to half a dozen different shops and haven't heard a peep. And that incudes files with drop shadows, transparency and even native Photoshop files in place.
Once you see how ID renders raster graphics and CMYK TIFF files, you'll wonder how you ever laid out pages with jagged, low-res images.
<strong>I wanted to switch from Quark to InDesign, and when I asked my film shop if that would present any problems, they told me "We think InDesign sucks!" So I'm thinking of finding a new film shop and getting InDesign.</strong><hr></blockquote>
From the sound of it, that's a service bureau that deserves to lose a few customers.
<strong>I wanted to switch from Quark to InDesign, and when I asked my film shop if that would present any problems, they told me "We think InDesign sucks!" So I'm thinking of finding a new film shop and getting InDesign.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't they take PDF files?
Even in a "lagging behind on everything" city like Vancouver. There are over 70% of print shops take PDF files. Those who don't accept this format will be f*cked sooner or later.
[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
I've sent InDesign 2.0 files to half a dozen different shops and haven't heard a peep. And that incudes files with drop shadows, transparency and even native Photoshop files in place.<hr></blockquote>
Idem ditto for me too !
Indy rocks ! Once you do page layout with it... you can't go back to "the dead-horse"...
And I have no problem with it. I give PDF files to my service bureau. That's much faster to create than in "the dead-horse"
Go back to the topic...
I think will be seeing the G5 or whatever as soon as MWNY 02 or as late MWNY 03. In the meantime, i *HOPE* we will see faster G4 with a revamp full DDR mobo with all the bells and whistles like: FW2, USB2, Faster Airport, Bluetooth, Second Drive Bay, Better Audio, etc.
Apple can't stay with the same 133 Mhz architecture anymore... But who knows?
[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
Is someone now here, if the xserve can boot from mac os 9 ? If it's the case then the revised mobo of the G4 (a variation of the Xserve mobo) will do the same, in the contrary i am afraid that we cannot boot anymore from mac os 9.
I think Apple needs a bus speed increase and a switch to DDR RAM. While seemingly small changes they certainly pave the way for bigger things.
Keep in mind the current 867 g4 gives a 2 ghz Pent4 a run for its money.
[quote] Along with the new package for the Power4, IBM will be able to adjust the configurations of the new server by varying the internal configuration of the Power4 chip. <hr></blockquote>
also
[quote] IBM, though, also makes a version of the chip with only one active processor core, sources said. By halving the number of cores in the chip, IBM effectively doubles the amount of cache--a performance-enhancing pool of memory located close to the processor for rapid data access. <hr></blockquote>
Maybe, just maybe, one of these single core chips could make its way into a Mac, especially if it is priced much lower. If MOT is not getting their butt in gear to produce a G5 in the the near future, Apple just might switch over to IBM to provide their next generation chip.
The complete article is at: <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-938413.html?tag=fd_top"; target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2100-1001-938413.html?tag=fd_top</a>;