Apparently, it means, let's ignore the Administrator note on posting multiple threads, and post, headlong, the 25th thread on this whole Intel / WWDC mess.
I can't believe that SJ would agree to "Intel Inside" though, unless it was stuck to the bottom!
No way Jobs is going to allow a sticker deface the aluminum casing of a powerbook; no "Intel Inside" will be beautifully embossed or engraved right into the metal then set of with white and blue enamel.
If Jobs is being sincere, then the life of an iMac purchased today will be as long and as fruitful as it would be if Apple stayed with IBM because OS X is apparently a dual platform OS.
Of course it has nothing to do with Steve doing his best to try to salvage his entire PPC product line that has just been Osborned.
All the 'dual platform OS' talk is exactly what you hear before one company takes over another. Everyone at the old company is told don't worry, nothing will change...
Ummmm...Jobs said it would be a 2 year transition starting at NEXT years WWDC, which is when 10.5 is going to be released. So you are incorrect.
Incorrect? Please...
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
No way Jobs is going to allow a sticker deface the aluminum casing of a powerbook; no "Intel Inside" will be beautifully embossed or engraved right into the metal then set of with white and blue enamel.
That's right, and that's also why Leopard would work on both platform. Since the beginning mac os X was developped for both platform PPC and X86 : why should it be different right now ?
I still say it will be orphaned. If they stick to his timetable, and transition their whole product line to Intel by Jan. 2007. then after that point it is orphaned. As in, no further development on that platform.
If they come up with new technologies, they are not going to back-port it to PPC. How many people remember the promises made for Classic when it was announced? How many people remember the reality?
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
This is exactly what I am afraid of and beleive. Why else be so freekn' vauge? It is because if he explains futher he will cause his stock price to bottom out and have furious Mac users chasing him down.
Of course he is going to talk out of his @$$ about PPC now and the future. He is really jerking with the mac base, I am new so this isn't as bad as some of you long timers, but I have purchased 2 macs and I feel like I just got crap'd on. For his sake, 10.5 and future applications better run on G5 and G4 hardware for a long time.
I've been with Macs for 14 years and this will be fine. Fat binaries mean this will be backwards compatible (unlike OS X from classic). People, chill out - this is supposed to be good news - no more complaining about IBM! Also there will be new computers before the Intel ones.
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
Nonsense. Apple has millions of PPC Macs in the market that could run 10.5, but not a single, solitary one that has an Intel CPU.
Making 10.5 contingent on an Intel CPU is what would be wasted effort.
Nonsense. Apple has millions of PPC Macs in the market that could run 10.5, but not a single, solitary one that has an Intel CPU.
Making 10.5 contingent on an Intel CPU is what would be wasted effort.
Fat binaries give a backwards compatibility that will provide a life for PPC well into the future. It's amazing - people complain about the lack of progress in IBM .2GHz n a year but when Apple does something about it they complain.
Fat binaries give a backwards compatibility that will provide a life for PPC well into the future. It's amazing - people complain about the lack of progress in IBM .2GHz n a year but when Apple does something about it they complain.
For those who lived through the original transition to PPC, the name "Fat Binaries" does not bring back good memories. They were slow, ungainly, and didn't seem to extend the life of 8086 code in the slightest.
That's my big fear here, folks. I've heard Job's speech twice before, and neither time was the exchange as painless and easy as he made it sound.
For those who lived through the original transition to PPC, the name "Fat Binaries" does not bring back good memories. They were slow, ungainly, and didn't seem to extend the life of 8086 code in the slightest.
That's my big fear here, folks. I've heard Job's speech twice before, and neither time was the exchange as painless and easy as he made it sound.
As a consumer the OS 9 (well 8.6) to OS X transition was easy for me.
Exactly. In fact, this may be a good time to buy a Mac as the prices may be reduced. Hum, Dual 2.7 G5 for $1800.
Humm....
Tell me when it's going to happen.
I might see a small price drop, but I don't believe $1800 for a dual 2.7 anytime soon.
Apple will keep their prices atable for awhile unless we see new machines coming soon. But i don't think that's going to happen. What's going to be announce at paris Expo? now we know no PB G5. Powermac were just upgraded, Imac too. So, Macmini? that's it? Ibook?
Will this transition increase the chances of getting a computer virus?
Why would it? What makes the Mac virus-resistant is the Operating System, not the hardware. NOTHING about how you interact with the Mac will change with this transition.
This will be a much less bumpy ride than the journey from OS 9 to OS X -- to say nothing of the hard switch from System 6 to System 7.
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
Because chances are that wouldn't work? Because Apple is the ONLY company to successfully pull of a platform migration like this in history, and when they did that last time, they did precisely the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting?
What reason do we have to believe that this transition will be somehow handled ineptly? If Apple could move from 68040 to PowerPC and still support 68040 chips with their OS until 1998, why do you expect to see PowerPC Macs orphaned within the next two years, when chances are Apple will still be selling them in 2007?
[B]This is exactly what I am afraid of and beleive. Why else be so freekn' vauge?
What is vague about creating the Fat Binary system? What is vague about saying that Apple will be shipping its software in both PowerPC and Intel versions (in one binary)?
Why do people seem panicked that this will be so fundamentally different than the 680x0 to PowerPC transition, which was a BREEZE?
Quote:
He is really jerking with the mac base, I am new so this isn't as bad as some of you long timers, but I have purchased 2 macs and I feel like I just got crap'd on.
Were the folks who bought Macs in the months before the PowerPC announcement being crapped on? Come one, people.
Today's announcement has not removed so much as one day of usability from any of your machines. I own a Power Mac G5. I fully intend to be using my G5 in three years, running the most up to date Mac OS. I would be absolutely stunned if I'm not. It simply wouldn't fit Apple's history.
For those who lived through the original transition to PPC, the name "Fat Binaries" does not bring back good memories.
I was there. I have no bad memories of the process. In fact, all my software from my 68030 Mac worked PERFECTLY on my PowerPC Mac... except for SimCity, which ran too fast to be playable on the ultra fast Power Computing Power 120. Fat Binaries were excellent back in the day, and in today's age when hard drive space is basically meaningless, and bundles provide an excellent mechanism for binary management, they'll be that much better.
Quote:
That's my big fear here, folks. I've heard Job's speech twice before, and neither time was the exchange as painless and easy as he made it sound.
The only truly painful transition I have ever been through on the Mac was System 6 to System 7 -- this will be a cakewalk comparatively, so long as Rosetta actaully works.
Comments
Originally posted by Addison
I can't believe that SJ would agree to "Intel Inside" though, unless it was stuck to the bottom!
No way Jobs is going to allow a sticker deface the aluminum casing of a powerbook; no "Intel Inside" will be beautifully embossed or engraved right into the metal then set of with white and blue enamel.
Originally posted by surfacenuts
If Jobs is being sincere, then the life of an iMac purchased today will be as long and as fruitful as it would be if Apple stayed with IBM because OS X is apparently a dual platform OS.
Of course it has nothing to do with Steve doing his best to try to salvage his entire PPC product line that has just been Osborned.
All the 'dual platform OS' talk is exactly what you hear before one company takes over another. Everyone at the old company is told don't worry, nothing will change...
Originally posted by spyder
Ummmm...Jobs said it would be a 2 year transition starting at NEXT years WWDC, which is when 10.5 is going to be released. So you are incorrect.
Incorrect? Please...
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
Originally posted by surfacenuts
No way Jobs is going to allow a sticker deface the aluminum casing of a powerbook; no "Intel Inside" will be beautifully embossed or engraved right into the metal then set of with white and blue enamel.
you are concerned over a sticker...come on
Originally posted by Powerdoc
That's right, and that's also why Leopard would work on both platform. Since the beginning mac os X was developped for both platform PPC and X86 : why should it be different right now ?
I still say it will be orphaned. If they stick to his timetable, and transition their whole product line to Intel by Jan. 2007. then after that point it is orphaned. As in, no further development on that platform.
If they come up with new technologies, they are not going to back-port it to PPC. How many people remember the promises made for Classic when it was announced? How many people remember the reality?
Originally posted by alliancep.s.i
you are concerned over a sticker...come on
yes - Jobs has criticised these stickers on the PCs!
Originally posted by Tuttle
Incorrect? Please...
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
This is exactly what I am afraid of and beleive. Why else be so freekn' vauge? It is because if he explains futher he will cause his stock price to bottom out and have furious Mac users chasing him down.
Of course he is going to talk out of his @$$ about PPC now and the future. He is really jerking with the mac base, I am new so this isn't as bad as some of you long timers, but I have purchased 2 macs and I feel like I just got crap'd on. For his sake, 10.5 and future applications better run on G5 and G4 hardware for a long time.
Originally posted by Tuttle
Incorrect? Please...
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
Nonsense. Apple has millions of PPC Macs in the market that could run 10.5, but not a single, solitary one that has an Intel CPU.
Making 10.5 contingent on an Intel CPU is what would be wasted effort.
Originally posted by Frank777
Nonsense. Apple has millions of PPC Macs in the market that could run 10.5, but not a single, solitary one that has an Intel CPU.
Making 10.5 contingent on an Intel CPU is what would be wasted effort.
Eggsactly.
Originally posted by Frank777
Nonsense. Apple has millions of PPC Macs in the market that could run 10.5, but not a single, solitary one that has an Intel CPU.
Making 10.5 contingent on an Intel CPU is what would be wasted effort.
Fat binaries give a backwards compatibility that will provide a life for PPC well into the future. It's amazing - people complain about the lack of progress in IBM .2GHz n a year but when Apple does something about it they complain.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Fat binaries give a backwards compatibility that will provide a life for PPC well into the future. It's amazing - people complain about the lack of progress in IBM .2GHz n a year but when Apple does something about it they complain.
For those who lived through the original transition to PPC, the name "Fat Binaries" does not bring back good memories. They were slow, ungainly, and didn't seem to extend the life of 8086 code in the slightest.
That's my big fear here, folks. I've heard Job's speech twice before, and neither time was the exchange as painless and easy as he made it sound.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
For those who lived through the original transition to PPC, the name "Fat Binaries" does not bring back good memories. They were slow, ungainly, and didn't seem to extend the life of 8086 code in the slightest.
That's my big fear here, folks. I've heard Job's speech twice before, and neither time was the exchange as painless and easy as he made it sound.
As a consumer the OS 9 (well 8.6) to OS X transition was easy for me.
Originally posted by anand
Exactly. In fact, this may be a good time to buy a Mac as the prices may be reduced. Hum, Dual 2.7 G5 for $1800.
Humm....
Tell me when it's going to happen.
I might see a small price drop, but I don't believe $1800 for a dual 2.7 anytime soon.
Apple will keep their prices atable for awhile unless we see new machines coming soon. But i don't think that's going to happen. What's going to be announce at paris Expo? now we know no PB G5. Powermac were just upgraded, Imac too. So, Macmini? that's it? Ibook?
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I think you are nuts. Apple basically just announced that this will be orphaned hardware in a year and a half.
Apple supported 68040 machines with OS and software releases for FOUR YEARS after the first Power Macs came out. Why would this be so different?
Originally posted by mello
Will this transition increase the chances of getting a computer virus?
Why would it? What makes the Mac virus-resistant is the Operating System, not the hardware. NOTHING about how you interact with the Mac will change with this transition.
This will be a much less bumpy ride than the journey from OS 9 to OS X -- to say nothing of the hard switch from System 6 to System 7.
Originally posted by Tuttle
Incorrect? Please...
Why would Apple in two years from now waste effort supporting a dead platform instead of making 10.5 x86 only and giving consumers an 'incentive' to buy a new x86 Mac?
Two years from now PPCs will be as interesting to Apple as 68000s are now.
10.4.2 yes
10.4.3 yes
...
10.5 no way
Because chances are that wouldn't work? Because Apple is the ONLY company to successfully pull of a platform migration like this in history, and when they did that last time, they did precisely the OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting?
What reason do we have to believe that this transition will be somehow handled ineptly? If Apple could move from 68040 to PowerPC and still support 68040 chips with their OS until 1998, why do you expect to see PowerPC Macs orphaned within the next two years, when chances are Apple will still be selling them in 2007?
Originally posted by aplnub
[B]This is exactly what I am afraid of and beleive. Why else be so freekn' vauge?
What is vague about creating the Fat Binary system? What is vague about saying that Apple will be shipping its software in both PowerPC and Intel versions (in one binary)?
Why do people seem panicked that this will be so fundamentally different than the 680x0 to PowerPC transition, which was a BREEZE?
He is really jerking with the mac base, I am new so this isn't as bad as some of you long timers, but I have purchased 2 macs and I feel like I just got crap'd on.
Were the folks who bought Macs in the months before the PowerPC announcement being crapped on? Come one, people.
Today's announcement has not removed so much as one day of usability from any of your machines. I own a Power Mac G5. I fully intend to be using my G5 in three years, running the most up to date Mac OS. I would be absolutely stunned if I'm not. It simply wouldn't fit Apple's history.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
For those who lived through the original transition to PPC, the name "Fat Binaries" does not bring back good memories.
I was there. I have no bad memories of the process. In fact, all my software from my 68030 Mac worked PERFECTLY on my PowerPC Mac... except for SimCity, which ran too fast to be playable on the ultra fast Power Computing Power 120. Fat Binaries were excellent back in the day, and in today's age when hard drive space is basically meaningless, and bundles provide an excellent mechanism for binary management, they'll be that much better.
That's my big fear here, folks. I've heard Job's speech twice before, and neither time was the exchange as painless and easy as he made it sound.
The only truly painful transition I have ever been through on the Mac was System 6 to System 7 -- this will be a cakewalk comparatively, so long as Rosetta actaully works.