I think that Apple will stretch out the transition for their own safety.
Mac Mini - spring 2006
iBooks - summer 2006
PB - fall or MWSF 2007
PM - summer 2007
Doing something like this gives them a chance to have a couple hundred thousand units out in the field running non-critical applications. If my mom had problems printing email on a Mac mini for six months that is tolerable. If large magazines have troubles printing color properly due to a glitch with colorsync on a G5 that is intolerable.
Sure, things can work perfectly in the lab on a dozen or so prototypes but there is nothing like putting a large amount of product in the field to find bugs.
I'm also buying into the rumor that the real jump in the benefit of using Intel will be when they start releasing 45nm product.
Today at the IDF, release dates have been updated, all 3 CPUs (that we think will be used by Apple: Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest) will ship before the end of 2006.
I'm still pretty convinced that Apple will start with Yonahs as soon as possible (feb-march 2006 on iBooks and minis), PowerBooks (dualcore) at the 2006 WWDC, then if available, Conroe PowerMacs for the fall (Apple Expo Paris), iMacs before XMas, then Woodcrest XServes.
At the beginning of 2007 (MWSF): Merom PowerBooks, then lower-cost Merom iBooks and minis before june.
At the 2007 WWDC, all Macs should be Intel-based and Leopard will be "ready".
But I also think that Apple will keep some PPC models available (BTO?) for compatibility issues (mostly PowerMacs and XServes)...
Don't you suppose that CodeWarrior would update their development kit before long? It is eithet update or get out of the business and leave it all to Apple tools. . . . Also since Apple has such a good set of tools that produces code for both PPC and Intel processors, why on earth would a developer wish to produce software that only runs on Intel Macs and miss over half the market for his or her product? It makes little sense.
Metrowerks has already announced that the next version of CodeWarrior for Mac will be its last.
Metrowerks has already announced that the next version of CodeWarrior for Mac will be its last.
This is an often overlooked but major implication of the intel transition.
Metrowerks had tremendous influence on the Mac platform for over a decade. Part of what made the Mac a Mac was derived from developers working all day in the metroworks IDE. It was also used as the tool of choice for various embedded platforms .
I think xcode is an excellent tool and am increasingly impressed with each release. However, pending death of the Mac version of metroworks stirs some pondering. Development environments greatly effect the end user experience. What has been the effect of our slow transition from the previous generation of tools to xcode?
Pragmatically, this change is probably overshadowed by the whole powerplant/carbon/cocoa/etc comparison. But it is interesting none the less. How well does xcode support the old app frameworks? (I develop for other platforms at my day job but like to keep up with the Mac dev community.)
The faster the better. The only reason to keep a PPC powermac is for professional clients who might have an investment in custom software solutions.
I would not however, expect those macs to keep pace, as Apple will have an interest in a demonstrable performance increase when the product is eventually transitioned. Ideally, the last stragglers would be able to run their wares under rosetta (on Intel) at the same speed as they did under OSX on PPC. This can only happen if the PPC versions are limited for a certain time, untill the Intel machines take over.
When Apple is satisfied with the performance of their in house software, and the first versions of the major Apps (Adobe, Macromedia, M$) are out and working, they will pull the trigger on everything.
When <snip/> the first versions of the major Apps (Adobe, Macromedia, M$) are out and working, they will pull the trigger on everything.
...and leave some customers behind. I know two companies well-equipped with Macs which have their shit scared out of them by the transition. They have just moved to OS X and are not at all happy, because they still heavily depend on QuarkXPress 4. They also use some goddamn-expensive software with plug-in architectures sure as hell not going to run under Rosetta (see Rosetta's restrictions). It is also a given that Adobe will charge for the first version of Creative Suite for MacIntel. It is highly possible that a lot of new bugs will appear in most UB-based software. It is a difficult question for those companies which their customers will switch to: OS X on Intel or Windows. Moreover, Apple don't seem to support FUD these days, so they evade any questions. This leads to too much uncertainty, fear and doubt.
Meanwhile the companies decided to upgrade their Macs while they still at least can run Classic and to play a waiting game. I don't expect them to buy Macs in the next several years and I wouldn't be surprised if they started to gradually invest in Windows software. Being Mac users since System 7, they are seriously considering switching to Windows.
The situation is obviously not so uniform as Wall Street analysts see it. Some users will be lost for good, new ones will come. It's too early to say how it turns out.
...and leave some customers behind. I know two companies well-equipped with Macs which have their shit scared out of them by the transition. They have just moved to OS X and are not at all happy, because they still heavily depend on QuarkXPress 4. ...
I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay. (And they are aware that old Windows versions of those packages still run fine on XP.)
Some will argue Apple does not need those customers. Maybe Apple will end up with a tiny niche of rich fanboys.
Companies won't need to upgrade their computers any sooner simply because a different architecture is in use.
Quark, photoshop, and others are already running on the PPC platform. Infact, it is unlikely that production environments would want to move to intel immediately. PPC macs will be supported for quite a while to come, especially with these big commercial apps.
All the evidence points toward PPC being the most stable and supported of the two mac architectures for the foreseeable future. Even if apple had used a next gen PPC, we'd be in the same situation. Specific optimizations would likely have been necessary for a G6.
In short, it's reasonable and even appropriate for support staff to worry about the transition. However, as of yet, we have been given no reason to anticipate PPC hardware suddenly being made obsolete before it's expected life span.
Actually the people who continued to USE QUARK after QUARK refused to switch over and ship applications for mac (the #1 dtp platform) were retarded for contining to use Quark. Indesign is now what's used for prepress, quark is not, quark will not be around in the next 2 years. Adobe will.
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay. (And they are aware that old Windows versions of those packages still run fine on XP.)
Some will argue Apple does not need those customers. Maybe Apple will end up with a tiny niche of rich fanboys.
metrowerks = bloatware, old = good riddance, here comes highly optimized, and tuned intel compilers.
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
This is an often overlooked but major implication of the intel transition.
Metrowerks had tremendous influence on the Mac platform for over a decade. Part of what made the Mac a Mac was derived from developers working all day in the metroworks IDE. It was also used as the tool of choice for various embedded platforms .
I think xcode is an excellent tool and am increasingly impressed with each release. However, pending death of the Mac version of metroworks stirs some pondering. Development environments greatly effect the end user experience. What has been the effect of our slow transition from the previous generation of tools to xcode?
Pragmatically, this change is probably overshadowed by the whole powerplant/carbon/cocoa/etc comparison. But it is interesting none the less. How well does xcode support the old app frameworks? (I develop for other platforms at my day job but like to keep up with the Mac dev community.)
Actually the people who continued to USE QUARK after QUARK refused to switch over and ship applications for mac (the #1 dtp platform) were retarded for contining to use Quark.
I think you are confused. The #1 DTP platform is not Mac, it is Quark on Mac. Even if everyone starts using InDesign tomorrow for new projects (which would be impossible), there's still going to be plenty of older Quark projects around 2 years from now.
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay. (And they are aware that old Windows versions of those packages still run fine on XP.)
Describes my company perfectly. The OS X upgrade was done "in place". Since then, there's been many G5s purchased for the cost of hardware alone. Now replacing a Mac will also carry with it a huge software cost. (Oh, and we're still running Windows/Office 2000...)
Of course, if Apple sweetened the pot by providing a $1000 Intel desktop box (versus the $2000 G5), they would have a deal. And they'd still make a nice profit in the process.
Companies won't need to upgrade their computers any sooner simply because a different architecture is in use.
<snip/>
However, as of yet, we have been given no reason to anticipate PPC hardware suddenly being made obsolete before it's expected life span.
Yes. The problem is not that PPC hardware suddenly gets obsolete - it doesn't. The problem is that you can barely use Macs on Intel the next day they are available, because the software you need is not ready yet. Production houses require that the whole system (hardware + software) is not only available, but works and, ideally, without major bugs. This, in essence, precludes the use of alpha and beta products and means that you move to Macs on Intel only after Adobe/Quark/whoever release their apps for the new platform. As of yet, nobody can tell the exact date.
On the other hand, if you upgrade today you will have some more time to work with your current [proven] workflow, to wait and see how the transition goes. You don't have to invest in updating software either. This is the cautious route that many are going to choose. And, IMHO, this is the single major problem with the transition.
Quark has trapped a lot of people with its file format and plugin/scripting investments. I don't think many people actually still "want" to be using Quark, but between automation and Quark's protected file format (InDesign won't convert anything newer than about Quark v4) the transition will mean lots of money and lots of time.
Add to that the fact that many people bought the first versions of InDesign and found them lacking, and there are a lot of people with cold feet about transitioning. Personally I think that new Quark business is dead; it's just a matter of how long can the print industry keep its Quark workflow on life support.
Oh, and whoever said the 680x0?PPC migration was painless?Type 10/11 error anyone? I just hope we don't have PPC code running in emulation near as long as we had 680x0 code in the PPC versions of Mac OS (they never released a version completely without at least some 680x0 code, to my knowledge).
I'm sorry to report, from someone who works in a design dept. for a well-known publisher, that Quark will be alive (however zombie-like) for some time to come.
I don't think the transition will be completely painless, but I get the feeling --just from reading what developers have been saying -- that it's going to be much, much, much less disruptive than OS 9 --> OS X, which was truly bumpy and in some cases intensely painful. We'll see.
... I just hope we don't have PPC code running in emulation near as long as we had 680x0 code in the PPC versions of Mac OS (they never released a version completely without at least some 680x0 code, to my knowledge).
If by MacOS, you mean the Macintosh OS prior to MacOS X, then you are absolutely correct. The MacOS 9/Classic ROM file contains 680x0 code.
This is an often overlooked but major implication of the intel transition.
Metrowerks had tremendous influence on the Mac platform for over a decade. Part of what made the Mac a Mac was derived from developers working all day in the metroworks IDE. It was also used as the tool of choice for various embedded platforms .
But Metrowerks was leaving anyway.
"As we reported Monday, Metrowerks will cease development of CodeWarrior, its Mac software development tool. However, Mike O?Donnell, manager of core technologies and marketing at Freescale Semiconductor (Metrowerks? parent company) told Macsimum News that the decision is due to the company?s increased focus on embedded systems not Apple?s promotion of its own Xcode development software."
...and leave some customers behind. I know two companies well-equipped with Macs which have their shit scared out of them by the transition. They have just moved to OS X and are not at all happy, because they still heavily depend on QuarkXPress 4.
OK, so because some rely on (very) old software the computer business can't go forward.
They are the reason why PCs still have legacy ports.
Why can't they run their legacy apps on their legacy Macs?
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
[B]I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay./B]
What expensive outlay? Weren't they going to update to CS3 and QXP7 anyway?
Photoshop runs fine on the current Intel Mac anyway - I haven't tested QXP6.5 yet.
OK, so because some rely on (very) old software the computer business can't go forward.
They are the reason why PCs still have legacy ports.
It's the reason that PCs have very elegant backward-compatibility which has negigible cost when it's not being used. PCs have moved the industry forward by giving high-end performance and 20 years of legacy support in the same package, allowing users to upgrade software at their own pace.
Not abandoning legacy users is also probably the most significant reason that the PC-Compatible defeated it's once superior competitors (for example, the Power Macintosh platform).
Bottom line is that dropping perfectly functional ports is not progress. Think of all the cash registers running DOS, a special PS/2 keyboard, and an RS-232 printer. Yup, those people are now subsidizing the development cost of your new Mac.
OK, so because some rely on (very) old software the computer business can't go forward.
They are the reason why PCs still have legacy ports.
Why can't they run their legacy apps on their legacy Macs?
They can, which is the reason why they have little incentive to buy new MacTels. The worse the sales of MacTels, the slower the transition. That's my point. If, say, Rosetta could run Classic apps, the transition would be almost transparent. However, there would be little to no progress. There's always a price to pay for progress.
Comments
Mac Mini - spring 2006
iBooks - summer 2006
PB - fall or MWSF 2007
PM - summer 2007
Doing something like this gives them a chance to have a couple hundred thousand units out in the field running non-critical applications. If my mom had problems printing email on a Mac mini for six months that is tolerable. If large magazines have troubles printing color properly due to a glitch with colorsync on a G5 that is intolerable.
Sure, things can work perfectly in the lab on a dozen or so prototypes but there is nothing like putting a large amount of product in the field to find bugs.
I'm also buying into the rumor that the real jump in the benefit of using Intel will be when they start releasing 45nm product.
Platform 2015
Oddly enough, the approach outlined here appears to have a striking similarity to Sony's Cell, just different...
I'm still pretty convinced that Apple will start with Yonahs as soon as possible (feb-march 2006 on iBooks and minis), PowerBooks (dualcore) at the 2006 WWDC, then if available, Conroe PowerMacs for the fall (Apple Expo Paris), iMacs before XMas, then Woodcrest XServes.
At the beginning of 2007 (MWSF): Merom PowerBooks, then lower-cost Merom iBooks and minis before june.
At the 2007 WWDC, all Macs should be Intel-based and Leopard will be "ready".
But I also think that Apple will keep some PPC models available (BTO?) for compatibility issues (mostly PowerMacs and XServes)...
Originally posted by snoopy
Don't you suppose that CodeWarrior would update their development kit before long? It is eithet update or get out of the business and leave it all to Apple tools. . . . Also since Apple has such a good set of tools that produces code for both PPC and Intel processors, why on earth would a developer wish to produce software that only runs on Intel Macs and miss over half the market for his or her product? It makes little sense.
Metrowerks has already announced that the next version of CodeWarrior for Mac will be its last.
Originally posted by cooop
Metrowerks has already announced that the next version of CodeWarrior for Mac will be its last.
This is an often overlooked but major implication of the intel transition.
Metrowerks had tremendous influence on the Mac platform for over a decade. Part of what made the Mac a Mac was derived from developers working all day in the metroworks IDE. It was also used as the tool of choice for various embedded platforms .
I think xcode is an excellent tool and am increasingly impressed with each release. However, pending death of the Mac version of metroworks stirs some pondering. Development environments greatly effect the end user experience. What has been the effect of our slow transition from the previous generation of tools to xcode?
Pragmatically, this change is probably overshadowed by the whole powerplant/carbon/cocoa/etc comparison. But it is interesting none the less. How well does xcode support the old app frameworks? (I develop for other platforms at my day job but like to keep up with the Mac dev community.)
I would not however, expect those macs to keep pace, as Apple will have an interest in a demonstrable performance increase when the product is eventually transitioned. Ideally, the last stragglers would be able to run their wares under rosetta (on Intel) at the same speed as they did under OSX on PPC. This can only happen if the PPC versions are limited for a certain time, untill the Intel machines take over.
When Apple is satisfied with the performance of their in house software, and the first versions of the major Apps (Adobe, Macromedia, M$) are out and working, they will pull the trigger on everything.
Originally posted by Matsu
When <snip/> the first versions of the major Apps (Adobe, Macromedia, M$) are out and working, they will pull the trigger on everything.
...and leave some customers behind. I know two companies well-equipped with Macs which have their shit scared out of them by the transition. They have just moved to OS X and are not at all happy, because they still heavily depend on QuarkXPress 4. They also use some goddamn-expensive software with plug-in architectures sure as hell not going to run under Rosetta (see Rosetta's restrictions). It is also a given that Adobe will charge for the first version of Creative Suite for MacIntel. It is highly possible that a lot of new bugs will appear in most UB-based software. It is a difficult question for those companies which their customers will switch to: OS X on Intel or Windows. Moreover, Apple don't seem to support FUD these days, so they evade any questions. This leads to too much uncertainty, fear and doubt.
Meanwhile the companies decided to upgrade their Macs while they still at least can run Classic and to play a waiting game. I don't expect them to buy Macs in the next several years and I wouldn't be surprised if they started to gradually invest in Windows software. Being Mac users since System 7, they are seriously considering switching to Windows.
The situation is obviously not so uniform as Wall Street analysts see it. Some users will be lost for good, new ones will come. It's too early to say how it turns out.
Originally posted by costique
...and leave some customers behind. I know two companies well-equipped with Macs which have their shit scared out of them by the transition. They have just moved to OS X and are not at all happy, because they still heavily depend on QuarkXPress 4. ...
I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay. (And they are aware that old Windows versions of those packages still run fine on XP.)
Some will argue Apple does not need those customers. Maybe Apple will end up with a tiny niche of rich fanboys.
Quark, photoshop, and others are already running on the PPC platform. Infact, it is unlikely that production environments would want to move to intel immediately. PPC macs will be supported for quite a while to come, especially with these big commercial apps.
All the evidence points toward PPC being the most stable and supported of the two mac architectures for the foreseeable future. Even if apple had used a next gen PPC, we'd be in the same situation. Specific optimizations would likely have been necessary for a G6.
In short, it's reasonable and even appropriate for support staff to worry about the transition. However, as of yet, we have been given no reason to anticipate PPC hardware suddenly being made obsolete before it's expected life span.
Originally posted by cubist
I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay. (And they are aware that old Windows versions of those packages still run fine on XP.)
Some will argue Apple does not need those customers. Maybe Apple will end up with a tiny niche of rich fanboys.
Originally posted by dfiler
This is an often overlooked but major implication of the intel transition.
Metrowerks had tremendous influence on the Mac platform for over a decade. Part of what made the Mac a Mac was derived from developers working all day in the metroworks IDE. It was also used as the tool of choice for various embedded platforms .
I think xcode is an excellent tool and am increasingly impressed with each release. However, pending death of the Mac version of metroworks stirs some pondering. Development environments greatly effect the end user experience. What has been the effect of our slow transition from the previous generation of tools to xcode?
Pragmatically, this change is probably overshadowed by the whole powerplant/carbon/cocoa/etc comparison. But it is interesting none the less. How well does xcode support the old app frameworks? (I develop for other platforms at my day job but like to keep up with the Mac dev community.)
Originally posted by webmail
Actually the people who continued to USE QUARK after QUARK refused to switch over and ship applications for mac (the #1 dtp platform) were retarded for contining to use Quark.
I think you are confused. The #1 DTP platform is not Mac, it is Quark on Mac. Even if everyone starts using InDesign tomorrow for new projects (which would be impossible), there's still going to be plenty of older Quark projects around 2 years from now.
Originally posted by webmail
I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay. (And they are aware that old Windows versions of those packages still run fine on XP.)
Describes my company perfectly. The OS X upgrade was done "in place". Since then, there's been many G5s purchased for the cost of hardware alone. Now replacing a Mac will also carry with it a huge software cost. (Oh, and we're still running Windows/Office 2000...)
Of course, if Apple sweetened the pot by providing a $1000 Intel desktop box (versus the $2000 G5), they would have a deal. And they'd still make a nice profit in the process.
Originally posted by dfiler
Companies won't need to upgrade their computers any sooner simply because a different architecture is in use.
<snip/>
However, as of yet, we have been given no reason to anticipate PPC hardware suddenly being made obsolete before it's expected life span.
Yes. The problem is not that PPC hardware suddenly gets obsolete - it doesn't. The problem is that you can barely use Macs on Intel the next day they are available, because the software you need is not ready yet. Production houses require that the whole system (hardware + software) is not only available, but works and, ideally, without major bugs. This, in essence, precludes the use of alpha and beta products and means that you move to Macs on Intel only after Adobe/Quark/whoever release their apps for the new platform. As of yet, nobody can tell the exact date.
On the other hand, if you upgrade today you will have some more time to work with your current [proven] workflow, to wait and see how the transition goes. You don't have to invest in updating software either. This is the cautious route that many are going to choose. And, IMHO, this is the single major problem with the transition.
Add to that the fact that many people bought the first versions of InDesign and found them lacking, and there are a lot of people with cold feet about transitioning. Personally I think that new Quark business is dead; it's just a matter of how long can the print industry keep its Quark workflow on life support.
Oh, and whoever said the 680x0?PPC migration was painless?Type 10/11 error anyone? I just hope we don't have PPC code running in emulation near as long as we had 680x0 code in the PPC versions of Mac OS (they never released a version completely without at least some 680x0 code, to my knowledge).
I don't think the transition will be completely painless, but I get the feeling --just from reading what developers have been saying -- that it's going to be much, much, much less disruptive than OS 9 --> OS X, which was truly bumpy and in some cases intensely painful. We'll see.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
... I just hope we don't have PPC code running in emulation near as long as we had 680x0 code in the PPC versions of Mac OS (they never released a version completely without at least some 680x0 code, to my knowledge).
If by MacOS, you mean the Macintosh OS prior to MacOS X, then you are absolutely correct. The MacOS 9/Classic ROM file contains 680x0 code.
Originally posted by dfiler
This is an often overlooked but major implication of the intel transition.
Metrowerks had tremendous influence on the Mac platform for over a decade. Part of what made the Mac a Mac was derived from developers working all day in the metroworks IDE. It was also used as the tool of choice for various embedded platforms .
But Metrowerks was leaving anyway.
"As we reported Monday, Metrowerks will cease development of CodeWarrior, its Mac software development tool. However, Mike O?Donnell, manager of core technologies and marketing at Freescale Semiconductor (Metrowerks? parent company) told Macsimum News that the decision is due to the company?s increased focus on embedded systems not Apple?s promotion of its own Xcode development software."
Originally posted by costique
...and leave some customers behind. I know two companies well-equipped with Macs which have their shit scared out of them by the transition. They have just moved to OS X and are not at all happy, because they still heavily depend on QuarkXPress 4.
OK, so because some rely on (very) old software the computer business can't go forward.
They are the reason why PCs still have legacy ports.
Why can't they run their legacy apps on their legacy Macs?
Originally posted by cubist
[B]I also know a couple of companies that spent big money a couple of years ago on Quark and Adobe to move to Mac OS X and are not happy at all at the prospect of another expensive outlay./B]
What expensive outlay? Weren't they going to update to CS3 and QXP7 anyway?
Photoshop runs fine on the current Intel Mac anyway - I haven't tested QXP6.5 yet.
Originally posted by JLL
OK, so because some rely on (very) old software the computer business can't go forward.
They are the reason why PCs still have legacy ports.
It's the reason that PCs have very elegant backward-compatibility which has negigible cost when it's not being used. PCs have moved the industry forward by giving high-end performance and 20 years of legacy support in the same package, allowing users to upgrade software at their own pace.
Not abandoning legacy users is also probably the most significant reason that the PC-Compatible defeated it's once superior competitors (for example, the Power Macintosh platform).
Bottom line is that dropping perfectly functional ports is not progress. Think of all the cash registers running DOS, a special PS/2 keyboard, and an RS-232 printer. Yup, those people are now subsidizing the development cost of your new Mac.
Originally posted by JLL
OK, so because some rely on (very) old software the computer business can't go forward.
They are the reason why PCs still have legacy ports.
Why can't they run their legacy apps on their legacy Macs?
They can, which is the reason why they have little incentive to buy new MacTels. The worse the sales of MacTels, the slower the transition. That's my point. If, say, Rosetta could run Classic apps, the transition would be almost transparent. However, there would be little to no progress. There's always a price to pay for progress.