 |
by - June 10th, 2005
I wonder if the Atlantic ocean has as vast a collection of spineless jellyfish as seemingly comprises significant portions of the Macintosh user base and its ass-kissing punditry. With far too few exceptions, this is a group that just days ago was smugly debunking, dismantling, and railing against the notion of Intel processors in their Macs, only now to squirm and slither out explanations that provide justifications to the contrary.
They were all laying vitriol to those that dared speak and/or suggest notions contrary to the edicts laid out by their cult leader, Steve Jobs. The Megahertz Myth Mantra chanted by Mac users with regard to Intel chips was enough to annoy even the most dedicated monks. And like good little lemmings, like good 1984 citizens marching in goose-step, the entire lot has done an about face, justifying this move as the "one true way."
Only in the Mac community can the justifications for and against a given position flip-flop overnight with such fervor.
This about-face whiplash can be evinced by the number of half-baked articles that have been written in short order purporting that "if you buy a PPC based Mac today, the fact that Intel machines are coming around the corner should not concern you."
I can understand the loyal fanboy base frothing at the mouth with that kind of stupidity, but there is no excuse for the pundits to be drinking from the same trough of Kool-Aid. The entire lot of BOZOs reminds me of another self-justifying group of Americans that will approve anything their party does, no matter what (apparently its leadership believes it's reasonable to frame all discourse as us versus the-rest-of-the-world; the rest of the world now including all dissenting Americans); but I digress.
Anyway, to quote a far greater Steve authority, "Well excuuuuuuuse me" if some choose to think differently on the topic. As such, let me remind you folks of some reasons to actually hold off on purchases of PPC based Macs; here are eight-is-enough reasons:
1. Software vendors will abandon support for PPC machines as soon as it makes business sense to do so.
For those that don't remember, let me refresh your recollection. During the NeXTSTEP days (when NeXTSTEP transitioned from Motorola to Intel), and during the Apple 68k to PPC transition there were companies that abandoned making software for the older architecture within a couple of years. True, most software vendors supported dual platforms for a very long time, but others did not because it didn't make financial sense for them to do so. Several game vendors have already expressed glee at the thought of moving to Intel and that they basically cannot wait to dump development for PPC machines. The following was reported to xlr8yourmac.com:
"Game devs seem optimistic. They see porting Windows/x86 to Mac/x86 as much easier. They look forward to the day they don't have to support PPC. ... For the next 3-5 years, their job will be harder since they have to port to two processor architectures and most bugs *are* endian related and that they will have a hard time making the PPC versions run as well as the x86 versions." (emphasis added)
How much do you want to bet a bunch of those developers drop support for PPC Macs far sooner than the aforementioned "3-5 year" period and claim that the games demand the "performance" of the faster Intel machines. We already saw that when Doom 3 was released for the Mac. It supported only the very fastest Macs while leaving many other current and/or new Macs out in the lurch.
2. Software vendors will charge you money for Intel (or PPC) versions of software when it makes business sense to do so.
For the NeXT Motorola 68k to Intel transition, for the Apple Motorola 68k to PPC transition, and for the OS 9 to OS X transition, there were software vendors that charged to upgrade the software for the new platform. Some charged users even when their "upgrade" was the exact same version of the program with no new features. And it makes sense for them to do so. It takes time, money and effort to generate the new software, test it, package it, etc. To most of vendors' credit, most transitional upgrades were free.
3. Apple has shown it drops support for old products regularly because it makes business sense to do so.
Listing the litany of technologies dropped by Apple would result in a large tomb, so I won't go into detail here.
But witness the latest security patch. Did anyone notice no Jaguar (aka OS X 10.2) version of the security patch was released. Why? Because Apple wants you to upgrade to new software. And to motivate you to upgrade, it will use both a carrot and a stick. The stick is that they will drop support for older products as there are diminishing returns resulting from such maintenance expenses. To Apple's credit, I believe it provides really nice upgrades as "carrots" to entice users. For the record, Mac OS X 10.2 was supplanted by 10.3 on October 23, 2003. That means, with regard to timely security support, it has become product-non-grata in less than 2 years. Considering that Steve Jobs mentioned that the entire Intel transition would be complete in two years, that should make at least some people stop and mull things over. Which brings me to the next point.
4. Macs tended to have a far longer life-span than the average PC.
A lot of Mac users have come to expect that their computer will not only last them far longer than 2 years, but that it will stay current and relevant for more than 2 years. There is constant Mac user jabbering and justification regarding the Mac's total cost of ownership and how much longer Macs stay relevant when compared to their PC counterparts; I bet some of it is even set to iambic pentameter. As such, there is a chance if you plunk down around $3 grand for a dual G5 Power Mac today, you'll have a machine that is relevant for far less time than one usually expects in the Mac world. I'll explain this a bit more in point 6, below, but first let's explore another related point.
5. The new Intel machines promise to be much faster than current machines.
Already there are reports that software that is natively compiled to run on Intel based Macs runs faster than on PPC machines. Xlr8yourmac provides an account of a mere single processor Pentium 4 running at 3.6GHz outperforming a dual processor G5 running at 2.7GHz:
"First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really...They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*. The 660 is a single core processor. However, the engineers said that this chip would not be used in a shipping product and that we need to look at Intel's roadmap for that time to see what Apple will ship."
And this is with an early build of OS X on Intel that reportedly is un-optimized. If we can expect orders of magnitude increases in performance as the above seems to suggest, then those that wish to make sizable investments in hardware might do well to hold off for a year or so, if they can. After all, it's reported that Steve Jobs' demo machine sported four such Pentium 4 processors. With greater optimization, faster chips, and more cores, we might expect to buy more of a power increase with the next Intel Mac iteration than we have with the past few PPC iterations combined.
6. People do not buy computers only for how it will serve them today, but for how capable it will be in serving them for their desired term of use.
That is reality. Sure, if you absolutely need a new computer today, because your current computer broke or it's simply not cutting it, then you have little choice but to buy a new machine. And true enough, whatever you buy today will likely serve you well for the next two years. That being said, for many Mac buyers, the expense of a Mac makes it a longer term purchase. Many Mac users expect an ownership term of prime use for more than 2 years. I would bet that most Mac users expect prime use from a Mac to last at least for 3 years, and I would also bet it's common for many Mac users to expect secondary use to extend to the 4th and 5th year. By prime use, I mean Mac users expect a new machine purchased today will be supported and targeted as a 1st class citizen by software developers and they will likely use such a machine as their primary machine. By secondary use I mean that the machines are still expected to be supported by software developers (albeit at the fringes), and the machines may still be used as a primary computer, or perhaps more likely, they will be relegated to secondary uses (i.e., passed on to other less demanding users or used as a support computer).
7. Potentially no Classic support.
I'm sick of all the faux-techno-l33t snobbery of nerdy whiners decreeing how "I don't even use classic apps anymore." Well bully for them. I do not happen to use Classic, but I know many that do, and I have enough sense to know that I'm not in a demographic representative of the entire user base. There are plenty of people that do rely on Classic--for them it's crucial. Many of those individuals work in publishing. It is important that Classic work, and someone should start a petition to make sure Apple realizes its importance. As such, VP Phil Schiller's (incidentally, has there ever been a more apt last name for someone working in marketing?) statements of Classic support not being a high priority could easily alienate those core publishing users (all of which buttresses my 3rd point, above).
It's amazing that someone in marketing would be so insensitive to one of the company's core user bases. With that kind of attitude, I would not be surprised if significant portions of the publishing industry say "enough" and just jump platforms moving to Windows.
8. Dual booting.
The prospect of buying a Mac that can boot into both OS X and Windows may prove invaluable to many. For users to whom such functionality would be useful, well, they would be crazy to buy a Mac now when new Macs might allow them to boot or otherwise emulate Windows at native speeds. For example, some business might consider buying Macs for its art department and Windows boxes for accounting, but Intel based Macs may allow it to standardize on a single machine. Heck, it might even allow it to save money by buying only a single machine for employees that need access to both platforms.
It's like the entire collection of supposed Mac experts put their collective heads in the sand (or in some other dark orifice) and have decided to sing Pollyanna-like songs rather than thoughtfully looking at the situation. This migration has costly consequences for both consumers and business users depending on the decisions made.
That's not to say that I believe that no one should buy a Mac today. I think for a sizable number of users, the release of new Intel based Macs next year will not change their calculus or affect their purchasing plans. For others, a cost-benefit-analysis might show it to be a good time to spend a little more money to upgrade their current machines and thereby eke out another year's worth of use, which would allow them to wait and see what the new Intel based Macs have to offer.
Regardless, it would not be unreasonable to expect a Mac purchasing lull and I bet Apple has prepared itself for that contingency. Personally, I will not buy a new Mac as the current Apple offerings do not provide sufficient incentive for me to upgrade from my Dual 1.25GHz Power Mac or my 1.33GHz 17" PowerBook G4 (unless Apple releases a dual processor PowerBook), but that's based on my particular set of expectations, budgets, and needs. Others will need to perform their own risk/reward and cost-benefit-analysis.
My point in this rant is that it's realistic to believe that for a substantial number of actual and potential Mac users, holding off on buying a Mac until the new platform is released is the reasonable course of action, and that the Mac press is once again bathing in the deep end of its myopia pool by minimizing that reality.
The Mac editorial punditry's cry of "don't think...buy buy buy" shows the entire lot to be a poorly thought out group of sycophants only too eager to line up and kiss the ass of Steve Jobs with little thought given to just how brown they want their noses, and all the less thought to the needs, budgets and best interests of entire groups of consumers.
Here's a seismic change for the platform and all the collected intelligentsia can do is to tell you to go shopping without identifying any potential costs and/or issues that the platform change presents. Ridiculous. I cannot imagine any other industry where the collective "experts" would react to such a huge and impending change in technology by instructing everyone to blithely march forth making purchases with the general advice being: "don't worry, be happy" and that "this changes nothing." It's as if filling the coffers of the vendor in question is more important than the needs and/or concerns of the consumer.
Then again this is the cult of Macintosh, so it really comes as no surprise.
is an attorney. Please don't hold that against him. This work does not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of The Mac Observer, any third parties, or even John for that matter. No assertions of fact are being made, but rather the reader is simply asked to consider the possibilities.
You can send your comments directly to me, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From The Devil's Advocate
- Mac UI Ain't All That: The Future & History of the User Interface - August 15th
- MacWindows: The New Trojan Wars - April 4th
- TMO Scoop: Apple Files Patent for Looking Glass - January 25th
The Devil's Advocate Archives
Observer Comments
Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:36 pm Subject: Finally A Great Article On TMO
It is very irresponsible of the author of that article to make such generalisations. There are many in the Mac community not supporting that move. He quoted some game developers ready to dump PPC support. What about those dumbfounded by the switch.
I planned on replacing my 2002 Powerbook in 2007. NO WAY I will be doing that now. I simply don't know what Apple's direction is anymore. I guess I'll wait sometime in 2008 to see what really happens. After all Apple abandonned the G5 in very little time. They may do the same with Intel. No way I'm financing Steve Job's wet dreams.
Not only that, but if Mac Intels support Windows; what motivation is there for 3rd parties to port Windows apps to the Mac? Macs will be able to run Windows software so why incur the extra expenses. Steve Jobs has had some pretty spectacular failures. With Apple's current momentum it is very risky to pull such a move. Alienating and confusing consumers.
You sir are a boob!
You have gone out of your way to insult a large number of people with many gross stereotypes. At least in insulting you I am being specific in muy attack.
In brief response to you booberisms:
1. Software vendors will drop support for PPC soon: Nope. Have they dropped G3 support yet? No. There are 10 to 20 million PPC customers, no smart developer will walk away from that soon.
2. Software vendors will charge you support for PPC upgrades: Says who? That is unfounded conjecture. More likely many will tie suppoort with major version upgrades, which would make good business sense.
3. Apple drops support for old products: What? Get real. Apple has supported Mac OS 9 apps with Classic for 5 years. Apple has supported almost all G3, all G4, and all G5 systems with Mac OS X. They don't casually drop support of their customers products/systems.
This is getting boring. You are a boob with a lot of opinions and little facts.
Absolutely, I would not buy another Mac before the Intel machines hit the market, and not just because I have an iMac G5 that I purchased in May . . . the switch to Intel is exciting, it will be widely supported by the time the machines start rolling out, and Macs will be better and faster for the change. --So sales may show down now, but I'll be ready for the new "iiMac" by the time it hits the shelf.
I love my iMacs and PB12, but I might hold off a year before buying another Mac. One way to promote sales would be a blow-out of G5 systems and PowerBooks. I'm unsure what to do, other than wait and see how things go over the next year.
My software work won't change for a long time. I know anything I develop will only require minimal effort. What concerns me are the programs I use from other vendors.
In the end, what saddens me is that I was sure the PowerPC could be optimized and pushed to 6GHz as IBM had promised. Oh, well.
first of all, I hope this jack a#$ knows that Steve Jobs is one of those that are with the party of flip-floppers, not one of the "Bozos". So, you're knockin' on your own, you idiot! On top of the fact that this thesaurus-dependant-uninformed and politically frustrated "lawyer" includes political rhetoric into a technology piece. That's lack of wit and intelligence. Probably not much of a "lawyer" at all, from his arguments. (Send me your info so I can pass it on to people I know so they don't make the mistake of hiring you for legal services, he will definitely land his clients in jail)
Second, the fact that Apple has always been against Intel was a while ago, when in fact the PPC architecture was faster than the Pentium I & II & III. If PPC can not get any faster, where do you go? Intel's chip speed with the new models have gotten a whole lot faster and promise even faster speeds in the coming years.
Third, he obviously forgot (omitted) that Microsoft (Bill Gates hates Apple publicly) makes their apps for Mac and always better for the Mac OS.
What is your problem?! You obviously need to see a shrink.
I think you have some valid points, but keep in mind that there are also major advantages PPC systems will have over Intel systems for years to come — which is why everyone's said for years that such a switch would be impractical. No, they weren't on crack, they were right. We're in for some tough times.
It's going to take time for developers to port their apps to Intel. As a developer, I've already had my first headache regarding the switch. I'm a small-time shareware/freeware developer. I don't go where the money is, I go where I am. And I'm on PPC — probably will be for another 3 or 4 years, as I just bought this Mac mini a couple months ago. I'll make Intel versions of my products as soon as I can, but it will be years before I'll ever have one at my disposal for testing, which won't make my job easy. Most shareware and freeware developers will be in the same boat, and that means little (and poor-quality) shareware and freeware designed for Intel Macs.
Not all developers WILL port their apps to Intel. There's a lot of fantastic shareware and freeware (and even commercial software) that just isn't updated all that much. You mentioned yourself that there are still very valid reasons to use Classic (and I don't understand at all how you can list that as a reason to wait for Intel machines; did I miss something?!). Heck, I've only just recently stopped using 68k-native programs on a regular basis. Even if Classic is supported on Intel, the trend here is clear: not all software is updated promptly, if ever! In other words, you may well be better off with a current G5 in 2010 than you would with whatever Apple will be rolling out next year (which will probably not be a G5 replacement, by the way; it's expected that Apple will begin the transition with the portables and consumer lines, since they stand to benefit most).
You say Apple drops support for older products, but the only example you give is based on software, which isn't really relevant. Look at the hardware Apple supports today: Tiger would run just fine on my last computer, a c.2000 consumer-level iMac. And that's not the oldest supported machine, either. We're talking about a 5-to-7-year turnaround for Apple's supported hardware. Add that to the fact that Apple will still be selling PPC systems into at least 2007, and you can guess that Apple will still support the PPC for another 8 years or so. Supporting old computers and supporting old OSes are two very different things.
That said, I'd like to repeat that you have some valid points. But really, I'm getting sick of every other Mac user acting like every other Mac user is a crackhead drone. I've already heard your kinds of sentiments plenty of times from a variety of Mac-centric sources.
changing processor platforms is not going to be an easy task Ive been through that before and a lot of things will break and get left behind It will be another hard 5 years until the transistion takes place Like from OS9 to OS X but only harder because you are changing both HW and SW with is why classic will probably be abandon - its too much work
Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:24 pm Subject: John makes some good points
I was planning on upgrading my MDD Mac early next year, but may hold off until the Intel units are released. Of course we don't know the schedule, will Apple start offering Intel powered consumer Macs first with the professional units coming later in the year. If my Mac croaks beyond economical repair I will go and buy a current G5, but my current setup meets my needs so I can afford to wait and see what shakes out.
"May you live in interesting times."
Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:27 pm Subject: Re: John makes some good points
QuoteAl Swearengen wrote:
Of course we don't know the schedule, will Apple start offering Intel powered consumer Macs first with the professional units coming later in the year.
That looks like the plan. You can bet they'll change all of the current G4 models over before they work on the G5s.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:28 pm Subject: That Quad processor note on MacSlash was a misunderstanding
John, your bio at the end says you are an attorney but we shouldn't hold it against you. Why not? I've never seen so much unsubstatiated bashing of the Mac faithful - witness the many good points in the above comments.
We are all judged by our actions. You have serious behavioral problems.
No wonder our legal system is such a mess.
My Mac is more than two years old and serves me as well now as it did when I bought it. Because of the nature of my work I can remain productive with my current hardware and software for another 3 to 5 years unless file formats such as EPS, PDF, .doc, .xls, .dxf, etc. become defunct. If I could justify it, I would upgrade to a new G5 now, and when I can I will. But things are working so well that I might just keep on with what I have.
Not everyone must live on the bleeding edge.
QuoteGuest wrote:
Your nothin' but a lefty lovin' 3rd world economy european hore. Leave the Political Shots out. We don't care about your political opinion. This is a "MAC" site!!
Who says it's lefty? He makes no specific mention? Or are you just being defensive? I'm more on the right myself and I think the left have a totalitiarian view on things just as much as anyone. Go to any college today and try to talk about conservative issues and she how they holler your b*tt down.
Come on, we've had 5 years-- 5 YEARS-- to get our butts away from "Classic". You want AAPL to support all the way back to system 6, like MSFT, with their legacy DOS support?
Also; I think "fat" binaries WILL make it easy enough for developers to support both chipsets for a while. 3-5 years, I think. For my part: I was going to buy an iBook G4 this summer. Maybe I'll get a "mini" instead and get a "Mac-tel" in 3-4 years rather than 4-5, my usual schedule.
I love macs for there operating system, and for the fact that they will work as a primary computer for more than 4 yrs. (unlike the 2 you suggest). I had a duel 533 G4 that some one just this year took off of my hands for $600. Try selling a Windows machine for that much! I now rock a 1.87 G5.
I support the move to intel although I didn't immediately believe it. I figure Steve Jobs has a much better idea of the future of Apple than you or I do.
Stop generalizing and using rumors to write such insulting dribble!
Oh, and thanx for comparing me to a goose stepping Nazi. Much appreciated.
1) Of course vendors will drop support when it makes sense. So what? They would do that with a PPC platform as well. How many Wintel vendors still support win98 apps?
2) No duh. That's why they are in business. Are you expecting some federally funded software benefit program? Upgrades always cost money. Unless it's freeware. Again, not relevant to a migration.
3) EVERY vendor drops support after time. IBM doesn't support Notes R5 anymore, MS dropped support for Win2000. again, SOOOO what?
4) Any IT manager will tell you to expect your hardware to have a viability of 3 years or so. You might stretch it to 4, 5 is VERY hard to do, but 3 is what most companies plan on. This is regardless of platform. So, if I buy my G5 today, and Mac doesn't stop making G5s for 2 years, I'm betting it's still a relevant machine for 3 years because Apple has too many PPCs out there to ignore. If you still have your Mac SE working on system 3, goody for you, you can still write Aunt Edna a letter, but so can I. And *I* can do something with that letter besides send her a floppy disk. So, again, SOOOO what?
5) Of course Intel is faster. That's the point. It's the fact that powerbooks can't get a faster processor on the PPC platform that is driving this. Another stab at the obvious. Good shot. So, are you complaining that Apple wants faster machines? Is this a BAD thing?
6) You're repeating yourself. This was your point in step 4.
7) So now that OS X has been out for 5 years. And there are still people out there using classic, Apple is supposed to support those people? When will I get support for my Windows 98? How about my 486? Can I get my Atari fixed? you said in 2 that when it doesn't make business sense people move on. Well, Apple doesn't make money on anyone using Classic today. So, where is the business incentive to support it? And....just for fun... as you said, this is only a 'potential' problem. You're accusing someone of something you can't substantiate. So, shut up.
8) Yup. That's true. So, then mover might make sense then to wait for an Intel based Mac if windows is needed. or it might not. Again, SOOOO What? Nobody knows if dual-booting, native windows etc are possible yet. The idea of waiting for 'vaporware' is a time proven method of wasting time and money. Just ask anyone waiting for WinFS (promised in Windows 2000).
Thanks for sharing your opinions. Sadly, it seems they have all been borrowed from the 'punditry' you slam. It's nice to have a list culled of all the ideas out there. But what are YOUR ideas? What is YOUR advice? When you have some original ideas, write something. It might be helpful.
What do you suggest? Defect to Windows? That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. I would have preferred to stay on RISC, but at least Intel, unlike IBM and MOT, COMPREHENDS that its mission in life is to deliver incrementally better computer chips according to a rational and predictable "roadmap".
I can imagine an Apple optimized board that will have OSX (a new version) with the capability of dual running Microsoft software built into the OS. I expect that Apple will exploit and use every built in Intel ingredient into the new OS to outdistance them from Microsoft again. Their board will be the most efficient, capable and fastest board on the market to utilize the new features of the Intel design that Microsoft has lagged behind: Advanced features that Longhorn will not even have. Can you imagine a computer for the home and work place that will run both systems, at the same time, from one computer?
Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:41 pm Subject: It certainly is a "devil's advocate" view!
..and, at the end of the day, that's fine.
Kheit digs very deep, makes a comprehensive suite of mostly accurate observations, and then accentuates the darkest possible side of each. And when he's done, I'm still comfortable with the outlook for Apple.
Sure, some vendors will minimize overlapping support for the two architectures, either by delaying adoption of Mac/x86 or abandoning support for Mac/PPC. But straddling the processor boundary with a single, well-defined system API is much easier than it was to support 68K & PPC, or System 9 & OS X, simultaneously, and Apple (and its users) endured those transitions quite well.
His characterization of "Mac punditry" as advocating "buy buy buy!" is inaccurate, and even borders on shrillness when he self-references his ancient "BOZO" rant. Most of the advice is more like Walt Mossberg's in the Wall Street Journal: don't assume the worst (as Kheit has) and defer purchase; if you think it through, it may well still make sense to buy now.
Finally, one of the reasons "Mac punditry" is comfortable with the timing of this transition is that Apple is in fact in a position to weather a period of disrupted Mac sales, with other irons in the fire (iPod, iTunes, more?) to generate revenue and mind share, and a nice hoard of cash in the rainy day fund. For months, if not years, Wall Street has been wondering why Apple has been sitting on that cash and not distributing it as dividends if not using it for acquisitions or other needs; maybe now they know.
The question of porting, and support, may well be a red herring here.
The fact that a new "universal binary" format means developers can build for BOTH underlying hardware platforms, means that:
(A) developers who have PPC-based systems, will be able to build for both, without having to abandon their current platform of choice;
(B) Ditto for Intel-based developers;
(C) No need for buying potentially two versions of software;
(D) No overhead for continuing to support PPC systems in the future.
Thus, from a *developer's* perspective, it will make sense to support both (and make little sense, with rare exceptions to *not* support both), so from a *user's* perspective, there is substantially less to worry about, if one is contemplating purchase of PPC-based systems.
And the issue of the lifespan of Intel-based systems, compared to Macs (not strictly a PPC issue), is the lifespan of the OS and applications, and OS bloat. Given that Mac OS X is in fact improving performance over time, means that the benefits of OS X should also be seen on Intel based Macs - and that will make a huge difference in winning customer base from the Windows marketplace -- even for the *same* applications. When the user base actually sees it demonstrated that *Windows* is the reason they have to buy a new PC every 2-3 years, they may start to jump ship in vast numbers.
It might only take the next year or two of ramp-up, for the tide to shift substantially, with one or two key niche markets (power users, power gamers) to cause a "tipping point" event.
This guy is a wintel user, I'm guessing.
If so, what difference does it make to him, wintel machines are obsolete every 12 months. G3, G4, G5, All currently supported. P4-yes P3-Barely P2-NO.
As well, the only way to right an intel-mac app, is with x-code, which makes a universal binaries. One disc dual support. Little to no extra time invested.
Doom III ? What's that? A game?
GAMES ARE FOR LITTLE BOY'S. MACS ARE FOR PROFESSIONALS!
In conclusion, DO SOME RESEARCH. If your OS can stay stable long enough to do so.
Point 1 goes both ways. I find it hard to believe a software vendor wouldn't try to maximize their profit given that A) they're going to have to use XCode (in the short term) to port to Intel, and therefore B) unless they have very hardware-dependent code, it will be an easy win to sell to existing PPC customers by compiling a fat binary as opposed to an Intel specific one.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:49 pm Subject: Consumer units arriving first
QuoteSmall White Car wrote:QuoteAl Swearengen wrote:
Of course we don't know the schedule, will Apple start offering Intel powered consumer Macs first with the professional units coming later in the year.
That looks like the plan. You can bet they'll change all of the current G4 models over before they work on the G5s.
I could certainly get my projects completed using an iMac or iBook, they have more than enough power for my business. I like the professional models for the expandability, multiple monitors, though the processor speed is nice. Maybe I will first replace the aged G3 iBook with an Intel powered model and let things sort out with pro offerings.
You all have a good weekend.
QuoteGuest wrote:
If you absolutely must have Classic, then maybe the next 6 Months would be a good time to buy a new PPC system...
The problem is it's not clear. Will classic work or won't it? Low priority doesn't mean it will or will not be there. It may make sense to wait and see. Maybe Classic will be supported on Intel and work well. Then people that need that can go ahead and buy the Intel machine.
You have got to be kidding me. Are you using a web browser from 1990? A true professional changes with the times, and it is time for classic users to step up and drop classic once and for all. I did with VERY LITTLE pain.
And I echo many of the above sentiments. I don't think I will be reading any of your articles any time soon. If I want to be insulted I will have a conversation with my wife, and if I want to deal with politics, there are a much larger group of far more experienced pundits in that arena than you, sir.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:09 pm Subject: By a person guilty of bad punditry on zdnet - Paul Murphy
I'll wager a lot of pundits have learned a LOT about intel this week - I knew nothing much about them outside of pentium, celeron, integrated graphics, until this week.
Maybe, just maybe some of the pundits "flip flopped" because as they learned more about intel, they found out some things that made sense in light of Apple's seemingly sudden decision to switch.
1.67 G4 on a 167 mhz system bus - unless Toshiba comes out with some amazing Cell driven laptop in the next year or two, I think Apple's portable line stands to gain a lot in this transition, inspite of all the doom and gloom on the web this Friday.
Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:13 pm Subject: Emperor Steve sure looks GREAT in his new cloths!!!
For year's I've carried the Apple torch. I've used all kinds of justifications to assure others (but mostly myself) that my equipment is leading edge, productive and cost effective. I'm no longer a college nerd...I've got a business, employees, and customers to consider...
"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.....and chucked my Mac for a PC...."
Get on with it!!!!!!
Mr. Kheit is sitting in his corner office overlooking the peons as people bring him bits and pieces of information either through the internet, email, or word of mouth. With his lack of understanding and his own original ideas, Mr. Kheit has once again demonstrated why a little knowlegde is dangerous. He has taken many ideas and twisted them into a reality which he chooses to live in. He complains of us drinking too much "kool-aid", but it is apparent that he is drinking his own concoction consisting of rumors, suspicions, half-truths, and misconceptions.
Mr.Kheit is a lawyer, and yes we can hold that against him...
QuoteGuest wrote:
1) Of course vendors will drop support when it makes sense. So what? They would do that with a PPC platform as well. How many Wintel vendors still support win98 apps?
Win98 is not a fair comparison point - that was 7 years ago and was supported for a while even into early XP Home years; now, if you're talking about something like 4-5 years, what he actually used, that would be Win2k - and with Win2k hardware you pretty much can run XP-SP2 with a memory upgrade, no need to buy a whole new machine. Not the same for PPC->Intel. And for those yelling 'fat inaries', I'd like to see you running those on a mini or an iBook with slow&small hdd and 256MB of RAM, THEN talk.
Quote4) Any IT manager will tell you to expect your hardware to have a viability of 3 years or so. You might stretch it to 4, 5 is VERY hard to do, but 3 is what most companies plan on.
What about 'platform' viability? you know, things like ABI? Any IT manager worth a damn will tel you NOT to jump on the bleeding edge. OSX/PPC was beginning to be perceived as 'stable enough', now that's out of the window. How much time till OSX/x86 will get the same image?
Quote5) Of course Intel is faster. That's the point. It's the fact that powerbooks can't get a faster processor on the PPC platform that is driving this. Another stab at the obvious. Good shot. So, are you complaining that Apple wants faster machines? Is this a BAD thing?
Oh, I see. To put this into perspective: the 'PPC is FAST' line only applied to the G5, but noody really wanted to admit *Books sucked speed-wise. Instead, users said 'hey, check out how SNAPPY the UI is on my old iBook! x86 sucks!!!!111111ONE!!' Now, that the cat is out of the bag
Pentium-M's suddenly don't suck anymore and are really 'faster processors' ... hmmm ... In fact, there are already signs of mac users saying P4 is faster than a G5, what has the world come to ...
Quote7) So now that OS X has been out for 5 years. And there are still people out there using classic, Apple is supposed to support those people? When will I get support for my Windows 98? How about my 486? Can I get my Atari fixed?
Again, you're mixing hardware and software and comparing ...erm... apples to oranges. Tiger is a few months old only. Apple refreshes the OS every year, paid-for - not like Windows which stayed more or less at the same version for 4 years now. And you're claiming the other side has no facts! Oh, sorry, I should have known better than to expect logical arguments from 'creative users'.
Bottom line, my guess is this transition will be quite painful for many. Stevie does not want you to know this, so he flashes a few things around to ease off your mind, while the gory details are burrowed in technical documentation. Go read the Universal Binaries Guidlines sometime and you'll be surprised. Stuff like Rosetta not working with the following: Altivec, Classic apps, apps NOT for G3 (meaning anything targeted to G4 or G5 is shafted - oh, you had apps using the 64-bit of the G5? sorry, too bad) ... But if this is out in the open, Apple stock might take a faster plunge than is having right now.
Yeah, by the way, speaking of platform transitions you might want to have a look into what happened to the following companies that 'switched' to intel: SGI, Compaq, HP. To get you started, here's a link:
http://projects.csail.mit.edu/gsb/archives/old/gsb-archive/gsb2001-06-29.html
I'm not saying tht's what will happen now, but a painless transition is a pipe dream.
I'm very disappointed with Apple. I am very worried about transition costs to the new systems, considering I've invested quite a bit into the PPCs I own and am very happy with their performance.
I also feel that I was misled with false promises to buy my first Macintosh about 5 years ago. They said that the PPC was slower in terms of clock speed but that it had a wide and short pipeline with no bottleneck, unlike the pentium systems. They said this made it possible to have a "supercomputer in a cube" without active cooling systems.
If you look at the recent explanation of why one should buy a PowerMac in the "apple store website" you might have seen a lengthy description of why the G5 was better than all the PC competition, featuring several images and perhaps even a QT movie. I haven't checked if this is still there, but is was on Tuesday. What gives with this shoddy logic and presentation? Do they take us for idiots?
To put it simply: I don't trust Apple anymore. They don't "make the whole widget" anymore (as their new chip is not their development). They may still make the best PC on the market ONLY BECAUSE they have the most stable and trouble-free OS in the mass-market. Will that change as their market share grows, too?
G4 Cube 450mhz
G4 PowerBook 800mhz
OS 10.2.8
Comments are currently closed. Please email the author instead.
Recent Headlines - Updated February 12th
- Sat, 4:11 PM
- MacOS KenDensed - MacOS KenDensed: iPad 3 Frenzy, Big-time Apple & Steve Jobs, G-Man
- Fri, 8:10 PM
- News - Apple Sues Motorola Mobility in California Over German Case
- 7:54 PM
- Free on iTunes - OnLive Desktop: Windows & Office on Your iPad
- 7:43 PM
- Product News - Apple Rolls Out MacBook Air Configurations for Education
- 6:35 PM
- Just a Peek - Battle Pocket Bulge With The Hint for iPhone
- 6:01 PM
- Rumor - Apple Reportedly Bringing MacBook Air Styling to Pro Line
- 4:50 PM
- Particle Debris - The Hidden Gotchas of Browser Security
- 3:56 PM
- Apple Stock Watch - Analyst: Paying a Dividend Makes Sense for Apple
- 2:58 PM
- Deal Brothers - iMac 27-inch 2.93GHz Intel Quad-Core i7 processor: $1,999
- 2:45 PM
- In-Depth Review - Theodolite App for iOS is Breathtaking
- 12:52 PM
- Apple Stock Watch - Mizuho Securities Starts Apple Coverage with $635 Target
- 11:35 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - Forum Poll: Are You Planning on Buying a New iPad?
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
TypeStyler 11 is now in the Mac App Store!! -- Special Introductory Price of $59.95!! -- To Buy From The Mac App Store Click Here Now!! Or buy direct
from Strider Software.
Mac RAM Upgrades: MacBook Pro 16GB kits $475, 8GB Kits for $119.99! iMac 16GB RAM Kits (4x 4GB) for $229.99! Mac Pro Memory 32GB Kit for $399.99, 64GB Kit for $889.99! Mac Hard Drives 2TB Seagate SATA II for $249.99! Click Here!
-
If you're using a Mac, then you've gotta check out Online Poker Mac.
This mac poker and online casino mac site
actually does the unthinkable, it actually rewards! -
-
-
-
-
-
