All your Macs are belong to us...
The Horta
coming close on a few occasions to ordering. It was only a matter
of time, likely sooner than later, that I would have bitten the
bullet -- having been a PC owner for life. It's not that I have
experienced any PC problems, no moreso than a close friend of mine
experiences Mac problems, but the lure of beauty and style
integrated into a seamless package have had me secretly lusting for
a while now.
However, with their sudden switch to Intel (with more Mac'ers
calling the unholy union "Mactel"), thus rendering just about ALL
current applications totally INCOMPATIBLE with the forthcoming
machines and OS -- meaning costly software upgrades, immediate
obsolescence of currently available hardware with NO software
upgrade path for existing PowerMac users, etc -- my lust has waxed
cold to the point where I've decided to take my $8,000 and spend it
on a dual Xeon workstation and run XP64 instead.
What are all you current PMac users feeling, and what are your
plans for the future? It's obvious that most developers will
immediately cease all development on the PPC platform to switch
gears to accomodate the Mactel platform, leaving current hardware
owners more or less high and dry as far as future upgrades/updates
are concerned. Some may finish late-stage projects, but that's
likely it. If you move to a new Mactel, all of your current
software is basically useless and you'll need to buy Mactel
compatible upgrades.
Is this a roadblock, or just a speedbump?
Brendan
The Rev. Dr. C. Scot Giles
available so there is no current tradeoff. The big software vendors--Apple,
Adobe, Micro$oft, etc. have all agreed to make their software available for
both platforms throughout the PPC product cycle and Apple's developer kit
lets coders write code that the software translates into code for both
platforms automatically. So just about every new release will come out for
both PPC and Intel for quite some time.
I've got a new G5 and like it. In a couple of years it will be ready for an
upgrade (I do that every 2-3 years) and I'll buy the new machine without
hesitation. Under Rosetta, a feature in the next MAC OS, all the PPC
software will work on the new machines as well.
Rosetta works by translating the PPC command set into Intel command sets.
It's not an emulator and so there is not that much of a performance hit.
This change is going to be much, much more transparent than the change to
OSX.
Scot Giles
On 6/29/05 11:50 AM, in article Xns96848291ACBF...@208.49.80.60,
Jay Kadis
The Horta <ho...@janus6.org> wrote:
Who cares? If the current Macs do what you need, they will continue to do so.
Since Apple is now "owner" of Logic, I assume there will be continuity as far as
Logic is concerned at least. FireWire will doubtless continue, so your audio
peripherals will continue to work even with the new machines should you choose
to migrate later.
Somehow I doubt the switch is as sudden as you think. There might just be some
thought going into the transition.
-Jay
[Dual 1.8GHz G5, MOTU 828 II, Logic Express]
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
dale
when a newer OS comes out (98, 2000, XP)
were you not forced to upgrade your software?
I would agree with Jay about what the real time frame will be and say
that
once I have a stable system, I leave it alone.
upgrades are problems with any system.
Andy Eng
After being a wintel owner/user for more than twenty years, I took the
plunged and went to a Mac (G4 PB) platform for remote recording and
post production mixing and art work. I've been most pleased since
making the change in terms of it being a productive package. BUT,...
I'm most pleased as to not having an upgrade path (I hope). Why?!?!?
I'm simply sick of getting nickeled and dimed with new apps upgrades,
more memory, more CPU, more apps, more memory, more CPU, etc. I've one
too many machines where just that one more addition pushed what was a
solid platform into a mess.
However!!!!
This ALSO more beans for more mics, more preamps, more mics, a
production CD/DVD cloner, more mics, more monitors, more mics, another
set of headphones, mor mics, a mic case, more mics, etc... :-)
Grumpy old fart in training... <vbg>
Andy
david
> However, with their sudden switch to Intel (with more Mac'ers
> calling the unholy union "Mactel"), thus rendering just about ALL
> current applications totally INCOMPATIBLE with the forthcoming
> machines and OS
You missed Jobs making the announcement, all the time running an Intel
powered, large screen iMac running Keynote (Apple's one up on
Powerpoint) without telling anyone until an hour into his presentation.
No one who likes to stay in computer business releases hardware that
uses only brand new apps. If there are no apps, there is nothing or
almost nothing to run on the machines - not a very good idea.
I'd bet when the first Intel powered Mac ships, some apps will need
simple updates, others not. I expect it to be similar to a new rev of
OS X. Some apps still run, others need a tweak.
We still run a couple Mac apps literally from the mid 80's on our G4's:
a long dead version of MacDraw that we use to print track sheets, and
AtOnce, an excellent and also long dead accounting program. (Man,
that's good code!)
I'd also add that the transition from 68k chips to PowerPC was much
smoother than anyone anticipated. Software companies had to write apps
that worked on both kinds of Macs. They want to sell to as wide a
customer base as possible.
One downside to these new Intel Macs that don't arrive until next year
- they may not run old System 8 and 9 apps in a compatibility mode, as
the current OS X allows. Boo hoo.
David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island
Joe Mama
> It's a speed bump. All the old software works fine on the machines currently
> available so there is no current tradeoff.
You're kidding, right?
Cheers,
-joe.
Joe Mama
your fashion 'stops': I'm still on OS9/PT 5.2 (well, dual boot, anyway)
and have no foreseeable need to 'upgrade' from a mature and stable OS to
a new and 'better' one. I rarely, if ever, find I have a compelling
reason to open any sessions in OSX/PT 6. The decision not to support
OS9 with the G5, while understandable, bums me out nevertheless.
On another note - isn't Digidesign developing on Wintel first now and
porting to Mac second? If that is correct, that would mean only good
things for ProTools users when Apple switches to Intel. Unless....
I am curious: does anyone know if, when they do switch, it will be to
x86 Intel (P4 type architecture), or something a bit more 'proprietary'
(for lack of a better term)? I assume it will be 64 bit, and probably
dual or multi core, but nothing I've read on the subject makes this
clear. The thought of installing Windows on a Mac really does my head
in. Surely Apple would want to prevent that from being possible?
Cheers,
-joe.
Joe Kesselman
No.
Joe Kesselman
> However, with their sudden switch to Intel (with more Mac'ers
> calling the unholy union "Mactel"), thus rendering just about ALL
> current applications totally INCOMPATIBLE with the forthcoming
> machines and OS
Huh? The whole point of this as I understood it was supposed to be that
they can run a Power emulator/JIT on top of the the Intel chip and get
adequate speed *without* changing their software... and without
impairing their ability to flip back to Power chips in a future generation.
(I was also under the impression that they were only switching for the
laptops, specifically because they hadn't gotten the heat/performance
tradeoff they wanted out of the current generation of Power chips and
didn't want to wait before releasing new machines. The desktop systems,
as far as I know, are staying on Power processors.
Double-check me on this, but if I'm understanding their solution
correctly it's not even a speed bump; it's a set of aftermarket shock
absorbers. Not as good as the real thing, but it's what was in stock.
Zigakly
"The Horta" <ho...@janus6.org> wrote in message
news:Xns96848291ACBF...@208.49.80.60...
Apple is a series of speedbumps that amounts to a roadblock for me. They're
like a restaurant that changes its menu every week. I switched to the dark
side 3 years ago, and while I much prefer the MacOS, I'm not switching back
anytime soon. G4's were obselete before they were fully supported in audio
software, G5's offer nothing to audio over a G4 and the cases are retarded,
and audio software will take its usual 2-5 years to adjust to Mactels, by
then who knows, maybe CBM will once again rule the industry and we'll all be
using Amigas...
Long story short, principle isn't enough reason to use a less effective
computing platform.
Troy
I woulden't worry about it my G5 will last me for years to come as it does
everything I need it to do.If you are always waiting on the latest greatest
thing you will be waiting a long time.Also I woulden't dump a bunch of money
into a new 64 bit PC without the proper windows 64 bit operating system even
being on the market yet.You may be setting yourself up for a lot of trouble.
Get your G5 and don't worry it will do what you need it to do for years to
come.
Good Luck
Troy
Zigakly
> It's not an emulator and so there is not that much of a performance hit.
> This change is going to be much, much more transparent than the change to
> OSX.
I bet Apple is working hard on the semantics of whether it's an emulator or
not. My vote is that it is, and that there will be a considerable
performance hit, but you won't notice since the Mactel's will have twice the
CPU power as your previous PMac, and only Logic will take full advantage of
the new architachture (but then you're stuck using Logic...). And the
transition will be as "transparent" as the introduction of Altivec, which
took over 5 years to come into widespread implementation. Remember working
on early G4's back when they came out? I recall saying "screw this, gimme
my G3 back".
David Morton
(The Horta) wrote:
> thus rendering just about ALL
> current applications totally INCOMPATIBLE with the forthcoming
> machines and OS -- meaning costly software upgrades, immediate
> obsolescence of currently available hardware with NO software
> upgrade path for existing PowerMac users, etc
[snip]
> It's obvious that most developers will
> immediately cease all development on the PPC platform to switch
> gears to accomodate the Mactel platform, leaving current hardware
> owners more or less high and dry as far as future upgrades/updates
> are concerned. Some may finish late-stage projects, but that's
> likely it.
If you believe any or all of the above, then you need to go back and read
all about 'Dual Binaries' (what those of us who used NeXTStep called 'Fat
Binaries') and 'Rosetta'.
These two approaches mean that the PPC machines currently in use and yet
to be launched (remember Apple has said there are more, faster, PPC
machines coming before the switch) have a significant useful life.
So it's a speedbump.
The Horta
news:Qr2dne9Kj4D...@comcast.com:
> The Horta wrote:
>> However, with their sudden switch to Intel (with more Mac'ers
>> calling the unholy union "Mactel"), thus rendering just about
>> ALL current applications totally INCOMPATIBLE with the
>> forthcoming machines and OS
>
> Huh? The whole point of this as I understood it was supposed
> to be that they can run a Power emulator/JIT on top of the the
> Intel chip and get adequate speed *without* changing their
> software... and without impairing their ability to flip back
> to Power chips in a future generation.
It's for their entire product line, according to Macworld. Also,
those same experts claim that emulated apps (Rosetta) are
considerably slower then native ones (of course, no surprise
there). While it doesn't matter much for Word it will for most
other apps, including simple browsing. It's just a Band Aid until
their developer community is all on-board.
The so-called "experts" don't seem to be that optomistic that the
conversion will be so simple and seamless, and for someone like me
who is ready to make a move it's a death knell, unfortunately.
However, I'm glad I hadn't done it yet, or else I'd be pretty upset
that Apple is now going to the processors that I just abandoned.
Brendan
CeeDub
"dale" <dal...@frognet.net> wrote in message
news:1120074006.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dale:
To answer the question, I just upgraded my home PC to an Athlon64. Last
upgrade was 4 1/2 years ago to a 1 MHz Athlon. Before that, a 166 Mhz
Pentium. All have been perfectly useable machines, and all worked with the
latest and greatest software. As for software, I've kept up. Let's see. Over
the last 10 years, I've had to upgrade twice. From Win95 to Win98SE. Then
from Win98SE to XP. On my Mac G4 at work, which I've had for 4 years, I've
upgraded from OS9 to OS10.1 (Jaguar?), then to OS10.2 (Panther?), and now to
Tiger (Tiger). So, I've gotten the same number of upgrades on my Mac that
took four upgrades as I had to do on my PC that took a decade.
The upgrades on the Mac have not been without trouble. Upgrading from OS9 to
OS10 required purchasing all new software. Running OS9 in "classic mode" was
not a panacea because that required considerable startup time and did not
allow crosscompatibility with my OS10 apps. On the other hand, on my PC, I
could still run my Win98 versions of software without any noticeable
degradation in performance, nor did I have to run some Win98 emulator.
Having used both, I daresay I'm not terribly happy with the announcement of
the Intel replacement for the PowerPC. I was planning on purchasing a new G5
to update my older G4. But, what's the point? In a year from now, I will
have to upgrade all of my software to be compatible with the next OS with
native x86 code. I don't relish that thought.
Craig
CeeDub
news:42c34224$0$1797$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I don't know the specifics, but my understanding from Steve Job's
presentation was that they've been running OSX from the start on x86
machines. I assume they mean run of the mill Pentiums and Athlons. But, you
can bet that they will come up with their own proprietary bios and MB
architecture so that, while their "Mactels" will support dual-boot Windows
XP64, you won't be able to run retail versions of their OS (whatever feline
name it will inherit) on a Dell/Gateway/HP machine.
Craig
dale
OS9 to
OS10 required purchasing all new software. Running OS9 in "classic
mode" was
not a panacea because that required considerable startup time and did
not
allow crosscompatibility with my OS10 apps"
so why did you upgrade?
you skipped win 2000, why?
just because they offer better hubcaps
doesn't mean that you "must" buy!
if it is working right leave it alone!
why are you running tiger?
having just been released
most software (audio) is just catching up.
and as you point point out, these upgrades are a real pain to deal
with!
David Morton
keshlam...@comcast.net (Joe Kesselman) wrote:
> Huh? The whole point of this as I understood it was supposed to be that
> they can run a Power emulator/JIT on top of the the Intel chip and get
> adequate speed *without* changing their software... and without
> impairing their ability to flip back to Power chips in a future
> generation.
The emulator/JIT (Rosetta) is just one part of the migration strategy.
The other (equally important) part is the ability of Xcode 2.1 (which
developers have now) to make what are called "Dual Binaries".
If you're developing an application in XCode you tick a box and the
executable it produces will run on *both* PPC *and* MacIntel.
Developers I know are already producing dual binaries.
> (I was also under the impression that they were only switching for the
> laptops, specifically because they hadn't gotten the heat/performance
> tradeoff they wanted out of the current generation of Power chips and
> didn't want to wait before releasing new machines. The desktop systems,
> as far as I know, are staying on Power processors.
No, Apple is shifting the whole product range.
David Morton
(The Horta) wrote:
> It's for their entire product line, according to Macworld. Also,
> those same experts claim that emulated apps (Rosetta) are
> considerably slower then native ones (of course, no surprise
> there). While it doesn't matter much for Word it will for most
> other apps, including simple browsing. It's just a Band Aid until
> their developer community is all on-board.
Developers who're using Xcode are climbing on board. Some have already
released 'Universal Binary' versions of existing applications or
utilities (sorry I called it 'Dual Binary' in an earlier post, but
'Universal Binary' is the Apple term).
OK nothing huge yet, http://ipsp.kaisakura.com/homebrew.php is one tiny
example, but it *is* starting to happen already, and this when production
MacIntel hardware (stuff that you and I can actually buy) isn't due to
ship until 2006.
Joe Mama
>> You're kidding, right?
>
>
> No.
OS 9?
CeeDub
suggested that home users go with Win2K, pro apps for XP. I figured that XP
must be more robust, and decided to go this direction. No such option was
available for the Mac. The reason I have been continually upgrading the Mac
OS is because I've been struggling to get a stable OS. I'm fairly happy with
Tiger because I think I've finally gotten a stable platform. But,
considering the incremental advances in each version of OSX, I'm a little
miffed. Look, I'm neither a Mac or Win fanatic. I like both and think they
are becoming very much like each other. But, if you consider the fact that
XP has been on my computer for four years without having to pay for an
upgrade, whereas I've had to purchase three upgrades in the same period of
time for my Mac, you can see why I'm a little miffed. As for XP, that OS has
been updated on an as needed basis for free. My OSX also upgrades itself
when needed, but major upgrades have cost me money.
Out of curiosity, which version of the Mac OS are you running on your
computer? Which versions did YOU opt to upgrade?
One other beef about Macs... ever since the first PCI slot Macs have been
out, Apple has touted cross-platform compatibility with peripherals. Most of
the time, this works okay. But there have been several times where I've
purchased something that is supposed to be cross-platform compatible, only
to find out that Mac has some proprietary way of doing things. An example is
my Princeton 19" LCD monitor. When I purchased my Mac G4 tower, it came with
an nVidia graphics card with a DVI output. My monitor also came with a DVI
connection, as well as a standard VGA connection. When I tried to plug in my
monitor, I found that Mac's version of the DVI connector is different than
the standard DVI connector. So, I have to run my monitor off the VGA. It's
not that big of a deal, but an example of the frustration. Apple has done
much to advance desktop computing, having introduced much technology like
FireWire. But, I get the sense that their insistence on controlling the
software and hardware environment so closely limits their acceptance in the
general marketplace.
YMMV, just my thoughts. At times, I love my Mac and curse my PC. Most of the
time, I'm cool with both. But, Macs are more expensive to own. Period.
Craig
dale
10.3 is on a my general purposes partition,
I am considering an upgrade to 10.4 as it has aggriated audio device
capacity.
Metric Halo has just issued drivers and beta software for10.4.
(TC Electronics has also issued a 10.4 patch for spark xl. )
David Morton
(CeeDub) wrote:
> When I purchased my Mac G4 tower, it came with
> an nVidia graphics card with a DVI output. My monitor also came with a
> DVI connection, as well as a standard VGA connection. When I tried to
> plug in my monitor, I found that Mac's version of the DVI connector is
> different than the standard DVI connector. So, I have to run my monitor
> off the VGA.
You don't say exactly which G4/nVidia combo it is, but isn't this
incompatibility because it's actually an ADC connector rather than
standard DVI?
In which case you could connect it to your standard DVI monitor with one
of the Dr Bott ADC->DVI adaptors? This one:
http://www.drbott.com/prod/db.lasso?code=0123-ADE2 and then you would be
staying in the digital domain rather than converting to analogue VGA,
which will probably improve your picture quality.
I do this on my G5 - which has one ADC connector and one standard DVI
connector - so I can run two Iiyama TFTs each of which has a standard DVI
input.
Bill Ruys
"Troy" <alterna...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:wHBwe.1828569$6l.581899@pd7tw2no...
> I woulden't worry about it my G5 will last me for years to come as it does
> everything I need it to do.If you are always waiting on the latest
> greatest
> thing you will be waiting a long time.Also I woulden't dump a bunch of
> money
> into a new 64 bit PC without the proper windows 64 bit operating system
> even
> being on the market yet.You may be setting yourself up for a lot of
> trouble.
>
commercially available. I've got it running on an Athlon64 PC right now.
Bill.
CeeDub
Okay, so you too then have opted to purchase at least three versions of
MacOS (including the one that shipped with your computer) since OSX was
introduced 4 years ago. In the same time, there has been only one version of
XP that I've had to purchase.
Craig
CeeDub
"David Morton" <dmo...@well.com> wrote in message
news:memo.2005063...@feynman.morton.org.uk...
David:
Yeah, its the ADC adapter. When I purchased the G4, I asked that it be DVI
compatible, since I'd been eyeing those nice LCD monitors.
Craig
david
<bloody...@drugsmakemecool.com> wrote:
> The thought of installing Windows on a Mac really does my head
> in. Surely Apple would want to prevent that from being possible?
Apple is gonna make sure you can install Windows on these Intel Macs.
The company is acting like they won't be the one to sell it to you,
tho. But you won't be able to install OS X on your non-Apple Intel
boxes.
I guess Microsoft's purchase of and crappy ugrades to Virtual PC won't
be going much further.
I think it's a very smart move on Jobs' part. You wanna run Windows? No
problem. Buy a Mac.
Some people believe that Jobs wants people to compare both OS's on the
same machine, cuz of Jobs' belief that OS X will be considerably better
and faster than whatever Gates' Longhorn finally ends up being released
next year. Kinda ballsey, eh?
It'll also be interesting to watch the hacker world try to make OS X
load and work on a standard PC. In this game of cops and robbers, will
the hackers be smarter than whatever Apple comes up with to prevent
it??
Bob
cheers,
Bob
"CeeDub" <cra...@EFFOFFSPAMcox.net> schreef in bericht
news:vO0xe.3772$Qo.3106@fed1read01...
Hans van Dongen
> Some people believe that Jobs wants people to compare both OS's on the
> same machine, cuz of Jobs' belief that OS X will be considerably better
> and faster than whatever Gates' Longhorn finally ends up being released
> next year. Kinda ballsey, eh?
>
> It'll also be interesting to watch the hacker world try to make OS X
> load and work on a standard PC. In this game of cops and robbers, will
> the hackers be smarter than whatever Apple comes up with to prevent
> it??
It may also have to do with "trusted computing"; hardware level
"protection" which means a movie or an mp3 won't run unless you've paid
for it.- or an MS Word document won't open in OpenOffice. Scary stuff.
Intel is big in this.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
Hans
--
This is a non-profit organization;
we didn't plan it that way, but it is
=====================================
(remove uppercase trap, and double the number to reply)
The Horta
news:11202016...@aquila.amc.uva.nl:
> what about the weekly 'patches''?
> cheers,
> Bob
PATCHES?! We don't need no stinkin' patches!
The Horta
DEFINITELY buy a new Mac that could dual-boot both OSes natively
-- the best of both worlds.
I don't think I could live without my weekly "Windows Update"
security and bug fix.
It's an embarrassing addiction.
Brendan
david <ih...@spamo.com> wrote in
news:010720050130123501%ih...@spamo.com:
dale
it came with one
and my univesity has a purchase plan with apple
cost for me is for the media only.
I have had no virus problems
I have had no security problems
Troy
Bill Ruys <bill...@nospam.siliconaudio.co.nz> wrote in message
news:I%Zwe.11660$U4.14...@news.xtra.co.nz...
I am well aware of that Bill......as I said a "proper" 64 bit OS.XP 64 bit
is just re hashed I was refering to Longhorn