Sign In
Register
Help
Linux has proven that a Unix-based OS can run on any Wintel machine without problem, so Mac OS X can do it as well.
Apple already gives away applications like QuickTime, Safari or iTunes. Also Microsoft and others.
Apple can keep on selling other software as Microsoft does, besides selling top-quality MacTel machines, as well as music, movies, iPods and other innovations...
WWDC: Developers unfazed by Intel switch
MultiQuote
#30
Nobody 
- Power User
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 58,347
- Joined: 18-October 07
Posted 09 June 2005 - 05:12 AM
It's about the OS itself, stupid!
"If this were true, Apple would not have made the switch from IBM to Intel to begin with. Clearly Jobs himself contends that the processor matters and plays a role in a user's computing experience."
Of course the processor matters, DOH! ;-) Without the processor we have no functioning OS, right?
"Or did you not mean to take this position yourself and instead you are only quoting a sample argument of those who take a contrary point of view? (Later you say you are ecstatic about this move so presumably you feel that the processor does matter at least to a degree.)"
Answer above. However, I think this move is fantastic. If IBM/Moto weren't such "business lamers" (and I say this only because they have been jacking Apple around for years, instead of always being forthcoming about their true intentions) Apple would still be using their procs, and I'd be just as happy as I am about this move.
If this move allows Apple to charge reasonable (MUCH reduced) prices for their high-end towers (and of course models under those), if this move allows user to purchase the same video cards and other hardware PC users purchase, if this move allows users to upgrade Intel proces on their mobos they way PC users can do it so easily (and cheaply), even though Apple will not be allowing current PC users to simply load OS X onto their existing machines it may still bring in PC user by the droves.
Granted, this is a fairly uncertain "if" at present. But "if" Apple handles this correctly there will be no reason for all of the unhappy Win-users I know to stay with the Wintel platform, because they will now have that viable and cheaper alternative they have been waiting for-- in the Mac OS-- for so long.
I have a friend who has wanted a Mac for quite awhile, but he refused to pay the prices Apple charged for a machine capable of gaming and all his other computing needs. (Which is why I maintain a PC) This guy owns a very successful corner PC store, and he doesn't need to pay Apple's prices. He even tried to become an Apple Authorized Reseller and Service Center-- he wanted a Mac so badly-- but Apple's dollar demand for startup purchases was way too extreme and extensive for his business. In other words, this guy is fed up with Windows, wants to switch to the Mac (along with numerous other PC friends of mine and his). Yet, in his/their positions it simply wasn't/isn't economically feasible for them to do so. Maybe this move will change a lot of PC users minds.
Bottom line? IF Apple handles this move correctly, we will have blazing fast machines, OS X will run like you've never seen any Mac OS run, hardware will be cheaper, there will no longer be this waiting for months because of supply shortages, and the more PC folks who come over ffrom Windows the more assured we Mac users are of Apple's continued success.
Yes, the processor does matter. But the most important aspect of this entire issue is Apple's success, so we all can continue to enjoy the OS we choose to use, without the standard lag in technology and performance hits we've all grown accustomed to being Mac users. (Things which [apparently] have been out of Apple's control, for years now)
So I still say, "It's about the OS itself, stupid!" ;-) :-P
"If this were true, Apple would not have made the switch from IBM to Intel to begin with. Clearly Jobs himself contends that the processor matters and plays a role in a user's computing experience."
Of course the processor matters, DOH! ;-) Without the processor we have no functioning OS, right?
"Or did you not mean to take this position yourself and instead you are only quoting a sample argument of those who take a contrary point of view? (Later you say you are ecstatic about this move so presumably you feel that the processor does matter at least to a degree.)"
Answer above. However, I think this move is fantastic. If IBM/Moto weren't such "business lamers" (and I say this only because they have been jacking Apple around for years, instead of always being forthcoming about their true intentions) Apple would still be using their procs, and I'd be just as happy as I am about this move.
If this move allows Apple to charge reasonable (MUCH reduced) prices for their high-end towers (and of course models under those), if this move allows user to purchase the same video cards and other hardware PC users purchase, if this move allows users to upgrade Intel proces on their mobos they way PC users can do it so easily (and cheaply), even though Apple will not be allowing current PC users to simply load OS X onto their existing machines it may still bring in PC user by the droves.
Granted, this is a fairly uncertain "if" at present. But "if" Apple handles this correctly there will be no reason for all of the unhappy Win-users I know to stay with the Wintel platform, because they will now have that viable and cheaper alternative they have been waiting for-- in the Mac OS-- for so long.
I have a friend who has wanted a Mac for quite awhile, but he refused to pay the prices Apple charged for a machine capable of gaming and all his other computing needs. (Which is why I maintain a PC) This guy owns a very successful corner PC store, and he doesn't need to pay Apple's prices. He even tried to become an Apple Authorized Reseller and Service Center-- he wanted a Mac so badly-- but Apple's dollar demand for startup purchases was way too extreme and extensive for his business. In other words, this guy is fed up with Windows, wants to switch to the Mac (along with numerous other PC friends of mine and his). Yet, in his/their positions it simply wasn't/isn't economically feasible for them to do so. Maybe this move will change a lot of PC users minds.
Bottom line? IF Apple handles this move correctly, we will have blazing fast machines, OS X will run like you've never seen any Mac OS run, hardware will be cheaper, there will no longer be this waiting for months because of supply shortages, and the more PC folks who come over ffrom Windows the more assured we Mac users are of Apple's continued success.
Yes, the processor does matter. But the most important aspect of this entire issue is Apple's success, so we all can continue to enjoy the OS we choose to use, without the standard lag in technology and performance hits we've all grown accustomed to being Mac users. (Things which [apparently] have been out of Apple's control, for years now)
So I still say, "It's about the OS itself, stupid!" ;-) :-P
#31
whitedog
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,362
- Joined: 09-August 04
Posted 09 June 2005 - 06:11 AM
MacWorldUser, have you ever installed or used Linux? I thought not. Its a geeks only OS and, like Unix, well suited to enterprise server applications and all but useless to the average home and small business computer user.
Youve been riding this hobbyhorse for a free Mac OS to run on any Windows PC on several forums in the past few days. You seem utterly oblivious to the real world economics involved. I suggest you take note of the fact that absolutely no one has bought into your ideas and take the hint - no personal offense intended - that these ideas are nonsense. No one in their right mind wants Apple to be more like Microsoft.
Cseeman, no one here can presume to tell you whats best for your business. But if you look at Intels current chip lineup, its clear that the first Macs to get Intel processors will be laptops and the low-end desktops currently using G4 chips - the Mac mini and the eMac. High-end, high performance Macs, like the dual G5 you have been looking at, will be the last to be replaced because they will need a 64 bit processor and Intels current 64 bit chips are not yet state of the art.
That means that if you get a G5 now it will be at least two and a half years before theres an Intel Mac to compete with it. And, chances are you would not want to get a first generation Intel Mac anyway, so that adds six months to a year, or more, to your replacement cycle.
The fact Final Cut Pro has had problems, as you say, with previous changes in the Mac OS, QuickTime and various hardware evolutions should actually weigh in favor of buying now. Any immediate changes in FCP will be to improve compatibility with current hardware and software. The likelihood that FCP, along with other high-end apps, may encounter difficulties transitioning to Intel Macs is just one more reason to buy now. You wont want to make your move while FCP is having growing pains two years down the line. If you upgrade sooner rather than later, you can sit pat comfortably getting your work done on a G5 dual with a monster graphics card and wait out the transition year - or years. The productivity gains you will experience with a new G5 should justify the expense, especially if you balance them against the productivity gains you wont have for three or four years if you wait for Intel Macs and compatible software to mature and stabilize.
Of course, once Macs come with high power Intel processors, you will want to move up again. By that time, I can picture a dual-core, dual processor 5 GHz 64 bit Intel processor that will take video editing efficiency up another order of magnitude. Imagine what FCP could do with those resources. But it will be at least four years before the wrinkles are ironed out and its a viable alternative.
Youve been riding this hobbyhorse for a free Mac OS to run on any Windows PC on several forums in the past few days. You seem utterly oblivious to the real world economics involved. I suggest you take note of the fact that absolutely no one has bought into your ideas and take the hint - no personal offense intended - that these ideas are nonsense. No one in their right mind wants Apple to be more like Microsoft.
Cseeman, no one here can presume to tell you whats best for your business. But if you look at Intels current chip lineup, its clear that the first Macs to get Intel processors will be laptops and the low-end desktops currently using G4 chips - the Mac mini and the eMac. High-end, high performance Macs, like the dual G5 you have been looking at, will be the last to be replaced because they will need a 64 bit processor and Intels current 64 bit chips are not yet state of the art.
That means that if you get a G5 now it will be at least two and a half years before theres an Intel Mac to compete with it. And, chances are you would not want to get a first generation Intel Mac anyway, so that adds six months to a year, or more, to your replacement cycle.
The fact Final Cut Pro has had problems, as you say, with previous changes in the Mac OS, QuickTime and various hardware evolutions should actually weigh in favor of buying now. Any immediate changes in FCP will be to improve compatibility with current hardware and software. The likelihood that FCP, along with other high-end apps, may encounter difficulties transitioning to Intel Macs is just one more reason to buy now. You wont want to make your move while FCP is having growing pains two years down the line. If you upgrade sooner rather than later, you can sit pat comfortably getting your work done on a G5 dual with a monster graphics card and wait out the transition year - or years. The productivity gains you will experience with a new G5 should justify the expense, especially if you balance them against the productivity gains you wont have for three or four years if you wait for Intel Macs and compatible software to mature and stabilize.
Of course, once Macs come with high power Intel processors, you will want to move up again. By that time, I can picture a dual-core, dual processor 5 GHz 64 bit Intel processor that will take video editing efficiency up another order of magnitude. Imagine what FCP could do with those resources. But it will be at least four years before the wrinkles are ironed out and its a viable alternative.
#32
cseeman
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 06-December 04
Posted 09 June 2005 - 07:55 AM
Whitedog, I came to similar conclusions on much of what you say, before I made my first post in this thread. Laptops will be first and the high end towers will be last to changeover.
Certainly the increase in productivity a Dual G5 offers, outweighs waiting about 2 years (range of 18-30 months depending on how Apple moves on this).
I still think developers dropping PPC support will happen sooner rather than later especially those video/graphics based apps that use Altivec.
I do think the current crop of Dual G5s will have a shorter lifespan though. It's only my hunch though but neither Apple (and Jobs keynote/sales pitch) nor the develpers are currently convincing me otherwise.
My Dual 800 G4 purchased in 2001, rund FCP5 just fine 4 years after I bought it, with at least a year or longer, it'll be running what should remain the current version of FCP, likely to or through 2006. That's 5 years of current version compatibility. I DO NOT THINK a Dual G5 purchased today, will be able to run the then current version of FCP in 2009 or 2010 (4-5 year period). Again just my hunch, but this is what I mean by a newly purchased G5 having a shorter compatible life span.
Instead of buying a Dual 2.7, I have to look at a Dual 2.3, and older Dual 2.5 or even a Dual 2.0 (given lack of PCI-X and only 4 memory slots) since this computer will likely have to be replaced sooner and, rather than being relagated to slower 2nd work station, I'd be forced to by TWO Intel Macs or get by with just one. I hope this makes the business decisons I, and other have to make. In addition, those who purchased Dual G5s 2003-2004, who MIGHT upgrade in 2006, probably won't now. This is why Mac Desktop sales will fall dramatically in the next two years.
Put it another way, buying a Dual G5 is still better than not buying one for a business using a Dual G4 and has the demand for the productivity increase but the actual long term VALUE of such purchase has, my hunch, declined dramatically.
Apple could do things to counter the likely drop in desktop sales. They could lower the price on the current models . . . but they certainly have many reasons NOT to do that. Certainly cutting production accounting for lower demand can decrease the lose for them and may make more sense than cutting price to keep up demand but have a much smaller profit margin per unit.
I do not believe the current Dual G5 will stay compatible with future releases as long as my Dual G4. Many people will delay purchase or, if buying, will spend less, seeing the purchase as shorter term value than before.
Apple may or may not want to change pricing, offer something or whatever to change the perception (real or imagined . . . the developers may well support PPC through 2009). I wish they would, at least, convince me a Dual G5 will be as valuable as my Dual G4 has been. In any case, I'll likely spend less, thousands of others will spend less or simply hold off for two years.
Certainly the increase in productivity a Dual G5 offers, outweighs waiting about 2 years (range of 18-30 months depending on how Apple moves on this).
I still think developers dropping PPC support will happen sooner rather than later especially those video/graphics based apps that use Altivec.
I do think the current crop of Dual G5s will have a shorter lifespan though. It's only my hunch though but neither Apple (and Jobs keynote/sales pitch) nor the develpers are currently convincing me otherwise.
My Dual 800 G4 purchased in 2001, rund FCP5 just fine 4 years after I bought it, with at least a year or longer, it'll be running what should remain the current version of FCP, likely to or through 2006. That's 5 years of current version compatibility. I DO NOT THINK a Dual G5 purchased today, will be able to run the then current version of FCP in 2009 or 2010 (4-5 year period). Again just my hunch, but this is what I mean by a newly purchased G5 having a shorter compatible life span.
Instead of buying a Dual 2.7, I have to look at a Dual 2.3, and older Dual 2.5 or even a Dual 2.0 (given lack of PCI-X and only 4 memory slots) since this computer will likely have to be replaced sooner and, rather than being relagated to slower 2nd work station, I'd be forced to by TWO Intel Macs or get by with just one. I hope this makes the business decisons I, and other have to make. In addition, those who purchased Dual G5s 2003-2004, who MIGHT upgrade in 2006, probably won't now. This is why Mac Desktop sales will fall dramatically in the next two years.
Put it another way, buying a Dual G5 is still better than not buying one for a business using a Dual G4 and has the demand for the productivity increase but the actual long term VALUE of such purchase has, my hunch, declined dramatically.
Apple could do things to counter the likely drop in desktop sales. They could lower the price on the current models . . . but they certainly have many reasons NOT to do that. Certainly cutting production accounting for lower demand can decrease the lose for them and may make more sense than cutting price to keep up demand but have a much smaller profit margin per unit.
I do not believe the current Dual G5 will stay compatible with future releases as long as my Dual G4. Many people will delay purchase or, if buying, will spend less, seeing the purchase as shorter term value than before.
Apple may or may not want to change pricing, offer something or whatever to change the perception (real or imagined . . . the developers may well support PPC through 2009). I wish they would, at least, convince me a Dual G5 will be as valuable as my Dual G4 has been. In any case, I'll likely spend less, thousands of others will spend less or simply hold off for two years.
#33
n8mac
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 15-October 03
Posted 09 June 2005 - 09:39 AM
I don't know anymore about processors than what is stated on these boards, so excuse the ignorance, but I have a question. Why can't Apple work with Intel to put Altivec on a pentium? Is there a technical hurtle?
#34
Steve_S
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,481
- Joined: 09-September 04
Posted 09 June 2005 - 10:04 AM
In reply to:
Also, I'm sure the developer of CodeWarrior is not thrilled with this transition to Intel because it effectively kills its products outright. And the developers who make extensive use of Altivec essentially have to rewrite all their code --
Also, I'm sure the developer of CodeWarrior is not thrilled with this transition to Intel because it effectively kills its products outright. And the developers who make extensive use of Altivec essentially have to rewrite all their code --
A couple things... the developer of CodeWarrior stopped caring about it after they sold it to Motorola. Codewarrior used to have the ability to provide both PPC and x86 binaries. Apple is providing developers with a solution that they can control. Motorola is free to offer their customers a similar solution, but I don't really see that they have the incentive to do so. Motorola basically bought Codewarrior as a development platform for their chips, not necessarily to support Macs. Motorola has done nothing over the past 2 years to support and optimize for the G5. Let's face it, as far as Macs were concerned, Codewarrior saved Apple's bacon 10 years ago, however, after being sold to Motorola, their relevance to the Mac market has been severely marginalized.
Though I haven't played around much with altivec C extensions in xcode, it would appear as though it is supported. Likewise, I don't see a complete rewrite being necessary by moving to xcode.
http://devworld.appl...gTitles/chapter[u]53section_3.html
Steve
