[minderbinder]

"I'm glad to see that I am not the only one that feel the lack of FW800 makes this a non-Pro model."
Are there ANY windows laptops that have FW800 ports? If not, does that mean that "pro" windows laptops simply don't exist?
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[lhudd]

Personally, I feel that .Mac is terrible. Yes, I'm a subscriber, but ONLY because I use iSync to sync my home and work computers together. I feel it's pretty crappy that I should have to pay an extra $100 a year for this one feature, one that is pitched as a feature of OS-X, but only functional if you spend the extra cash. Yeah, there are other features that some may like and use, but .Mac is painfully slow. Uploading and downloading photos and/or files to my iDisk takes way longer than it should. I'd like to find a service that would let me sync my address book, calendar, and bookmarks without paying an annual fee. They should at the very least offer an iSync only package for a reduced fee.

[adobephile]

I think you've offered perceptive comments on the keynote.
I also think it's ludicrous that the author of this article saw fit to deduce Apple's feelings and/or stances regarding its products and its partners/competitors based on the respective times Steve devoted to each from his presentation. Very low-level logic in my book, on the order of divining tea leaves or entrails, but probably typical of such an underpaid "reporter."

[adobephile]

I agree, and I think the reason he spent so much time on iLife was because it's already Universal Binary and ready to run on both flavors of Macs. Since it's bound to be popular amongst "ordinary" Mac users, it'll help bridge the sales gap in this next transition period. The software will help sell the machines and it's up to the individual as to whether they want to wait for price cuts on PPC or to adopt early the Intel machines. I don't think much else should be read into it.

[roadwarrior]

Plus there's the point that was already made, that all the software demos were indirect HARDWARE demos...he was running everything on a MacTel.

[ggibson913]

I do think that $2000 and $2500 is alot of cash for a home user for the Macbook. however Apple will undoubtedly lower the price as they did with the Powerbooks over time. I just bought my 17" Powerbook last year with it's 1.67 GHz processor and 128 MB of VRAM. I am good for a long time on that score.
The iLife and .MAC software is what I am really bummed about. Yes, it is normally up to you if you want to upgrade to the next version of iLife as a prior poster said. Except that the web based interface for homepage no longer exists, if you go to modify your .MAC page you get an advertisment telling you to go buy iLife 06 with iWeb. Apple has traditionally not left thier customers holding the bag when it comes to HAVING to upgrade. I am unsure if my Macromedia Contributre 3 software that I bought will interface with the new .MAC pages. I never had to use it as the web interface used to work fine.
That is really all. I will wait on the Intelimacs until after they get all the bugs out of it:)

[MacGod]

In reply to:

---

You forgot about one of the biggest losers:
People that just bought the iMac released a couple of months ago. Most people that buy iMacs are home users. Meaning they use their computer for Web browsing, E-mail, iLife apps, and Office. Most of these apps are already written for intel. Office runs fine in Rosetta. (So they say.) I would be upset if I just bought the latest G5 iMac.

---

I disagree totally with this one. We bought my mom a G5 iMac for Christmas, and I can tell you she couldn't care less about which processor is in it (I have to explain to her how to use DashBoard so I think discussions of processor architectures are a wee bit over her head).
She uses the basic apps, many of which you mention-email, web browsing, plus financial stuff, and iChat. All of this runs more than fast enough. Why could she possibly care that there's now an updated version of her machine? It is the home users who care the least. Game users and video editors care about their Macs' speed the most, but for home users it just has to be fast enough to not be a pain.

[Ronald_Schoedel]

In reply to:

---

Remember, he did all his demos before he announced that he was doing them on an Intel iMac. This had the effect of de-emphasizing the chip transition and re-emphasizing Apple's programming superiority.

---

Precisely! It was so inobtrusive as to be obvious to me. The unspoken was, "sit back and relax, folks, intel is not the end of the Mac as you know it."
I am surprised more "analysts", including the Macworld author who posted the story slamming Apple for "de-emphasizing" the Intel transition. Steve did not de-emphasize it. He gave it a true work-out, a real-life demonstration, and did so without missing a beat. It should comfort and console us, not worry us, that he did this the way he did.
Sure, some people will be left behind if they choose to or need to continue using old OS 9 era programs, or earlier. I admit, some older games from the System 7 and 8 era are still fun, but the world does not revolve around System 7 compatibility. It is 2006, OS X is half a decade old already. Everything (save for a few older children's games) I used to use under OS 9 has either been updated for OS X or I have found a substitute that is usually much better than the old program.
Progress marches on. All in all, a GREAT Stevenote.
I just wonder....when will an iPod-ready video of the Stevenote be available? I see the link to stream in in MPEG-4, but my crappy DSL connection is too slow. This seems an obvious thing for Apple to offer: an iPod formatted download of the Stevenote. Surely I am not the only one looking for such a thing.
Ronald Schoedel

[Ronald_Schoedel]

In reply to:

---

If there are other features, fine. But to charge your early-adopters a $49 penalty seems unconscionable. Apple makes its money on the hardware: if anyone should provide free upgrades to Universal Binary (but otherwise unchanged) versions of the software, it should be them.

---

Yeah. Really! I pay $2000 for a laptop and then complain that my software cost $49! Sheesh! How unreasonable! Or, not really.
I do not know what business you are in, but in my business, I charge for my services, and were my business software programming, I would certainly charge something if I had to rebuild a program from the ground up so it would work on someone's brand new $2000 computer.
I think you are being unrealistic. Anyone who uses these programs professionally can surely afford $49 to put them on their new $2000 laptop. You probably don't work for free...why should Apple's hard-working programmers?
Ronald Schoedel

[Ronald_Schoedel]

In reply to:

---

If there are other features, fine. But to charge your early-adopters a $49 penalty seems unconscionable. Apple makes its money on the hardware: if anyone should provide free upgrades to Universal Binary (but otherwise unchanged) versions of the software, it should be them.

---

Why would you be upset? Did your G5 iMac go POOF and disappear in a puff of smoke the instant the Intel iMac was debuted? Did the functionality of your G5 iMac suddenly decrease? Is it somehow less of a computer than it was when you agreed it was worth $1299 last week? I don't understand this mindset. You liked it when you bought it.
I just bought a PowerBook a few months ago. I love it. Yes, the MacBook Pro looks sweet, but my I am not angry. My PowerBook still does everything it did yesterday. It has not become less of a useful computer to me.
Ronald Schoedel

[hillstones]

The number 1 question will NOT be "How can I run Windows on my Intel Mac?" If you are so eager to run
Windows, just go buy a PC. People buy a Mac for Mac OS X and the ease of use of the current apps that people use on a regular basis. If the geeks figure it out, good for them. The majority could care less.

[darkelf]

and the #1 whiner question is... if i put a MacBook Pro in my pocket, will it get scratched?
great stuff, i'm looking forward to this next year. my budget, not so much.

[OM_user]

In reply to:

---

Except that the web based interface for homepage no longer exists, if you go to modify your .MAC page you get an advertisment telling you to go buy iLife 06 with iWeb.

---

Uhh, no, that's completely wrong! Yes, there is a nice little "ad" trying to get you to buy iLife '06, but there is also a link plain as friggin' day that says "Go to Homepage" that brings you back to what you were used to using all along. I wish to hell people would actually spend 1 minute using their eyes before posting such misinformation. I can't believe you would think Apple would intentionally take away the ability for us to edit our own homepages on .Mac if we choose not to get the latest version of iLife. Think before you post, I beg you!

[jmincey]

I think history will view Apple's switch to Intel as a necessary but pedestrian decision and not the watershed development this article suggests it to be. I don't mean to diminish the engineering feat of Rosetta and of bringing OS X and the full complement of Apple applications to the Intel platform, (notwithstanding that Apple had been compiling for x86 for the past five to six years as a hedge anyway), nor do I want to minimize how effectively Apple sets the table for its developers to make the transition -- all the while managing the marketing and public relations repercussions. Few companies could pull this off so well.
It's just that I think with the perspective of years, the reaction to Intel will carry this tenor:

Okay, so Apple wasn't pleased with the rate of progress with the PPC platform nor with the fabrication capacity of its chip suppliers, so it switched vendors.
[/list]In the scheme of things, this won't command nearly as much attention as Apple's focus on the consumer electronic market and how it has used a computer as a central hub for a great number of devices until it was the devices that ultimately compelled the computer rather than the other way around.
I find myself still wishing Apple had gone with AMD though. I think AMD has superior technology and that it conducts business more ethically than Intel does.