[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

This is not a jumping ship story and the move to intel doesn't bother me that much. The only thing that is getting to me is the fact that us Mac users ALWAYS are in some sort of Transition.

- System 6 to System 7 apps needed some work. (Wasn't around for that one)

- 68k to PPC with fat binaries. I also loved explaining to people to download the PPC version and not the 68k version when given the option. Or the bloated Fat version.

- System 7.5 to System 8 needed developers to update the Apps so they had the proper Platinum look and supported some of the new features.

- G3 to G4 with Alti-Vec enhancements needed adding to Apps for any real speed boost

- Serial Ports to USB. Remember all the adapters that cost more than the printers when the iMac first came out?

- OS9 to OSX was the real nightmare as Photoshop and Quark (the 2 apps that hold Macs together) took 3 years to complete even though the Adobe CEO mentioned it took one guy 20 min at the initial announcement.

- G5 Chips need 64 bit support in Apps many of which still do not have (like Photoshop). Virtual PC took about a year just to run on a G5.

So now things have just settled down a bit (even though the 64 bit support is half assed even though the G5 is 2 years old) and we get to go through ANOTHER transition. This one breaks all old apps that use Classic and Alti-vec.

These transitions are NOT few and far between, this is all within the past 10 years or so.
I really don't mind the switch to Intel but I am not looking forward to another classic "Rosetta" except one that breaks much more than classic did.

Will the Mac EVER be in a period of non-transition?

[Mastrap]

Probably not. Part of the problem is probably user expectation. Faster, longer, wider.

[Randman]

Apple's market share is too small right now for it to stay in the same place for long. Evolve or die.

[osxisfun]

I think once we get to intel we are done. (unless there is some seisimic **** in technology in the next 10 years that intel is not part of)

I am think Ensign Riker™ brand nano-trek-chips which he nabbed from one of those episodes where they go back in time.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

True, but reinsalling windows every six months to get rid of viri just _seems_ like they are always in transition.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

And they don't have Panther or Tiger yet either. Yes, there's a lot of change at Apple but it tends to be a good thing for us Mac users *except for our wallets*.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Is the Mac always going to be at a point of "Transition"?

As compared to what part of the computer industry that is NOT affected by any transition ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

Yeah, the switch from DOS to Win 3.1 to Win 95 to Win 98 to Millenium to NT to XP was completely smooth and flaweless...

-t

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yeah, the switch from DOS to Win 3.1 to Win 95 to Win 98 to Millenium to NT to XP was completely smooth and flaweless...

-t

I thought we were supposed to be better than them?

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

And this is why I'm seriously considering moving to Windows in about 3 years when my Apple hardware will be obsolete. These transitions that Apple pulls can be expensive for people who depend on their Mac to make money. The move from OS 9 to OS X was expensive for me. I spent over $2,000 in software upgrades so I could run native apps in OS X. With the move to Apple/Intel most of my software will not be compatible. If I was on Windows, I wouldn't be facing this issue.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

With the move to Apple/Intel most of my software will not be compatible. If I was on Windows, I wouldn't be facing this issue.

[ ] You paid attention to Apple's plans, especially Rosetta.

[ ] You have a clue about Windows and its transitions from DOS to XP

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I thought we were supposed to be better than them?

Irony defunct today ?

-t

[turtle777]

Ok, since some here don't get my point:

The notion that PC apps don't break as easily when upgrading to newer versions of Windoze is IMO completely offset by other "strange" behaviors, like

* very unexpected behavior of software with different hardware components
* one software install could ruin your whole OS
* driver issues to the power of 10

-t

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

And this is why I'm seriously considering moving to Windows in about 3 years when my Apple hardware will be obsolete. These transitions that Apple pulls can be expensive for people who depend on their Mac to make money. The move from OS 9 to OS X was expensive for me. I spent over $2,000 in software upgrades so I could run native apps in OS X. With the move to Apple/Intel most of my software will not be compatible. If I was on Windows, I wouldn't be facing this issue.

Yep, all the apps you just bought so that they work on a G5 and OSX will be garbage even under rosetta because it doesn't support Alti-vec.

[TampaDeveloper]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

Are you kidding? MS changes their development paradigms every 1.5 years. And is Microsoft beginning a transition to XAML based apps, or am I just having a dream? Longhorn is a bigger transition than Mac to x86.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

And this is why I'm seriously considering moving to Windows in about 3 years when my Apple hardware will be obsolete. These transitions that Apple pulls can be expensive for people who depend on their Mac to make money. The move from OS 9 to OS X was expensive for me. I spent over $2,000 in software upgrades so I could run native apps in OS X. With the move to Apple/Intel most of my software will not be compatible. If I was on Windows, I wouldn't be facing this issue.

Oh please. In 3 years (when Longhorn is out) you would still have to buy a new machine.

[Krypton]

You need to understand that Steve has witnessed Apple making all the wrong choices for the last decade, he is just putting things right in his mind one by one.

It won't be long (say 10 years) before OS X is available on generic PCs, and Apple's market share will be closer to 10% or more.

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

Oh please. In 3 years (when Longhorn is out) you would still have to buy a new machine.

You really don't get this do you?

Scenario 1:

You own XYZ and you run it on XP. In 3 years (when Longhorn is out) you buy a new machine and your version of XYZ works.

Scenario 2:

You own XYZ and you run it on OS X. In 3 years you buy a new Mac. You have to buy an upgrade of XYZ to get it to work with the new Mac.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by waxcrash

You own XYZ and you run it on XP. In 3 years (when Longhorn is out) you buy a new machine and your current version of XYZ works.

Really ? Who says ?
At least in the past, Windows upgrades broke apps, too !

-t

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by TampaDeveloper

Are you kidding? MS changes their development paradigms every 1.5 years. And is Microsoft beginning a transition to XAML based apps, or am I just having a dream? Longhorn is a bigger transition than Mac to x86.

Still that's about 8 years apart. With Mac's we seem to go through one every 3 years.

[Don Pickett]

Every business is in a constant state of transition.

[Zimphire]

I think SWF is just isn't happy unless he is whining.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

I think SWF is just isn't happy unless he is whining.

I think Zimphire just isn't happy unless he's talking about me.

[Drakino]

The other transition Microsoft is going through right now is 64 bit as well. And trust me, it is not as smooth as the G4->G5 transition. A Windows XP x64 machine will not run any 16 bit code, and requires a 64 bit driver for everything. Why does the 16 bit matter these days? Well beyond some archaic application, tons of installers are still 16 bit for some unknown reason.

You also have quirkyness with "Internet Explorer 32 bit" or "Internet Explorer 64 bit". Same goes for Firefox with both 32 and 64 bit versions. And a 64 bit browser can't run a 32 bit plugin, like Flash, or ironicially Windows Update.

This is the glorious AMD64 platform as it exists for Windows users. Soon to be shared with more people when Intel moves their desktop stuff to x64 as well.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I think Zimphire just isn't happy unless he's talking about me.

Naw, it's just when every whine you make gets striked down you come up with an equally lame one with "But" that has no relevance to the post you quoted.

You are just bitching to find something to bitch about.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Naw, it's just when every whine you make gets striked down you come up with an equally lame one with "But" that has no relevance to the post you quoted.

You are just bitching to find something to bitch about.

Sorry obsessing with me.

Actually if you read my post I say I am not upset over the Intel move and I clearly point out other transitions we have gone though backing up my claims.

You just would like to make me look like l am bitching (for your attention no less)

[Zimphire]

SWF, would you like me to show you examples of what I am talking about? It's just not this thread either.

For example

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

Originally Posted by turtle777

Yeah, the switch from DOS to Win 3.1 to Win 95 to Win 98 to Millenium to NT to XP was completely smooth and flaweless...

-t

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

I thought we were supposed to be better than them?

You'll have a complaint, someone will debunk it, you'll reply to that person with a WHOLE DIFFERENT complaint that is totally irrelevant to the point you originally made. Not only that, it's usually easily refutable.

This is known as putting up a strawman argument.

It's also called not debating honestly.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

ignores .. usual Zimphire commentary on other members to make up for lack of real friends...


The thing that also might worry me a bit is Apple is rather easy going about updating it hardware leaving 8 months or more between product updates when Wintel is more about shipping something the second it comes out. If Both Mac's and intels are on the market at the same time but Apples are using a slower intel chip yet cost more we can't use the excuse that it is a different type of processor anymore.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

From anther "bitching for the sake of bitching" post from the creator of MacFixIt.

The move to Intel will inevitably be a major headache. To know that this is true, all you have to do is look at any recent MacFixIt home page. It is filled with reports of problems related to the release of Mac OS X 10.4.1, a minor upgrade to Tiger. True, most of the reported problems are not serious and many do not affect all users. But this is just for a minor bug-fix update after all. A move to Intel processors is an exponentially larger change. Similarly, the move from 680x0 processors to PowerPCs was successful, but the road got very bumpy at times. The move to Intel is an even greater leap; I expect the road to be even bumpier.

At a time when Microsoft is moving to IBM processors for its Xbox, it is certainly ironic to see Apple lining up with Intel.

This all leads to two big, as yet unanswerable, questions:
◦ Will this headache ultimately be a tolerable side-effect of an otherwise successful transition -- or will it lead to a serious setback to the Mac platform at a time when it has finally stemmed the negative publicity and market share slide that plagued it in the 1990s?
◦ And even if the transition is successful, will it be deemed worth it? That is, will we see faster and cooler (literally and figuratively) Macs than we would have otherwise seen?

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

ignores .. usual Zimphire commentary on other members to make up for lack of real friends...

SWF, it was a legit complaint. Why do you do this? I mean if you are going to whine, atleast be consistent.

Also please stop projecting silliness like "having no friends" onto people as well.

It is also dishonest.

[Randman]

A year from now people will be ecstatic about the new offerings. And Zimp will still be baiting SHS.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Randman

A year from now people will be ecstatic about the new offerings. And Zimp will still be baiting SHS.

Obsessing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Randman

Apple's market share is too small right now for it to stay in the same place for long. Evolve or die.

Well, I don't think this was the right way to evolve. This is not a minor evolutionary jump but something rather major. I for one would have preferred to see Apple stick it out with the PowerPC architecture and take the chance on dying.

Of course, Steve Jobs is in the business to make money for Apple shareholders. Making "insanely great" products is simply his way of doing that. If he needs Intel to continue this trend then he will do it. Sigh!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Randman

A year from now people will be ecstatic about the new offerings. And Zimp will still be baiting SHS.

Agreed. With both points. It's a co-dependency.

[Kerrigan]

In spite of what a lot of Mac fanboys will say, the Mac platform really is slowly dying. Mac OS X didn't quite win over as many people as expected, so now Jobs switched over to Intel as an act of desperation to keep this ship afloat.

These transitions really are killing the Mac considering that they alienate the Mac faithful and they bother developers. Being in a constant state of transition, however, is to be expected of a company that keeps trying to reinvent itself in order to win back customers.

I'm not jumping ship, and I'm not going to proclaim the Mac as being dead (yet), but I will say that Steve Jobs had better live up to his god-like reputation if he wants to resurrect the Mac after this.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

In spite of what a lot of Mac fanboys will say, the Mac platform really is slowly dying. Mac OS X didn't quite win over as many people as expected, so now Jobs switched over to Intel as an act of desperation to keep this ship afloat.

I really don't think that is why he is doing it. I think it is honestly because IBM hasn't put out a laptop chip and the brand new G5's don't seem to be evolving. Steve has no other choice I just wish he would have done it years ago when everyone was already porting everything over to OSX.

[Kerrigan]

Well, I agree with that. Perhaps I should've explained myself better. I meant that since Mac OS X was not winning over many people, IBM decided that the G5 wasn't terribly important, so they left Apple hanging. I didn't mean to say that Steve jumped to Intel as a gimmick to try and win back customers. He clearly wouldn't have switched unless he was facing a really bad scenario regarding future G5 chips.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Well, I don't think this was the right way to evolve. This is not a minor evolutionary jump but something rather major. I for one would have preferred to see Apple stick it out with the PowerPC architecture and take the chance on dying.

Of course, Steve Jobs is in the business to make money for Apple shareholders. Making "insanely great" products is simply his way of doing that. If he needs Intel to continue this trend then he will do it. Sigh!

You'd honestly rather Apple risk their future on a fickle IBM than partner with the best chipmaker in the world? That is some seriously whack brand-loyalty.

And yes, this is a minor jump. Very minor actually. In fact, this might be the most minor transition that Apple has ever faced.

The OS is already ported. The Dev tools are already available. Rosetta will provide a solid stop-gap to catch the laggers.

Hell, if Developers stop complaining and get to work they can probably have their apps ported before the first Mactel box ever ships.

How does this possibly compare to any previous transition? Honestly? Apple has already done all the heavy lifting.

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Randman

A year from now people will be ecstatic about the new offerings. And Zimp will still be making fun of SHS.

Fixed.

Lets hope by then however SWF will learn to debate honestly, and not use strawmen.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Randman

And Zimp will still be baiting SHS.

Wanting attention from he thinks is his internet boyfriend is more like it

[turtle777]

You boys are such a cute couple

-t

[Zimphire]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Wanting attention from he thinks is his internet boyfriend is more like it

My post must have hit pretty close to the mark for you to have responded to that TWICE

[Kerrigan]

Enough!

Anyways, back on topic. The one good thing about this transition is that the Apple's current and future products are now pretty clear. When it comes to buying a new Mac, I know that processor speeds are not going to increase dramatically for roughly 2 years, so I can confidently go buy a Mac mini now and get a full 2 years out of it before the Intel mini is released, which I will snap up very quickly. This is the one good thing about the transition -- I know what I'm getting into when I buy a Mac.

When I bought my last computer, a PowerBook, I was a little anxious because of the shroud of secrecy that surrounds Apple's products. I had no idea if I should hold out for a G5 or not. Now the smoke and mirrors are gone, and we know what Apple is going to be doing for the next 2 years.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

One good thing I have to say about Windows is the really don't seem to go through this.

Well, yes and no.

From the user point of view, they had their own 16->32 bit issue. Moving from Win 3.1 to 95 was a big deal. Moving from 98/ME to XP was a BIG deal as a developer (drivers, permissions, XP-only API calls). We're dealing with 64 bit drivers now.

Mike

[Randman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I for one would have preferred to see Apple stick it out with the PowerPC architecture and take the chance on dying.

[sarcasm]Yeah, Apple should have done that.[/sarcasm]

[JoshuaZ]

Apple will stop being in 'transition' when the tech market comes to a grinding halt, and there is nothing left to innovate or invent or improve.

Companies need to change over time to stay competitive. This is why Sears is no longer #1, and why IBM is no long 'IBM compatible.'

[Ganesha]

A few transition you messed.

- The SuperDrive (1.4 MB floppy): Make sure you use 800 K ones if you don't have a SuperDrive on the other computer.
- B&W to Color: Images took 8 times more disk space!
- Dot Matrix (Imagewriter) to Laser Printers (LaserWriter)

Transition is good. Do you really want nothing to change?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

A few transition you messed.

- The SuperDrive (1.4 MB floppy): Make sure you use 800 K ones if you don't have a SuperDrive on the other computer.
- B&W to Color: Images took 8 times more disk space!
- Dot Matrix (Imagewriter) to Laser Printers (LaserWriter)

Transition is good. Do you really want nothing to change?

Those are not transitions where developers had to rewrite their software as drastically if at all.

[Zimphire]

You are kidding right?
Do you even know ...

n/m :x