Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:00 PM

I've been speaking with many creative shops that use Mac's exclusively and more and more of them are getting the feeling that Apple is always in some sort of transition. Many developers are also not terribly happy about it.

Examples in the last 15 years:

68k to PPC: Took years and years on even Apples behalf to rewrite the code. For many years PPC chips were no faster because even Apple didn't bother to do it. OS8 was the first OS that had a good amount of PPC code.

7.5-OS8. Apps had to be optimized for OS8 to fully get the Platinum GUI. Without it many apps still had the classic menues.

G4 Chip: Apps could take advantage of instructions to take advantage of the speed boost. They had to be coded accordingly.

Serial to USB: I agree with this one but it one tuff year with adapters. Apple could have made it easier by including a CD-R in the iMacs.

OS9-OSX: The big one. Apps had to be re-written or gutted to get it to work with OSX. We all know this took Adobe and Quark 2 years. Apples first "carbon" app Clarisworks was horrific. If Apple couldn't even efficiently do it they can't expect 3rd parties to.

G5 Chip: 3 years later many Apps don't even take full advantage of the chip. Photoshop's RAM limit is still limited.

PPC-Intel: After Apple tells everyone how great the G5 is because it is 64 bit and you should re-write your code they move to 32 bit Intel chips. I am starting to see why Adobe never jumped on making Photoshop PPC.

Now I know I am missing quite a few minor ones. For people who don't pay for their software or need the fastest and newest software this isn't a problem. But for others who have to upgrade the hardware and software often to stay competitive it is a bit of a problem. Apple is actually charging people just to upgrade to compatible versions of Aperture for Intel.

What's in the future? In 8 months from now after Apple has everyone move over to Universal Apps Steve will say they need to be optimized once again to make use of Dual cores and the upcoming 64 bit chips...

strictlyplaid · Jan 25, 2006, 01:07 PM

Yeah man, Nintendo totally sucks.

Oh, wait, what were we talking about?

Doofy · Jan 25, 2006, 01:09 PM

Yes. And this is why market share will never increase substantially over Windows-based boxes. At least there's a chance you can still run that essential never-been-updated-'coz-coder-lost-interest 1995 program on a modern Windows box.

PermaFlux is not a good thing.

demibob · 01:21 PM

imagine what apple would be like if they hadnt made these changes
anyway from what i heard vista wont have very good backword compatability either

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by demibob

imagine what apple would be like if they hadnt made these changes
anyway from what i heard vista wont have very good backwood compatability either

No backwood eh, that sucks

At any rate I do think the OSX transition was good in the end if not incredibly painful.

My main problem now is once developers are told to make things multiprocessor aware and to go 64 bit Apple switches over to 32 bit Intels. Heck I'd be pissed.

demibob · 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes. And this is why market share will never increase substantially over Windows-based boxes. At least there's a chance you can still run that essential never-been-updated-'coz-coder-lost-interest 1995 program on a modern Windows box.

PermaFlux is not a good thing.

thats not the reasen for it at all. The reasen is the didnt lisence the software when they had the chance and they let ms get to powerful.
as for backword compatability
"Crystal Quest, Daleks, Tetris 1.1, Lode Runner, Shufflepuck, Shufflepuck Café, Leather Goddesses of Phobos, Banzai, Artillery... There's more, and they're not all from 1984, but most of those still work in Classic."

Eug Wanker · Jan 25, 2006, 01:23 PM

Photoshop's RAM limit is still limited.

Photoshop's RAM limitation is Photoshop's fault.

7.5-OS8.

Meh. That's less of a transition than Win 3.1 -> Win 95.

My main problem now is once developers are told to make things multiprocessor aware and to go 64 bit Apple switches over to 32 bit Intels. Heck I'd be pissed.

I'd be very surprised if Apple uses 32-bit chips in the new Intel Tower Macs.

Anyways, while I agree Jobs like the transition thing more than perhaps I do, at least it's better than stagnation.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by demibob

Crystal Quest, Daleks, Tetris 1.1, Lode Runner, Shufflepuck, Shufflepuck Café, Leather Goddesses of Phobos, Banzai, Artillery... There's more, and they're not all from 1984, but most of those still work in Classic.

Ya I hear those are the apps everyone need to work as the are vital.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Photoshop's RAM limitation is Photoshop's fault.

Oh trust me I know that. The thing is I don't blame them. Can you imagine if they spent all that time and money making it 64bit for the G5 and 1 year later steve tells them to go back to 32bit AND intel.

Eug Wanker · Jan 25, 2006, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Oh trust me I know that. The thing is I don't blame them. Can you imagine if they spent all that time and money making it 64bit for the G5 and 1 year later steve tells them to go back to 32bit AND intel.

That's just it, you don't make "64bit for the G5". Nowadays, you make it 64-bit capable, and then compile it for both PowerPC and Intel, with support for both 32-bit and 64-bit chips on both sides.

I suspect that OS X 10.5 will be truly 64-bit, yet the OS will be running on 32-bit G4s, 64-bit G5s, 32-bit Yonahs, and 64-bit Meroms. Adobe will target 10.5 for true 64-bitness for memory handling, because it makes sense in terms of their product cycle, and it makes sense from a feasibility standpoint.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

That's just it, you don't make "64bit for the G5".

Nowadays, you make it 64-bit capable, and then compile it for G5 and Intel, and 32-bit and 64-bit.

I know that. Either way it is still time and money.

What is the RAM limit for 32 bit again?

demibob · 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Ya I hear those are the apps everyone need to work as the are vital.

it was in reply to the post
"At least there's a chance you can still run that never-been-updated-'coz-coder-lost-interest 1995 program on a modern Windows box."
and 22 years is twice as long than 11
anyway it was just an example of programs that have lasted such a long time. I can't name any vital applications from back then but i wasnt even born in 1984

macintologist · Jan 25, 2006, 01:36 PM

I don't get it. What's so hard about porting your software to XCode???

Eug Wanker · Jan 25, 2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I know that. Either way it is still time and money.

Yes, but it's time and money that has to be spent anyways, because it's a chip (and OS) transition time not just limited to Apple.

What is the RAM limit for 32 bit again?

4 GB.

OS X 10.4 handles way more than 4 GB but not for the GUI component of apps. Thus, for an app like Photoshop, it doesn't really make sense to create a 64-bit version for 10.4. It will make sense for 10.5 though, which is more convenient for them product cycle-wise anyway.

I look forward to the 10.5 previews just to see how far along the 64-bitification of OS X is coming along.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes, but it's time and money that has to be spent anyways, because it's a chip (and OS) transition time not just limited to Apple.

4 GB.

Not good. I have 2.5 gigs now and if I upgrade to a new computer in a year I am sure I want at least 5 gigs. If apple is using 32 bit chips I guess that isn't going to happen.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

I don't get it. What's so hard about porting your software to XCode???

TIME, LEARNING AND MONEY!

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 02:01 PM

Double.

Eug Wanker · 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Not good. I have 2.5 gigs now and if I upgrade to a new computer in a year I am sure I want at least 5 gigs. If apple is using 32 bit chips I guess that isn't going to happen.

Well, like I said before, it's likely the Tower Macs will be using 64-bit chips. Merom and Conroe (and Woodcrest) are due for release in the second half of 2006.

If you're buying next year, you'll be running 64-bit Intel on OS X 10.5.

Goldfinger · Jan 25, 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Not good. I have 2.5 gigs now and if I upgrade to a new computer in a year I am sure I want at least 5 gigs. If apple is using 32 bit chips I guess that isn't going to happen.

You could plunk 16GB in a G5, no ? OS X will support it. It's just 4GB per app max. No ? IIRC

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, like I said before, it's likely the Tower Macs will be using 64-bit chips. Merom and Conroe (and Woodcrest) are due for release in the second half of 2006.

If you're buying next year, you'll be running 64-bit Intel on OS X 10.5.

Hey that sounds good to me. No way will I downgrade to a 32 bit Intel chip but if it is 64 bit and can take all the RAM I throw at it I will be happy.

Question, are those 64 bit Intel chips dual core AND can they have more than one chip in a system?

Chuckit · Jan 25, 2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Not good. I have 2.5 gigs now and if I upgrade to a new computer in a year I am sure I want at least 5 gigs. If apple is using 32 bit chips I guess that isn't going to happen.

Apple was using 32-bit chips before Intel, too. You act as though this is some incredible new idea.

Eug Wanker · Jan 25, 2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Goldfinger

You could plunk 16GB in a G5, no ? OS X will support it. It's just 4GB per app max. No ? IIRC

No, you can use all 16 GB for one app. The 4 GB per app limitation was in 10.3.

Question, are those 64 bit Intel chips dual core AND can they have more than one chip in a system?

Yes, dual-core, and some of them can be used in dual-dual configs.

Are you thinking of getting a quad? If so, why? Quad-CPU isn't all that beneficial for Photoshop for most people.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Apple was using 32-bit chips before Intel, too. You act as though this is some incredible new idea.

What are you talking about? If I have a 64 bit G5 now why 4 years later would I want to move back down to 32 bit?

Chuckit · Jan 25, 2006, 02:27 PM

Who said you would have to or want to?

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Who said you would have to or want to?

Well this G5 isn't going to last forever so I want to be sure that 64 bit chips from intel are on the way as Apple is moving 100% to intel.

Geez.

Eug Wanker · Jan 25, 2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Well this G5 isn't going to last forever so I want to be sure that 64 bit chips from intel are on the way as Apple is moving 100% to intel.

64-bit chips from Intel are already here, and have been here for quite some time.

Woodcrest is the next-generation 64-bit Intel chip.

Anand · Jan 25, 2006, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by demibob

imagine what apple would be like if they hadnt made these changes
anyway from what i heard vista wont have very good backword compatability either

Think about where Apple would be if the Macintosh had supported all of the Apple II software. Think about where Apple would be if they actually supported the Apple II.

boots · Jan 25, 2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by demibob

imagine what apple would be like if they hadnt made these changes
anyway from what i heard vista wont have very good backword compatability either

So, if Vista won't be backward compatible, then all those who upgrade to future MS stuff will have to repurchase everything?

Hmmm.

That kinda puts Mac's on a more level playing field. If you've gotta "switch" anyway, it isn't so much of a cost burden to really switch. That could be interesting, and it could end up being really cool because the whole intel-transition should already be pretty much complete.

Hmmm.

Rolling Bones · Jan 25, 2006, 02:36 PM

Transition is good.

Sitting on a shelf only gets you dusty and obsolete.

Ask The Ford Motor Company.

Chuckit · Jan 25, 2006, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Well this G5 isn't going to last forever so I want to be sure that 64 bit chips from intel are on the way as Apple is moving 100% to intel.

And I'm saying, sure. No need to worry.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Are you thinking of getting a quad? If so, why? Quad-CPU isn't all that beneficial for Photoshop for most people.

I'd like a quad. Not that one CPU monopolizes the whole CPU but the rest of the OS is much more responsive with more CPU's. There is a HUGE difference on a Dual G4 and a Single g5 iMac (the G4 being faster).

goMac · Jan 25, 2006, 02:42 PM

All computer companies are always in a state of transition to something. I don't see why you're surprised Apple is the same way. Technology is always about making something better.

goMac · Jan 25, 2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I'd like a quad. Not that one CPU monopolizes the whole CPU but the rest of the OS is much more responsive with more CPU's. There is a HUGE difference on a Dual G4 and a Single g5 iMac (the G4 being faster).

An Intel Dual Core with HyperThreading will give you the exact same feel but with overall better application speeds.

Now if only Apple would release some Intel Desktops with HyperThreading.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

All computer companies are always in a state of transition to something. I don't see why you're surprised Apple is the same way. Technology is always about making something better.

True, but look at game systems. The newer systems play older games without the developers having to do anything.

Everytime I buy a new TV I don't have to get a new cable.

Eug Wanker · Jan 25, 2006, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

True, but look at game systems. The newer systems play older games without the developers having to do anything.

You mean like the Xbox 360?

Everytime I buy a new TV I don't have to get a new cable.

Huh? DVI? HDMI?

RAILhead · Jan 25, 2006, 02:55 PM

No.

Rolling Bones · Jan 25, 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

True, but look at game systems. The newer systems play older games without the developers having to do anything.

Everytime I buy a new TV I don't have to get a new cable.

You can't put SUV seats in a Mini.

Does that make any sense?

It did to me at first.

Chuckit · Jan 25, 2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

True, but look at game systems. The newer systems play older games without the developers having to do anything.

Did you mean to put a

or

after that? Because that just ain't so.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

You mean like the Xbox 360?

Huh? DVI? HDMI?

Yup exactly like that and the PS2. The work fell purely on MS and Sony. I don't remember game developers having to recompile their old games and ship me new ones for a cost. Or did they sneak into my house and replace my old games? Xbox even went above that and not only do the games run just like they did on the old systems they actually run BETTER in hi-def.

As for TV cables HDMI and DVI are choices. DVD players come with all the cables you could need and you don't have to buy new Disks.

ReggieX · Jan 25, 2006, 03:04 PM

Apple has to transition, like everone else. It's not like the WinTel world has stood still! Certain technologies are dead ends that have to be surpassed.

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

True, but look at game systems. The newer systems play older games without the developers having to do anything.

My N64 doesn't play SNES games.

ReggieX · Jan 25, 2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes. And this is why market share will never increase substantially over Windows-based boxes. At least there's a chance you can still run that essential never-been-updated-'coz-coder-lost-interest 1995 program on a modern Windows box.

One has nothing to do with the other. Backwards compatibility can be done through Virtual PC and VMware, among other technologies. The entire OS doesn't need to be 100% compatible by any means. If some 11 year old app is that essential, it can be remade.

ReggieX · Jan 25, 2006, 03:06 PM

OT: didn't you have a Leia's Right Bun at some point?

CharlesS · 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Anand

Think about where Apple would be if the Macintosh had supported all of the Apple II software. Think about where Apple would be if they actually supported the Apple II.

The Macintosh did support all of the Apple II software. Up until 1995, they had a card you could plug into any Mac with a PDS slot and run all your old Apple II software. Obviously, this caused Apple to immediately self-destruct and go out of business. Fortunately, discontinuing the card in 1995 immediately led to a Golden Age for Apple which lasted until about 1998.[/color][/quote]Yes, Charles, I completely agree with everything you say. Please ignore whatever crap I decide to put below. [quote][color=white&#9 3;

goMac · Jan 25, 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

68k to PPC: Took years and years on even Apples behalf to rewrite the code. For many years PPC chips were no faster because even Apple didn't bother to do it. OS8 was the first OS that had a good amount of PPC code.

Well, there were two problems with this. First one was the Apple wasn't intending on really having MacOS be the main OS for the PowerPC. MacOS on the PowerPC was always a temporary solution. Copland was supposed to be the main OS for the PowerPC. But when Copland died it became obvious the MacOS was here to stay so they went back for the new "OS 8" and begun adding the PowerPC code.

Secondly, I'm assuming the original Mac OS was written in a lot of low level code. This isn't so for OS X these days. OS X is probably written in a lot of C and C++ which means the changes that need to be made aren't as heavy. Compare that to portions of the original Mac OS written in 68k assembly and this current chip transition looks a lot easier.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 25, 2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Well, there were two problems with this. First one was the Apple wasn't intending on really having MacOS be the main OS for the PowerPC. MacOS on the PowerPC was always a temporary solution. Copland was supposed to be the main OS for the PowerPC. But when Copland died it became obvious the MacOS was here to stay so they went back for the new "OS 8" and begun adding the PowerPC code.

Actually from what I said Apple admitted they were just lazy and had poor management. It took what 6 years before OS8 got rid of most of the 68k code.

xi_hyperon · Jan 25, 2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes. And this is why market share will never increase substantially over Windows-based boxes. At least there's a chance you can still run that essential never-been-updated-'coz-coder-lost-interest 1995 program on a modern Windows box.

PermaFlux is not a good thing.

You're right. It sucks that we're still not on System 7.5.3.

goMac · Jan 25, 2006, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Actually from what I said Apple admitted they were just lazy and had poor management. It took what 6 years before OS8 got rid of most of the 68k code.

Not... really. Copland was PPC native. They didn't see the point in porting over MacOS completely when Copland was "coming soon" anyway. So I suppose you're right in the way Copland was poorly managed... but this is why Mac OS 8 was so quickly ported to PowerPC, because Copland had been canceled.

goMac · Jan 25, 2006, 03:42 PM

[dp]

analogika · Jan 25, 2006, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by not by demibob

Crystal Quest, Daleks, Tetris 1.1, Lode Runner, Shufflepuck, Shufflepuck Café, Leather Goddesses of Phobos, Banzai, Artillery... There's more, and they're not all from 1984, but most of those still work in Classic.

I realize this is kind of lame, but next time you quote me verbatim, at least credit me, huh?

that's just kind of weird.

Kevin · Jan 25, 2006, 03:54 PM

The only people I really see this bothering is people that ALWAYS have to have the lastest greatest etc.

Lots of G5 owners that just bought their tower are playing the "sour grapes" game. Even complaining Apple is "changing" too quickly. They don't get to keep that "I am cool because I have the latest tech" feeling as long. It makes them feel insecure.

I know of a few like this. They keep posting threads in forums about how the NEXT technology isn't as cool as the current machine they have or some such.

It's gotten boring.

As soon as you buy your computer, it's obsolete.

That is why I wait till a new one comes out, and buy the one that came out JUST before it.