[version]

Also, so much for Apple's move to 64-bit. Here I was looking forward to 64-bit Mental ray rendering on OS X, now ****ed. There's no clear roadmap for 64-bit x86 chips.

Nightmare.

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, because back then Apple still upgraded its technologies every now and then. This is a downgrade for the sake of marketing, and hence no longer the Apple I knew.

A DOWNGRADE?

Have you looked at my Powerbook 2006 thread?!!!????

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=259074

[MrForgetable]

will PCs with x86 be able to run Mac OS X?

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

will PCs with x86 be able to run Mac OS X?

Shiller said no. (who knows if it can be hacked though. prob.)

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

will PCs with x86 be able to run Mac OS X?

That might not be the best idea. Apple makes a lot of money on their hardware, and letting any Dell run OSX puts them into a direct hardware competititon that they might lose.

But dual-boot Macs could only make switching more enticing!

[version]

Here's what Rosetta won't run. (apologies if it's a bit scattered, it's late here and I'm a bittired).

Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
Code written specifically for AltiVec
Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
Kernel extensions
Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated

[rhombus]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

HPros:

• games are coming to the Mac

[/list]

Unfortunately it is not as simple as this. If you mean bootings into windows from an intel mac, then I suppose so. But the reaction from mac game porting companies and original game developers has been very negative. Look at this article on insidemacgames.com: http://www.insidemacgames.com/featur...?ID=355&Page=2

"Brian Greenstone - Pangea Software: Once Windows runs natively on a Mac there won't be any reason for publishers to make Mac-specific versions of their warez anymore. It's going to totally kill the Mac game porting industry and probably have serious implications on original content developers like me."

"Anonymous Porter: This is the death of the platform. Unless Apple integrates DirectX, the port time would only decrease by roughly 33%. We really only spend about a 1/3 of our times AT MOST on Endian issues (ie, byte-swapping). The rest of the time is spent converting DX and Windows OS calls to OpenGL and Mac OS."

[version]

Anyway, I've read as much as I can tonight, it doesn't look pretty for what I need. 1 step forwards, 5 steps back, no thanks. I was counting on 64-bit support, now the G5 is being deprecated.



Windows it is for me. Least I know where i stand.

All the best to everyone else.

[osxisfun]

Bye.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by version

Anyway, I've read as much as I can tonight, it doesn't look pretty for what I need. 1 step forwards, 5 steps back, no thanks. I was counting on 64-bit support, now the G5 is being deprecated.



Windows it is for me. Least I know where i stand.

All the best to everyone else.

see ya

[version]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

Bye.

I'll pop back in around 2007, see how the transition has gone. Perhaps Adobe might have a native version of PS by then, if you actually believe the press blurbs.

[osxisfun]

No I believe the CEO of adobe I, who i just watched on the WWDC stream more than you.

Bye. (hopefully for real this time.)

[version]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

No I believe the CEO of adobe I, who i just watched on the WWDC stream more than you.

Bye. (hopefully for real this time.)

Nice manners. Why not think before you take other's comments so personally?

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I don't have an issue with X86, I own an Athlon 64 box. I simply refuse to buy Intel products.

MacNStein,

Can you refresh our memories about Intel's nasty business practices, please? I remember reading something about it years ago and it pissed me off, but I can't remember what the details were.

[pliny]

Originally Posted by version

Anyway, I've read as much as I can tonight, it doesn't look pretty for what I need. 1 step forwards, 5 steps back, no thanks. I was counting on 64-bit support, now the G5 is being deprecated.



Windows it is for me. Least I know where i stand.

All the best to everyone else.

You're gonna switch to Windows to right away start running 64-bit apps on 64-bit systems? Like what applicaitons and what systems??
If you have been waiting for 64-bit then you sohuld write a STRONGLY WORDED LETTER™ to IBM, who have dropped the ball on this big time.

[osxpinot]

...

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I've been thinking about the same thing as well. Apple had a yellow box for Windows NT that would run NeXT code. Think if Apple released a yellow box for Longhorn that would let you run all the cool apple stuff at native speeds on your POS Dell box. Developers would be jumping over each other to write code for it... or better yet, release it for Linux.

I wonder how pissed Microsoft would be if Apple sold a yellow box to Linux users for $20 that would let Linux boxes run Office, Adobe, Illustrator, general etc. etc. etc. on Linux?

Developers wouldn't be jumping it all over at all. Take companies like Panic for instance, they offer programs that are commonplace in the Windows world but not so much on the mac side. Companies like this epitomize Macintosh software.

So now, if this were to happen, developers might decide to make their apps in yellowbox to catch the Macintosh side of the market. Say goodbye to companies like Panic.

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by version

Nice manners. Why not think before you take other's comments so personally?

Does it help if i add one of these.

Nothing personal, I just don't buy your arguments. over what i just heard and watched over the WWDC keynote.

Friends?

[version]

Originally Posted by pliny

You're gonna switch to Windows to right away start running 64-bit apps on 64-bit systems? Like what applicaitons and what systems??
If you have been waiting for 64-bit then you sohuld write a STRONGLY WORDED LETTER™ to IBM, who have dropped the ball on this big time.

I already use Windows, but Macs are part of the equation here, and a nice one they were too.

Oh, I'm not blaming Apple for this, I know IBM shoulder a lot of this, and have forced Apple into the corner. Unfortunately, I can't carry Apple's problems into my work.

[version]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

Does it help if i add one of these.

Nothing personal, I just don't buy your arguments. over what i just heard and watched over the WWDC keynote.

Friends?

Always friendly is me.

My arguments are purely based on my needs, and no-one else's So please don't think I'm trying to impress them on everyone - just merely speaking out loud after quite a surprising day.

I said in another thread that Jobs will pull this off, and he will for those who need it. I'm just a bit particular with things just now.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by version

I already use Windows, but Macs are part of the equation here, and a nice one they were too.

Oh, I'm not blaming Apple for this, I know IBM shoulder a lot of this, and have forced Apple into the corner. Unfortunately, I can't carry Apple's problems into my work.

Good for you. Don't expect us to applaud you for your decision.

And don't you EVER, EVER even THINK about coming back if two years from now Apple is better off than they are now!

Please let the door hit you on the way out...

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by version

Always friendly is me.

My arguments are purely based on my needs, and no-one else's So please don't think I'm trying to impress them on everyone - just merely speaking out loud after quite a surprising day.

I said in another thread that Jobs will pull this off, and he will for those who need it. I'm just a bit particular with things just now.

Hope to see you (and other new folks in 2007)

[version]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Good for you. Don't expect us to applaud you for your decision.

And don't you EVER, EVER even THINK about coming back if two years from now Apple is better off than they are now!

Please let the door hit you on the way out...

It's amazing you didn't give this reaction to Millennium earlier when he basically stated the same thing as me.

But... I know you're just kidding.

[version]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

Hope to see you (and other new folks in 2007)

Hey, I might not buy another Mac, but I can surely hang around here and yank all yer chains.

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by version

Anyway, I've read as much as I can tonight, it doesn't look pretty for what I need. 1 step forwards, 5 steps back, no thanks. I was counting on 64-bit support, now the G5 is being deprecated.



Windows it is for me. Least I know where i stand.

All the best to everyone else.

What 64-bit apps do you need to run? I think 64-bit support may be important in some server applications, but I've yet to see a need for it at the end-user level.

As an aside, I have an AMD64 box on which I had installed the public beta of Windows XP 64 a few months ago. I didn't notice any difference in speed (which I wasn't expecting.) I tried a few AMD64 specific apps but again nothing exciting over the 32 bit versions. What I did notice was the lack of 64-bit drivers for crucial things like my Linksys wireless card. I emailed them and they had no release date available for 64-bit drivers. So I promptly switched back to the old XP.

[Rev-O]

I just wanna know if we can start officially referring to ApTel?

[Link]

I think this could be interesting, as said many times -- the Intel-based macs do run BIOS instead of openfirmware, they can use PC video cards (provided there's driver support for the video chipsets), and they can run other OSes. However, OS X will only run on macs, intel or PPC, because the intel macs will have a ROM for said reason. This doesn't stop piracy or hacking, but it's better than nothing.

This could actually shove apple into a new market. Before one of the arguments for NOT going mac was "We have to buy new hardware and if we don't like OS X we're stuck with hardware that can't do anything else" (ignoring the PPC linux alternatives), now they could just "theoretically" run windows instead, and even if they do so Apple still makes a ton on R&D... and of course if they run OS X as they probably will since it's a much more attractive option than almost anything else, apple STILL gains marketshare.

It also means testing websites will no longer require a seperate PC, plus more attraction to such might still gain more developers, that all depends on how good Apple is at gaining them.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by version

It's amazing you didn't give this reaction to Millennium earlier when he basically stated the same thing as me.

But... I know you're just kidding.

Yup.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by version

Hey, I might not buy another Mac, but I can surely hang around here and yank all yer chains.

And we'll be yanking yours in a few months or so...

[osxisfun]

This could actually shove apple into a new market. Before one of the arguments for NOT going mac was "We have to buy new hardware and if we don't like OS X we're stuck with hardware that can't do anything else" (ignoring the PPC linux alternatives), now they could just "theoretically" run windows instead, and even if they do so Apple still makes a ton on R&D... and of course if they run OS X as they probably will since it's a much more attractive option than almost anything else, apple STILL gains marketshare.

Very very true.

It also means testing websites will no longer require a seperate PC,

[zerostar]

There are some insane posts in this thread...

First, If you don't like Intel as a business fine, maybe Apple will offer an AMD solution, maybe they won't. Don't like it don't buy it. (Still don't know what Intel did to anyone, perhaps pissed in their wheaties?)

PPC was a good platform yes, it still is, anyone who thinks IBM's Power chips are junk is obviously not up on chip design.

The fact is, there was a reason Apple needed to switch, we don't know what it was. Steve said some very vague things. Perhaps the PPC will NEVER be reduced to a heat-managble level, do you want the PowerBook stuck at 1.4 G4 for ever? or should Apple add 4" to the bottom to cool a G5 beast?

Sure we can sit around a few more years and wait for .50nm and cooler chips (maybe) and faster chips (maybe) and better architectures (maybe) but Apple needed to get things going YESTERDAY to be ready for tomorrow's future.

The Pentium is a fast chip, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition is a monster of a chip. Perfect for iMac's Mini's eMacs etc.

As far as the POWERMacs I could see Dual Xeons being used, the dual Xeon 3.6 would be up there with the fastest G5s made today, Imagine in 2 years where the Workstation level chips will be?

Lastly, we all love the PPC, some say that is what makes Apple different, what, is the PPC advantage? Altivec for one... When intel hits 4 and 5GHz and is using essentially the same accelerators, I doubt it will be missed.

We buy a PowerMac to be fast, I got mine to render video, a Dual 2.5 is fast yes, a Dual 4.0 Xeon would kill it, if the PPC chips could get there I would use that, if the Xeons/Futre Chips can get there years ahead guess what?

[version]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

What 64-bit apps do you need to run? I think 64-bit support may be important in some server applications, but I've yet to see a need for it at the end-user level.
.

Ok, we have a number of in-house 64-bit rendering tools (and modelling). We're also beta-testig some of the major 3D animation programs that are just about to go 64-bit on the Windows/Linux side - as well as several composting ones, but those aren't really a concern in terms of the Mac for us.

Now, the (64-bit) 3D apps are proving to be an enormous boon for us in terms of functionality and performance. These are nearing release on the Windows side of things with Mac versions an option down the line(sooner rather than later). 64-bit i the next step for this arena, but now, with the G5 being dumped, and I don't see a a replacement by Apple, I can't help but feel a little peeved.


As to end-user need for 64-bit, if only you could see the difference, astounding.

edit - typos, soooo sleeopy.

[version]

Originally Posted by Person Man

And we'll be yanking yours in a few months or so...

I know! but, I promise to be nice about it.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by version

but now, with the G5 being dumped

G5 is not dumped, it is 100% supported and it will probably be updated before the Consumer Intel machines come out.

And hopefully the PowerMacs that come out will be 64 bit Dual chips as well.

[version]

Originally Posted by zerostar

G5 is not dumped, it is 100% supported and it will probably be updated before the Consumer Intel machines come out.

And hopefully the PowerMacs that come out will be 64 bit Dual chips as well.

Our devs won't support the G5 if a system change is happening. Maintaining code for what we have, yes, but come later this year when we get new systems, it won't be a soon to be obsolete Mac.

I know what you mean though.

As to it's Intel 64-bit equiv. I'd dearly love to know what it will be.

[zerostar]

I understand your first point and am sorry to hear that, the G5s will be a good machine for many many years to come, so I don't see why they would be so eager to dump them so quickly.

Originally Posted by version

As to it's Intel 64-bit equiv. I'd dearly love to know what it will be.

As would I, but to think they are not working an a killer 64bit solution is silly.

[tooki]

Some comments:

1. These Intel-based Macs won't boot Windows, says Apple. No doubt someone will make it work, and no doubt Virtual PC will be updated. These Intel Macs will be able to run Windows apps essentially the same way that PPC Macs run Classic — very, very well.

2. Mac OS X on Intel will not run on commodity PC hardware. It will still need to be an Apple machine. No doubt this, too, will be hacked. I expect PC-architecture anachronisms like BIOS and legacy ports to disappear on Apple's machines.

3. While I lament the loss of the PPC, it's not the end of the world. If there's one thing my 1.25GHz AlBook proved to me, it's that the PPC camp has nothing — nothing! — in the way of viable mobile chips. This machine has lousy battery life, and it literally gets too hot to hold. Centrino is so far ahead of this it's not even funny.

4. This transition will be less painful than the M68K -> PPC transition Apple did from 1993-1995. TONS of Classic Mac OS was written in M68K machine code, requiring it to be entirely rewritten from scratch to work on PPC. Mac OS X inherited from its NeXTstep legacy the attribute of deliberate code portability. Recompiling apps for Intel will be less work than it was recompiling for PPC back in the day.

5. Mac + Intel ≠ PC. An Intel-based Mac will still be a Mac. It is the combination of Apple's software and its hardware design that make it a Mac. This won't change just because the CPU has been changed.

6. Dumping the Mac for Linux on Intel makes no sense at all.

7. It'll be a LONG time before PPC Macs are the minority. As with the M68K -> PPC transition, it won't be until the vast majority of users are on the new architecture that developers will stop compiling for the old architecture.

tooki

[version]

Originally Posted by zerostar

I understand your first point and am sorry to hear that, the G5s will be a good machine for many many years to come, so I don't see why they would be so eager to dump them so quickly.



As would I, but to think they are not working an a killer 64bit solution is silly.

I hope so.

But... I am still going to keep my Powerbooks, they're still lil crackers.

[tigas]

Originally Posted by typoon

It'll be interesting to see if we will be able to just go out and buy Faster Intel Processors when they come out and upgrade our Macs. That was another thing stopping people from buying Macs. Percieved non-upgradability of the Mac also will hopefully be gone as well. This could be a blessing in desguise.

Every PowerMac since the Sawtooth G4s (the dark blue ones) has it's CPU(s) on a daughterboard. What makes you think x86 machines won't keep the tradition?

[klinux]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

will PCs with x86 be able to run Mac OS X?

Yes. Use PearPC. (No one ever said it has to be usable.)

Maybe by end of 2006 there will be a PowerPC that will be able to emulate the Intel setup used to run OS X for Intel? Who knows?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by tigas

Every PowerMac since the Sawtooth G4s (the dark blue ones) has it's CPU(s) on a daughterboard. What makes you think x86 machines won't keep the tradition?

The G5's are not upgradeable.

I hope the intel macs are, I don't know though, if it was on a socket, you could just upgrade the chip a few times before the machine would really need to be replaced... hmm

[Kerrigan]

SJ realized that the Mac platform, in its current state, was going nowhere. Sure, OSX got great reviews, but nobody ever wanted to switch over to a computer which used old technology and had some unheard of processor. By switching to Intel and allowing dual-boot Win/Mac usage, SJ is deliberately sacraficing much of his customer base in order to go after a wider market.

Many, many Mac users are going to leave now. Tiger is a dead operating system. In 2007 though, there is a whole new world of possibility. Apple will push towards 10% marketshare with Macintels, so in the end the transition will have been worth it.

The Mac has nine lives, and while it may be dying right now, it will be back.

[IonCable]

Apple is switching for because:

1. IBM gets more money in consoles and server chips (POWER4) than from the Apple G series, so they spend more on R&D for these.
2. Intel gets a ton of money from in CPU (x86) line and spends tons on R&D. Apple therefore can ride on the coattails of CPU chip design for the Windows world.
3. If Intel falls through they still have AMD and IBM to use for chips.

[Link]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

but nobody ever wanted to switch over to a computer which used old technology and had some unheard of processor.

The PPC is ahead of the X86 platform by most standards.

[sideus]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

...Tiger is a dead operating system...

How so?

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Link

The PPC is ahead of the X86 platform by most standards.

Name a few.

The standard that most people care about is speed, the fact is Intel has some fast chips, and they get faster at a steady rate more often than not.

[besson3c]

I just have 2 comments, I haven't seen these comments yet, sorry if this is a repeat:

1) How do we know that IBM was willing to develop PPC chips for computers at all? Perhaps they were planning on abandoning sales of PPC chips to PC manufacturers and just focus on gaming consoles, high end servers, and other technology?

2) How do we know that the barrier that IBM faced was not insurmountable within a reasonable time frame? How do we know they were even willing to surmount this problem? How do we know they cared? Aren't their CPU sales something like 3% of their business?

Now, this is a lot of speculation on my part. There is a lot we don't know, and perhaps these ideas are far out there, or simply false. However, my main point is: maybe the choice wasn't as polarizing as PPC vs. x86, and maybe it was x86 vs. nothing?

If the latter is the case, no amount of hair pulling, whining, and platform abandoning is going to change this...

Why don't you wait and see if we find out the details, if you care?

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I just have 2 comments, I haven't seen these comments yet, sorry if this is a repeat:

1) How do we know that IBM was willing to develop PPC chips for computers at all? Perhaps they were planning on abandoning sales of PPC chips to PC manufacturers and just focus on gaming consoles, high end servers, and other technology?

2) How do we know that the barrier that IBM faced was not insurmountable within a reasonable time frame? How do we know they were even willing to surmount this problem? How do we know they cared? Aren't their CPU sales something like 3% of their business?

Now, this is a lot of speculation on my part. There is a lot we don't know, and perhaps these ideas are far out there, or simply false. However, my main point is: maybe the choice wasn't as polarizing as PPC vs. x86, and maybe it was x86 vs. nothing?

If the latter is the case, no amount of hair pulling, whining, and platform abandoning is going to change this...

Why don't you wait and see if we find out the details, if you care?

[shmerek]

I think the switch is also about DRM and all that crap. Locking your box down so that apple can deliver online movies and **** like that and apple couldn't do that on the PPC. Intel is all over that ****

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I just have 2 comments...

Good points, Who knows the reasoning, but Intel may have been a forced move, the G5 with IBM may have been a last ditch effort to NOT go x86?

Too bad IBM didn't have better progress or a good chip for the Powerbooks, I am sure no one wanted to fail, thats just they way it goes.

Hopefully if Apple is moving to 'plan B' with the Intel switch, they are lining up AMD for the new 'Plan B' any maybe one day Motorola or IBM will be back in the picture with suture chips somehow?