[MacMiniMan]

how long did apple say they would support ppc products after the initial realease of the intel products? I can either get a mac g5 tower cheaper than the apple imac intel ones. I wanna start learning final cut, motion and all those fancy movie making produts but dont wanna wait a year for the intel towers to come out and then another 6 months to a year for rev b of the intel towers.Thats close to 2 years. Thx everyone!

[mduell]

Apple hasn't made any official statements.

I'd guess 4 years, but others have guessed anywhere from 2 years to 10 years.

Why wait for Rev B of the Intel towers?

[analogika]

So far, the cutoff has always been around five to six years from first release date of a machine.

Tiger came out in April 2005 and would no longer install on low-end machines released in October 1999 (namely, the iMac slot-load w/o Firewire), though it would still install on high-end machines from 1998 (blue and white G3 tower).

[Big Mac]

All I know is I'll be picketing outside the headquarters of the first company that releases a Mactel only application.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

All I know is I'll be picketing outside the headquarters of the first company that releases a Mactel only application.

Can you please stop using that term?

It makes my toenails curl.

We do get the message that you think this is all a bad idea, but the machines that have been released so far speak for themselves, and are more than convincing.

[Maflynn]

At some point Apple and others will be releasing mactel only programs. Who knows when Apple will drop PPC support in favor for mactel. I suppose it depends on the adoption rate of the mactel platform both consumers and vendors, i.e., majority of apps have been released UB.

Mike

[analogika]

Of course, the real question is when 3rd-party vendors will be going Miketel-only.

We can be reasonably sure that Urple will be supported their REAL Macs for a while, along with the Miketel machines. But it may not be financially viable for others to not set a little checkbox when compiling their software to support REAL Macs along with Miketel machines at some point in the future.

BTW, a REAL Mac has a 680X0 processor. IBM is teh devil.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Don't over-do it analogika, we're both old enough to remember the change from 68k to PPC. Nobody cared if it was IBM joining Motorola and Apple to make the processors for the Mac.

The Mactel thing is different. Perhaps because, unlike the 68k to PPC change, this change wasn't necessary and emulation of the 68k in the PPC was uncontionally faster than PPC emulation in the Intels. And perhaps because we're getting Intel integrated graphics in Macs now?

Quit the drama already, the benefits of the Intel switch are dubious if any. Perhaps in the long run, but right now there is nothing special to write home about except the MBP. Then again, with such a name it is best to write as little about it as possible.

On topic: 4 to 5 year more support for PPC from Apple at best. 3 to 4 more likely and 2 to 3 years from third party publishers. Like OS 9, to Apple the PPC is now dead. Support will be terminated as soon as possible.

cheers

W-Y

[cutterjohn42]

ppc support. I believe that there MAY be a law mandating support of no longer produced equipment, however, I also believe that it ONLY covers hardware parts for a length of 5yrs after production has ceased. This being said, as others have pointed out Apple has, generally, supported equipment sw-wise for at least 5yrs after end of production, but AFAIK they're not obligated to do so, and if they do do so, it may be the most minimal sort of support. e.g. no optimizations beyond what's already in place for ppc, etc.

Mactel: I too think that this was a poor decision on Apple's part overall. In the short term Apple benefits from x86 by the far superior optimization for that arch in gcc, let alone what they will get with the Intel compiler chain. As far as I can see right now, the vast majority of performance improvements of x86 macs over ppc macs could, reasonably, be largely explained by this when similarly equipped machines are compared. (However, I not many comparisons pit single proc G4s or G5s v. multi core x86s which isn't really a fair comparison.)

Boot times: well, let us not forget the mactels are NOT using openfirmware, they are using the "new" Intel firmware(with similar functionality) which is probably less intelligent, and designed to only scan for exactly what is expected on that particular model of machine, thereby short-circuiting base processor setup and bootstrapping.

Personally, I'm waiting for the powermacs as I'm not really interested in machines in which I cannot, relatively, easily replace the video card(esp. the video card for a desktop), etc. (True this was more difficult with the ppc macs, but it was possible to do, and we already know that the procs in the current new machines(iMac/mini) can at least go from single core to duo... i.e. not more boot ROM on the proc daughter card. In fact, I'd guess that the current motherboards are, basically, just Intel ref boards with some Apple mods(if any), and actually for all we know they could have been sub-contracted out to existing x86 mb designer/producers.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

On topic: 4 to 5 year more support for PPC from Apple at best. 3 to 4 more likely and 2 to 3 years from third party publishers. Like OS 9, to Apple the PPC is now dead. Support will be terminated as soon as possible.

Just like nobody supports the G3 anymore, yeah?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Don't over-do it analogika, we're both old enough to remember the change from 68k to PPC. Nobody cared if it was IBM joining Motorola and Apple to make the processors for the Mac.

Bullsh¡t.

Maybe things were different in Iceland, but I was surrounded by die-hard Mac fans, and the outcry was HUGE.

Heck, I even had my System-6 trash can hacked with ResEdit to look like in IBM PC (replete with IBM logo on the screen, which would crack when something was dragged to the trash).

IBM was the sworn enemy.

And you claim the 680x0 emulation was much faster - I take it you never used the Performa/Centris 6100? The PowerPC machine on which NATIVE code was almost as slow as the fastest 680x0s? Came out in '94. I'm old enough to remember that.


And the benefits of the Intel switch are tangible.
New Mac minis released on Tuesday - we had enough to satisfy initial demand in the store on FRIDAY. Remember the original Mac mini? It took about two MONTHS till we had them. Why is that?
And look at the new mini. Same specs as the AOpen Mac mini clone that has been speculated about for ages - but $100 CHEAPER, and it runs OS X, to boot. (okay, no mini-PCI slot and no S-Vid out.)

The MacBook series will be the first truly competitive Apple laptops in terms of raw numbers since the 90s. People won't come into the store and wistfully drool over the high-end books, only to tell you that they so would have wanted one, but they're in video rendering, so they had to get a 3x faster Asus mobile for the same price.
And you will actually be able to BUY them. That's the biggest new feature, from the standpoint of one who works in retail.

A dual-core iMac that runs Logic at higher speed than a dual-core G5 tower, and offers the ability to hook up an extra monitor? What is "dubious" about that?

Sheesh. Nobody in the real world gives a flying **** about what the chip is called that runs inside. They want fast, they want cheap, AND they want a Mac. Now, it's actually possible to get that combination, AND you can actually walk into a store with a reasonable chance of actually purchasing one, because Intel ****ing DELIVERS.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Just like nobody supports the G3 anymore, yeah?

Indeed.

10.4.5 runs perfectly fine - and OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED, to boot - on my Jan 2000 iMac DV 400.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Just like nobody supports the G3 anymore, yeah?

Explain, if you don't mind.

Originally Posted by analogika

but I was surrounded by die-hard Mac fans, and the outcry was HUGE.

Theirein lies the difference. Only now even normal Mac users are wondering why Apple had to switch to Intel. It is more bother than it is worth.

I'm a Mac fan as much as the next Mac user, but I'm not afraid to question Apple's motives.

Originally Posted by analogika

And you claim the 680x0 emulation was much faster - I take it you never used the Performa/Centris 6100? The PowerPC machine on which NATIVE code was almost as slow as the fastest 680x0s? Came out in '94. I'm old enough to remember that.

One machine and a low end at that. Not even the low end PM, but the low end PPC Performa. One machine, and a pretty bad one at that. The PM 6100 was pretty crappy even on native PPC code. It was an anemic machine.

The rest - all of them - were way better at 68k code than 68k machines.

Originally Posted by analogika

New Mac minis released on Tuesday - we had enough to satisfy initial demand in the store on FRIDAY. Remember the original Mac mini? It took about two MONTHS till we had them. Why is that?

Because the original Mac mini was a launch model? Because the Mac mini simply didn't exist before? Because Apple was testing the water with a completely new model that they weren't sure how would be received?

Certainly not because of G4 shortage!

The new minis are more expensive and with a way worse GPU than it should - comparing it with the older ATi 9200. Heck the old, nay *ancient* 9200 even beats the Intel integrated graphics on the new mini.

Color me unimpressed over it.

There are strengths and weaknesses in the Intel Duos, as there are in the G5s. They are roughly comparable. That's why the switch is dubious, because the PPC was *way* more powerful than the 68k was *or could ever be*.

I don't hold it against you being an Apple apologist. There is a silver lining to the Intel switch and if you focus on it you'll always manage to see the positive thing about it.

For new customers it is probably irrelevant what processor is in the machine, but for us who already have a Mac, no. It means yet another transition, higher prices, Intel integrated graphics, dubious performance advantages (an iMac with a dual-core G5 2.0 GHz isn't going to perform worse than the Intels)

Either way, this is a whole lot of annoyance *yet* again for established Apple customers. Certainly some are miffed because it is Intel that Apple is switching to, but most are just annoyed over the bother of yet another bloody switch! I'm annoyed over both, myself.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by analogika

Indeed.

10.4.5 runs perfectly fine - and OFFICIALLY SUPPORTED, to boot - on my Jan 2000 iMac DV 400.

How does GarageBand run on that machine? iPhoto? FCP? KotoR? Sims 2? Adobe CS2?

Most of the market including Apple supports G4 as the low end, except for the OS, iTunes and a handful of smaller apps.

The G3 runs heck of a lot, but who are you trying to kid? It is barely supported and it's around 2 years since Apple dropped it. The only reason it runs anything at all is because it is a good design and a PPC, like the current top-of-the line towers from Apple.

cheers

W-Y

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Explain, if you don't mind.

Despite the fact that it is possible to create apps that run only on a G4 or even only on a G5 (and some devs have chosen to do so), aside from being pretty slow, the G3 has remained largely viable to this day. To say most developers will cut PPC support in two years is pretty pessimistic.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm a Mac fan as much as the next Mac user, but I'm not afraid to question Apple's motives.

Neither am I, but I can't come up with any plausible sinister motive here.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Either way, this is a whole lot of annoyance *yet* again for established Apple customers. Certainly some are miffed because it is Intel that Apple is switching to, but most are just annoyed over the bother of yet another bloody switch! I'm annoyed over both, myself.

I'm really curious to know: What annoyance has the switch caused you personally? Everybody says it's such a huge burden, but I can't say I feel the slightest bit heavier myself, so I'm trying to suss out what the problems actually are.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Theirein lies the difference. Only now even normal Mac users are wondering why Apple had to switch to Intel. It is more bother than it is worth.

Wrong.

A handful of geeks on the internet are hot and bothered. The Mac user at large has felt absolutely no consequences of this switch, other than that a large number of his friends and acquaintances are suddenly a lot more interested in joining the Mac community.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Because the original Mac mini was a launch model? Because the Mac mini simply didn't exist before? Because Apple was testing the water with a completely new model that they weren't sure how would be received?

Certainly not because of G4 shortage!

Where have you been the past eight years.

You act as if there have never been production delays in G4s.

Listen: EVERY SINGLE MACHINE since the first 450mhz (whoops, make that 400, eh) G4 has been delayed. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Apple knew exactly how many Mac minis they'd be able to sell.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

For new customers it is probably irrelevant what processor is in the machine, but for us who already have a Mac, no. It means yet another transition, higher prices, Intel integrated graphics, dubious performance advantages (an iMac with a dual-core G5 2.0 GHz isn't going to perform worse than the Intels)

Which dual-core iMac G5 are we talking about here? Have you SEEN the cooling infrastructure on a dual-core G5? (Obviously not.)

Also interesting that you mention the iMac, since the Intel iMacs have pretty damn impressive graphics cards - certainly WAY better than what the G5 iMacs had...

And who really gives a **** about the graphics card in the Mac mini? the Intel Mac mini has become what everybody and his sister have been clamoring about ever since it was released - a perfect little home entertainment center. It's not intended as a games console. It's a media PC. And it's substantially faster IN EVERY RESPECT than its predecessor other than Doom FPS, whoop-de-doo.

Why do you care? You're not the target audience. The target audience got exactly what they requested.

And how exactly has the Intel transition inconvenienced you, as an existing Mac user, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever?

Has your Mac somehow lost its ability to do what you bought it for? Is it just gigahertz envy? Are you somehow forced to buy new hardware all of a sudden?

Anybody professionally dependent upon computers will not upgrade until the regular upgrade cycle comes around, anyway, and if they're due now, they'll probably wait six months to see what headaches might crop up.

So far, the only thing I'm seeing is that Version Cue won't run. Okay.

Everything else will run either MUCH faster, or not substantially slower than on previous hardware - considering that most people who're upgrading now are on a three-year cycle, they're running 3-y-o. hardware, meaning that even Rosetta on an iMac Core Duo will probably beat out those machines.

And any legacy software running now on those machines - and it does run - will be up for a regular upgrade cycle sometime, as well. By the time CS3 comes around, there will be nothing left to discuss.

As there is no discussion when it comes to Logic Pro.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

How does GarageBand run on that machine? iPhoto? FCP? KotoR? Sims 2? Adobe CS2?

Most of the market including Apple supports G4 as the low end, except for the OS, iTunes and a handful of smaller apps.

The G3 runs heck of a lot, but who are you trying to kid? It is barely supported and it's around 2 years since Apple dropped it. The only reason it runs anything at all is because it is a good design and a PPC, like the current top-of-the line towers from Apple.

So?

Wake up, dude - it's been that way for TWENTY YEARS.

Word 5.1 did not run on a 1984 128K Mac. Most software ca. 1990 had a minimum requirement of 1MB RAM, meaning it wouldn't even run on a 1985 512K or 512KE - you needed a Mac Plus or newer.

Fact of life: System requirements for new software rise with the possibilities offered by new hardware.

Quit pretending that this has anything to do with what a wonderful architecture the PPC was, or that this is changing in any way just because we're now running IBM^H^H^HIntel processors.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Despite the fact that it is possible to create apps that run only on a G4 or even only on a G5 (and some devs have chosen to do so), aside from being pretty slow, the G3 has remained largely viable to this day. To say most developers will cut PPC support in two years is pretty pessimistic.

Perhaps it is pessimistic, but I don't think it will be because the PPCs won't be powerful enough to run apps in two years time, I think it will simpy become more economical to write for one processor rather than two. It will take about the time it took publishers to stop writing for OS 9 and write only for OS X. Two years-ish, I think.

Neither am I, but I can't come up with any plausible sinister motive here.

I don't see anything sinister either, just that I think this move was more practical for Apple than its users. Not that the users won't get over it, it is annoying.

I'm really curious to know: What annoyance has the switch caused you personally? Everybody says it's such a huge burden, but I can't say I feel the slightest bit heavier myself, so I'm trying to suss out what the problems actually are.

So far so good, but we're just beginning the switch. It will become annoying when new apps won't run on PPCs even though the G4/G5 *could* run the app, it just won't be written for the PPC. Let's just say I'm pessimistic that the universal architecture apps will become the norm. My bet is that most publishers will choose to write only for Intel. It is easier and cheaper. Another annoyance is that right now it is pointless to buy a Mactel because there are too few native apps and running them in emulation can be slow (Photoshop etc) and yet at the same time buying a PPC machine is not advisable because they are being phased out.

Oh well, time will tell, but I'm not optimistic this will be fun for established users.

cheers

W-Y

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by analogika

BTW, a REAL Mac has a 680X0 processor. IBM is teh devil.

I got news for you - mactels are REAL Macs too. Like it or not the new laptops, mini and iMacs are real macs.

Mike

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I got news for you - mactels are REAL Macs too. Like it or not the new laptops, mini and iMacs are real macs.

The fact that IBM makes G4 and G3 processors, and that Apple hasn't used 680X0 processors in over ten years, *might* have clued you in as to the intent of my comment.

Some people don't do sarcasm, I guess.

But you could have at least read my following posts.

[eevyl]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

My bet is that most publishers will choose to write only for Intel. It is easier and cheaper.

Last I checked, it was easier and cheaper to adapt a Mac OS X PPC application source code to build for both PPC/Intel than rewriting from scratch an application so it is Intel only.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by eevyl

Last I checked, it was easier and cheaper to adapt a Mac OS X PPC application source code to build for both PPC/Intel than rewriting from scratch an application so it is Intel only.

Back in the 68k to PPC days we saw a similar transition. Instead of Universal Binaries the apps were called FAT apps. They could run on both 68k and PPC like UBs can run both on PPC and x86.

Developers adapted their apps for PPC either as FATs or just pure PPC apps. Smaller developers had no problems writing PPC apps from scratch. Two years later it was all PPC.

It is namely cheaper and easier to adapt a PPC app source code to build PPC/Intel than rewriting from scratch so it is Intel only *but then* dump the PPC version in 2-3 years or so because it is cheaper to maintain one CPU architecture than two.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by analogika

The fact that IBM makes G4 and G3 processors, and that Apple hasn't used 680X0 processors in over ten years, *might* have clued you in as to the intent of my comment.

Some people don't do sarcasm, I guess.

But you could have at least read my following posts.

Sarcsasm and tech discussion is like valium with alcohol.

Not to mention nerdy beyond good taste. Here's a tip: read the rant you wrote above and imagine you're actually talking to a living person.

cheers

W-Y

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Sarcsasm and tech discussion is like valium with alcohol.

Not to mention nerdy beyond good taste. Here's a tip: read the rant you wrote above and imagine you're actually talking to a living person.

You're right.

My apologies for the tone.

[Big Mac]

No need to apologize, analogika - I thought the post was pretty funny. If people truly missed the blatant sarcasm, especially coming after your reply to me about the term "Mactel" making your toenails curl, that's not your fault.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by analogika

You're right.

My apologies for the tone.

¡No pasa nada tío!

It is fun to discuss things with you, it is interesting and entertaining

cheers



W-Y

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No need to apologize, analogika - I thought the post was pretty funny. If people truly missed the blatant sarcasm, especially coming after your reply to me about the term "Mactel" making your toenails curl, that's not your fault.

Ah, no - I wasn't apologizing for that post; I was apologizing for the tone of the later "Wake up" rant.