PDA

View Full Version : Leopard to blame for Mac Pro delay?




CortexRock
Nov 15, 2007, 12:49 PM
Just an idea, but I wonder if Apple are waiting until they've hammered all the bugs out of Leopard before making new Mac Pros available? Maybe until 10.5.2?

It would make sense, not wanting to ship their flagship product to pros who need their machines for productivity purposes, if Leopard is still too buggy.

Once the OS is nice and stable, they can then release stonking new machines that'll blow everyone away, without having to worry about them being impaired by software issues.

Any thoughts?



X1Lightning
Nov 15, 2007, 12:57 PM
i doubt it, if they were worried about that the current mac pro's would still be shipping with tiger

jrlcopy
Nov 15, 2007, 01:06 PM
I dunno, all of these updates, I really could see new mac pros on tuesday. Everything will now work reliable on their pro machine now.

darthraige
Nov 15, 2007, 01:35 PM
I dunno, all of these updates, I really could see new mac pros on tuesday. Everything will now work reliable on their pro machine now.

Definitely. That's what I am thinking too. Next Tuesday would be the last day in November for a new MacPro release. Then it's on to December, which kinda doesn't look good due to Apples timeline in December.

bigbossbmb
Nov 15, 2007, 01:47 PM
I dunno, all of these updates, I really could see new mac pros on tuesday. Everything will now work reliable on their pro machine now.

except a bunch of adobe's apps.

Another benefit of me waiting until Jan to buy a MP (no matter when they're released) is that ALL of my software will be updated to work with 10.5. I'll just have to enjoy my new 30" LCD til then...

CortexRock
Nov 15, 2007, 01:56 PM
except a bunch of adobe's apps.

My point exactly - the delay gives Adobe's developers time to get their act together too - look how long it took for CS3 to come out after the change to Intel processors! I'm sure Adobe didn't get as much time as they would have liked with Leopard before it went live.

i doubt it, if they were worried about that the current mac pro's would still be shipping with tiger

I guess that shipping current stock of Mac Pros with the drop-in DVD of Leopard makes sense, but they're hardly likely to waste time updating in the factory if a) there's a new model coming out and b) they aren't confident about 10.5.1 solving all the issues.

darthraige
Nov 15, 2007, 01:56 PM
except a bunch of adobe's apps.

Another benefit of me waiting until Jan to buy a MP (no matter when they're released) is that ALL of my software will be updated to work with 10.5. I'll just have to enjoy my new 30" LCD til then...

In 5 minutes it'll be noon in LA. Maybe Apple has been rushing updates to announce today. lol... Doubtful, but who knows. lol

krunk
Nov 15, 2007, 01:56 PM
Since leopard was delayed because of the iPhone, does that mean Mac Pro delays are ultimately due to the iPhone?

iPhone > Mac Pro

Pressure
Nov 15, 2007, 02:00 PM
Since leopard was delayed because of the iPhone, does that mean Mac Pro delays are ultimately due to the iPhone?

iPhone > Mac Pro

I doubt that moving some developers from the Leopard developement team had any effect on the time frame of when Leopard was going to be released.

I simply think Leopard wasn't ready before now and the betas seem to testify this.

bigbossbmb
Nov 15, 2007, 02:08 PM
My point exactly - the delay gives Adobe's developers time to get their act together too - look how long it took for CS3 to come out after the change to Intel processors! I'm sure Adobe didn't get as much time as they would have liked with Leopard before it went live.

Adobe was focused on getting CS3 out the door and not necessarily Leopard compatibility. It took them so long because they were already writing CS3 from the ground up instead of piggy-backing on the old code. There wasn't time to re-write the whole suite AND convert all of the old code.

Jade Cambell
Nov 15, 2007, 02:25 PM
Adobe was focused on getting CS3 out the door and not necessarily Leopard compatibility. It took them so long because they were already writing CS3 from the ground up instead of piggy-backing on the old code. There wasn't time to re-write the whole suite AND convert all of the old code.

Excuse me but, I was never really clear on how software development works. Are you saying that they've got teams of hundreds of people sitting at computers 12 hours a day punching out code? Is that what they did when they converted those 86 million lines of Mac OS X Tiger code from PPC to Intel?

Does it really take that much time?

Macinposh
Nov 15, 2007, 02:41 PM
It took them so long because they were already writing CS3 from the ground up instead of piggy-backing on the old code. There wasn't time to re-write the whole suite AND convert all of the old code.



Correct me if Im wrong,but as far as I know, the code in CS3 is just recompiled code of CS2?
Basically, some of the added stuff is just extra multi core awareness added to the previous code.
That makes the PS CS3 perform so poorly in most of the filters/actions as the old code splits very poorly to multiple threads.
So,basically they have to re-write the code completely for CS4 to make the applications,especially Photoshop to perform acceptable in the future.
Nowadays you just can sit and admire when working with photoshop how your processor speeds move in 50%-200% sector, almost never going over 200%...

Boohoo...

At least this is what I have understood.
Please correct any misinformation..

X1Lightning
Nov 15, 2007, 02:51 PM
Excuse me but, I was never really clear on how software development works. Are you saying that they've got teams of hundreds of people sitting at computers 12 hours a day punching out code? Is that what they did when they converted those 86 million lines of Mac OS X Tiger code from PPC to Intel?

Does it really take that much time?

naa, most of the code should have been reusable, just change what was processor specific and recompile, most of the time would have been testing....

fisha
Nov 15, 2007, 02:54 PM
Excuse me but, I was never really clear on how software development works. Are you saying that they've got teams of hundreds of people sitting at computers 12 hours a day punching out code? Is that what they did when they converted those 86 million lines of Mac OS X Tiger code from PPC to Intel?

Does it really take that much time?

Depends I suppose. Some of the core adobe stuff of old may have roots in very early versions of OS X and the PowerPC days. Over time, these core parts are probably taken, tweaked a little, added to, worked around, whatever for each new revision. It may be old core code and methods of working, but with the advancements of the speed of machines, it can still look like things are happening faster even though they may not be being processed in the most efficient manner possible. In such cases, they probably just use the bulk of the existing code knowing that it works already.

Then along comes a change to the OS ( or the machines ) such as Universal Binary which *may* mean that some of those core things no longer can be done in the way they used to. If that was the core units of the program and you cant run it anymore, then you kind of have to start from scratch from the ground up to re-write the core stuff which the program is based around.

But its not really completely from scratch. With new developer programs / languages, there is often a similar way of doing something that you did before, just that you have to write the code slightly differently.

As a very basic example ( and not meant to be any particular language ) the old way of changing a pixel colour could be:

ChangePixelColor(pixel_address, red)

and the newer way:

pixel.colour = red

Its the same effect, just a different way of writing how to do it and then compiling it into the latest style of program file.

So doing that for 86 million lines of code could take a while if you have to go right back to basics as opposed to tweaking what you already have.

statikcat
Nov 15, 2007, 03:28 PM
It does make sense to a degree. Apple is not about to make the whole first shipment (which could last months) packaged with Tiger. I think when 10.4 came out they sold 10.3 desktops with a free update to 10.4.. which that could be done with these as well. But I doubt Apple wants to sell 10.4 out of the box over the next few months. This could easily play a role in some way.

bigbossbmb
Nov 15, 2007, 03:35 PM
Is that what they did when they converted those 86 million lines of Mac OS X Tiger code from PPC to Intel?

Does it really take that much time?

That would take a lot of time. However, Apple wrote Mac OS X for both PPC and Intel from the start. They never "converted" the entire OS because they already had it.


As for CS3, the Photoshop code is a complete re-write. The CS2 code was old and bulky and hadn't been re-written since the Mac OS 8 days (maybe longer). Before CS3, Adobe would just write the new features on top of the exisiting code rather than finding ways to integrate it into the older code.

psingh01
Nov 15, 2007, 04:18 PM
Apple only has 2 engineers. You can't expect them to handle iPhone, Leopard and Mac Pro all at once :)

macz1
Nov 15, 2007, 05:43 PM
I think they are waiting for the CPUs. Or have you already seen available Penryns anywhere? Why should Apple be the first and only company getting those chips?

Tallest Skil
Nov 15, 2007, 05:57 PM
I think they are waiting for the CPUs. Or have you already seen available Penryns anywhere? Why should Apple be the first and only company getting those chips?

Again... manufacturers get the chips in bulk about a month before a consumer release date. If we're right, Apple has already has a large amount of 3.2Ghz Penryns for a while. Besides, they had a week or so's exclusivity with the original Mac Pro chips, so...

Tracer
Nov 15, 2007, 06:06 PM
The exclusive 3.0GHZ Quad-Core's that Apple had for awhile were actually designed with 150Watt TDP, not 120 Watt TDP that the other quad-core chips had.

Other manufacturers didn't want to deal with the extra power/heat, but Apple had already more than enough wiggle room after dealing with the heat of Dual-Core G5's.

Although the relationship is good. Don't think that Apple is getting stuff months before the competition.

Tracer

Jade Cambell
Nov 16, 2007, 10:00 AM
That would take a lot of time. However, Apple wrote Mac OS X for both PPC and Intel from the start. They never "converted" the entire OS because they already had it.

Why would they have already had it? I don't think they did....

bigbossbmb
Nov 16, 2007, 10:10 AM
Why would they have already had it? I don't think they did....

They had it because they knew switching to Intel was a possibility/inevitability. Steve Jobs explained this in the 2005 WWDC keynote when he announced the Intel switch. He even acknowledged the rumors that had floated around for a couple years about OS X on Intel machines and said they were true.

Kosh66
Nov 16, 2007, 10:37 AM
I dunno, all of these updates, I really could see new mac pros on tuesday. Everything will now work reliable on their pro machine now.

Apple doesn't need to release Leopard updates to the public, to release an updated Leopard on Mac Pros. Apple has in the past released a new release of MacOS on new hardware, before releasing that new release of MacOS to the general public.

psingh01
Nov 16, 2007, 11:51 AM
Why would they have already had it? I don't think they did....

OS X worked with Intel before it was even called OS X. They released developer previews but then only officially supported PPC. They didn't make the Intel version public again until it was needed. I also guarantee you that there are still PPC versions being maintained. Though that is not as likely a move anytime soon.

ErikAndre
Nov 16, 2007, 01:12 PM
Apple only has 2 engineers. You can't expect them to handle iPhone, Leopard and Mac Pro all at once :)
Are you serious?

G4DP
Nov 16, 2007, 01:21 PM
Marklar, as many posters have already said has been around from the very inception of OS X.

Apple had this incase - as turned out to be true - PPC did not deliver what was promised.

kirkbross
Nov 16, 2007, 03:07 PM
Are you serious?
Are YOU serious?

ErikAndre
Nov 16, 2007, 03:47 PM
Are YOU serious?
Actually, I was... (yes, newb alert :eek:), but thanks for answering my question.

Cloudane
Nov 16, 2007, 04:08 PM
Spot on. Consumer Macs are one thing, but for their high end product (is it still their flagship? Even still it's very high end) I doubt they'll want the product hampered by all the bugs and freezing issues and whatnot that may have been generated by Leopard. It'll give people a bad impression, and people will be saying "wow, even the Pro quality has gone downhill, that marks the end, it's all iPods from here on" blah blah. Giving people a bad impression of the Pro wouldn't be good.

Have patience.... don't know about you lot, but I tend to prefer things to be done *properly* rather than quickly. I've had 15 years' worth of shockingly bad rushed releases in the PC world, that's one reason why I moved to the Mac :P They should only release a new Pro when it's at the standard people expect from Apple.