Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:07 PM   #1
law guy
macrumors 6502a
 
law guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Western Massachusetts
Cool Why so long to transition given Rosetta, supply of parts, etc.

I know folks have been saying the transition is to allow time for Mac apps to switch, but I can't understand it from a hardware sales standpoint.

1. S. Jobs has said that they've been making Intel compatible versions of the OS for 5 years. So the OS looks ready to ship (as much as the 10.4 was ready to ship on the PPC anyway).

2. Programs - just run them in emulated mode to start. If the conversion time is as quick as Steve said in his keynote, we should see the native versions in a few months (esp. if there is hardware out there).

3. Hardware design - I'm just observing here that there are a multitude of companies and home-PC builders that can put together new intel systems very quickly. The developers kit is something of an example of what Apple could do quickly, but why not just take the std. components for laptops, notebooks, PMs, etc. and put them into CURRENT CASE DESIGNS? Sure - let's give 'em a few months to get ramped up, order parts, go into production etc. (I note that the folks that make the Macs overseas also reported in the business press to make several PCs). Lord knows theres a sea of components and chips! out there. I suppose a little time for a special bios chip to be made or something along that line that interfaces with the OS so it will only run on the Apple systems. I assume they've been working on that and had some proof of concept when they made the switch. So again, a bit of ramp up production time.

4. Is this a case of "Scotty" type promises? We'll say a two-year transition, but we'll wow-'em with a 6 to 8 month transition to beat the prediction?
law guy is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:09 PM   #2
wordmunger
macrumors 603
 
wordmunger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally Posted by law guy
4. Is this a case of "Scotty" type promises? We'll say a two-year transition, but we'll wow-'em with a 6 to 8 month transition to beat the prediction?
I doubt that. He's telling the developers NOW what the transition period is so they will be able to plan. Software companies won't be very happy if the new Mac comes out 6 months early and their software isn't ready for it.
wordmunger is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:14 PM   #3
law guy
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
law guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Western Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wordmunger
I doubt that. He's telling the developers NOW what the transition period is so they will be able to plan. Software companies won't be very happy if the new Mac comes out 6 months early and their software isn't ready for it.
Right - but let's say the hardware could be out in 6 mo? Given a Mathematica port in 2 hours and machines that will still run whatever is left on the shelf anyway (so current users would switch and just use the existing apps until new versions were out; switchers could still buy existing software or whatever has been ported in 6 mo), isn't the notice even too long? I agree that SJ doesn't want to mislead his developers - but assuming he really means such a long time... why?
law guy is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:14 PM   #4
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
 
mkrishnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Just to add another option...have you seen the capability list of Rosetta Stone at the moment? From what was shown at the keynote, it's an amazing piece of software, and it really does work markedly better than previous emulation concepts. *BUT* ... there is enough that it can't do that this would confuse customers too much.
__________________
Mira C. Krishnan
mkrishnan is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:33 PM   #5
stcanard
macrumors 65816
 
stcanard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkrishnan
Just to add another option...have you seen the capability list of Rosetta Stone at the moment? From what was shown at the keynote, it's an amazing piece of software, and it really does work markedly better than previous emulation concepts. *BUT* ... there is enough that it can't do that this would confuse customers too much.
Don't forget that it was being demoed on a quad-3.6GHz system (according to reports). That would make anything look fast, compared to the current top of the line Power Mac.

As for why not now, it's because they want a good, solid, installed base of fat (sorry, "universal) binaries before people start to make the transition. That way it will go as smoothly as possible, and for the most part people will see a speed increase. If everything is done in Rosetta right now, it will be slower pound-for-pound than the current systems and the installed base will ask why they are making this change if it's slowing everything down.

I bet you will see a flood of preview systems to people like Walter Mossberg though so they can start writing feel good articles about how fast marklar is, and how well rosetta works.
stcanard is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:38 PM   #6
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
 
mkrishnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by stcanard
Don't forget that it was being demoed on a quad-3.6GHz system (according to reports). That would make anything look fast, compared to the current top of the line Power Mac.
Waaaaah...*quad* P4? I had not heard that part! Jeez...that's like the MIRV of computers. Ahem, if that's the case, then slightly forget my surprise at Rosetta's speed.
__________________
Mira C. Krishnan
mkrishnan is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:44 PM   #7
zelmo
macrumors 603
 
zelmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mac since 7.5
Quote:
Originally Posted by stcanard
Don't forget that it was being demoed on a quad-3.6GHz system (according to reports). That would make anything look fast, compared to the current top of the line Power Mac.

As for why not now, it's because they want a good, solid, installed base of fat (sorry, "universal) binaries before people start to make the transition. That way it will go as smoothly as possible, and for the most part people will see a speed increase. If everything is done in Rosetta right now, it will be slower pound-for-pound than the current systems and the installed base will ask why they are making this change if it's slowing everything down.

I bet you will see a flood of preview systems to people like Walter Mossberg though so they can start writing feel good articles about how fast marklar is, and how well rosetta works.
What reports? In the portion of the Keynote that I saw (before the stream dried up on me), the "about this Mac" info said Pentium 4 3.6GHz. I took that to me a single 3.6GHz P4.
__________________
Unholy Ferret Invasion is coming to your town!
zelmo is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 01:59 PM   #8
mac-er
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by powermac666
What reports? In the portion of the Keynote that I saw (before the stream dried up on me), the "about this Mac" info said Pentium 4 3.6GHz. I took that to me a single 3.6GHz P4.
They can program that to say anything they want.
mac-er is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 02:00 PM   #9
stcanard
macrumors 65816
 
stcanard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Originally Posted by powermac666
What reports? In the portion of the Keynote that I saw (before the stream dried up on me), the "about this Mac" info said Pentium 4 3.6GHz. I took that to me a single 3.6GHz P4.
The news reports after the story came out. A single 3.6GHz P4 makes more sense, since that's the developer system.

Info was kind of hard to come by yesterday, as everything was kind of slow. I will assume what I heard yesterday was incorrect and you're correct.

But, will you please let me dream about a quad-3.6GHz Mac please? Preferably with each of those being dual core?

Thanks

Last edited by stcanard; Jun 7, 2005 at 02:27 PM.
stcanard is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 02:09 PM   #10
y0zza
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
The Keynote demo was on a single-processor 3.6GHz P4.

The reason Apple is waiting is probably because of the slew of architecturally new, non-Netburst (i.e., non-P4) desktop and mobile CPUs that Intel will be putting out in the 2006-2007 timeframe.

Merom for the Powerbook and iBook, Conroe for iMac/PowerMac, possibly Woodcrest or Whitefield (four-core) for the high-end PowerMacs. All of these are x86-64-capable and are new 'short and fat' designs instead of the hyper-pipelined Netburst rubbish we had with the Pentium 4.

Yonah, the dual-core Pentium M chip due out in early 2006 may be a possible Powerbook chip, but it is reportedly 32-bit only, and hence does not support x86-64.

Don't forget that any Pentium 4-based Macs that Apple puts out will have the problem of being compared to G5 Macs, possibly unfavourably in many cases (just look at Apple's own benchmarks). The new architecture coming from Intel between 2006-7 should bring significant improvements over Netburst, utilising all of the things Intel has learnt with the Pentium M to create the next high-performance desktop and mobile processor.
y0zza is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 02:41 PM   #11
bosrs1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
The real reason: Rosetta isn't done yet.

The main reason this is going to take so long is Rosetta, while interesting, isn't finished. If you read the developers notes it doesn't support G4 or G5 only programs and has no AltiVec support. It will definitely need the former and could do better with the latter. The former is a definitely neccessary piece before Rosetta will be viable.
__________________
-Powerbook G4 1.33 Ghz 12", 768 MB RAM, 60 GB HD, SuperDrive, AP, BT, OS 10.4.6
-Color Classic '030 16 Mhz, 10 MB RAM, 60 MB HD, 3.5" FDD, OS 7.5.5
bosrs1 is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 02:42 PM   #12
Applespider
macrumors 603
 
Applespider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
Quote:
Originally Posted by law guy
4. Is this a case of "Scotty" type promises? We'll say a two-year transition, but we'll wow-'em with a 6 to 8 month transition to beat the prediction?
He said that OS X86 Macs would be shipping by next year's WWDC. I'd expect announcement/viewing of designs at MWSF in January (7 months) which ship in Feb/March. Aren't the Yonah (eesh, getting so confused over Intel chip names) scheduled to be shipping in Q1 of 2006?
__________________
Oops.... the cat killed the rabbit
Applespider is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 03:43 PM   #13
stcanard
macrumors 65816
 
stcanard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vancouver
Hmm, the more I think about this the less worried I am. Almost all of the apps I use (the only exception I can think of is quicksilver) fall into one (or more) of three categories:

1) Created by Apple -- I'm reasonably certain these will be ported in a decent timeframe

2) Java based (which won't be an issue)

3) Open Source and based on a codebase created on x86 and ported to PowerPC (even Firefox and NeoOffice/J fall into this category)

Once I do a fink reuild all I'm not even certain I would need Rosetta...
stcanard is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 03:51 PM   #14
spaceballl
macrumors 68030
 
spaceballl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
I think the reason why they are waiting is because right now Intel's desktop parts aren't too attractive. Prescott runs like a furnace, and it's debatable whether or not that chip is faster than the PPC970. Intel's mobile chips right now are very attractive, but not the desktop parts.

There's a good article on the front of www.anandtech.com about this switch. Apple would be smart to skip Intel's netburst based chips. They kinda suck...
spaceballl is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 03:53 PM   #15
admanimal
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosrs1
The main reason this is going to take so long is Rosetta, while interesting, isn't finished. If you read the developers notes it doesn't support G4 or G5 only programs and has no AltiVec support. It will definitely need the former and could do better with the latter. The former is a definitely neccessary piece before Rosetta will be viable.
I am doubtful as to whether Rosetta will ever support these things. I think Apple would have made it more clear to developers that Rosetta would support these things in the future.

Rosetta is probably still a work in progress, but I think it will ultimately do exactly what Apple says it will do at the moment.
admanimal is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 04:29 PM   #16
cheapnis
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by admanimal
Rosetta is probably still a work in progress, but I think it will ultimately do exactly what Apple says it will do at the moment.
This and this

Quote:
The reason Apple is waiting is probably because of the slew of architecturally new, non-Netburst (i.e., non-P4) desktop and mobile CPUs that Intel will be putting out in the 2006-2007 timeframe.
I think sum up why very neatly - with the "two hour port" of Mathematica Rosetta seems to me to be more of a safety net than anything ... With all the Apple apps running natively, Office, Adobe (and therefore Macromedia) and all the other big players able to port very quickly I can't see why they'd need to give developers so much time. You can't say "it's a sinch - it takes two hours with the most complicated apps" and then say you're going to need 6 to 9 months to get ready!!

... so I go with them holding back for the new and literally incomparable (with anything current) Intel chips...
cheapnis is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 04:31 PM   #17
chemtw
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by admanimal
I am doubtful as to whether Rosetta will ever support these things. I think Apple would have made it more clear to developers that Rosetta would support these things in the future.

Rosetta is probably still a work in progress, but I think it will ultimately do exactly what Apple says it will do at the moment.

Does all this switching to intel mean that we will be able to put together our own systems with components from places like newegg.com and just throw a mac OS on it instead of a windows OS? If so I am all for it becuase I have always been able to build my PCs for far cheaper than the some place like Dell or Gateway. Or does it just mean cheaper machines from Apple, which is cool to. What does it all mean!!! I keep going back and forth between getting a new powerbook or dell laptop because of costs, but it seems that I will still take the plunge into a new G4 Powerbook for this school year. Either way, nothing really seems solid until late 2006 or 2007 right?
chemtw is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 04:34 PM   #18
bosrs1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemtw
Does all this switching to intel mean that we will be able to put together our own systems with components from places like newegg.com and just throw a mac OS on it instead of a windows OS? If so I am all for it becuase I have always been able to build my PCs for far cheaper than the some place like Dell or Gateway. Or does it just mean cheaper machines from Apple, which is cool to. What does it all mean!!! I keep going back and forth between getting a new powerbook or dell laptop because of costs, but it seems that I will still take the plunge into a new G4 Powerbook for this school year. Either way, nothing really seems solid until late 2006 or 2007 right?
No. Nothing has changed in terms of how you buy or build your Mac. Prices may drop a bit but experience will be the same. Apple is still going to be the sole supplier. This isn't clone wars part II. The difference is it's very possible you're Mac will now be able with minor tweaking to dual boot into Windoze as well as OSX.
__________________
-Powerbook G4 1.33 Ghz 12", 768 MB RAM, 60 GB HD, SuperDrive, AP, BT, OS 10.4.6
-Color Classic '030 16 Mhz, 10 MB RAM, 60 MB HD, 3.5" FDD, OS 7.5.5
bosrs1 is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:04 PM   #19
stcanard
macrumors 65816
 
stcanard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Vancouver
Quote:
Originally Posted by bosrs1
The difference is it's very possible you're Mac will now be able with minor tweaking to dual boot into Windoze as well as OSX.
That provides an interesting opportunity for Apple, because they've even said they won't stop people from putting Windows on it. So for all those people that are scared to leave windows, they can push the idea that if you don't like it, you can always put Windows on, and still have the coolest looking computer on the block.

If the switcher does decide to do go to Windows, Apple still got the hardware sale, and the barrier of getting them back to OSX is lower. If they don't go to Windows, well Apple wins even more!
stcanard is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:06 PM   #20
bosrs1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by stcanard
That provides an interesting opportunity for Apple, because they've even said they won't stop people from putting Windows on it. So for all those people that are scared to leave windows, they can push the idea that if you don't like it, you can always put Windows on, and still have the coolest looking computer on the block.

If the switcher does decide to do go to Windows, Apple still got the hardware sale, and the barrier of getting them back to OSX is lower. If they don't go to Windows, well Apple wins even more!
Exactly. This is the same reason Super Mac heads are crying, they see it as a dillusion of their clique... but it's really a way to boost Mac usership.
__________________
-Powerbook G4 1.33 Ghz 12", 768 MB RAM, 60 GB HD, SuperDrive, AP, BT, OS 10.4.6
-Color Classic '030 16 Mhz, 10 MB RAM, 60 MB HD, 3.5" FDD, OS 7.5.5
bosrs1 is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:08 PM   #21
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
 
mkrishnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapnis
I think sum up why very neatly - with the "two hour port" of Mathematica Rosetta seems to me to be more of a safety net than anything ... With all the Apple apps running natively, Office, Adobe (and therefore Macromedia) and all the other big players able to port very quickly I can't see why they'd need to give developers so much time. You can't say "it's a sinch - it takes two hours with the most complicated apps" and then say you're going to need 6 to 9 months to get ready!!
Neither Creative Suite nor Office consist of Cocoa apps, though....
__________________
Mira C. Krishnan
mkrishnan is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:17 PM   #22
Silver Apple
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canada
Talking Just to Add

Guys,

I believe there will be no problem for Apple to have new systems by early spring 2006. AND No, I don't think it's necessary for them to use Pentium 4s to do it.

Check this out:

Mac Mini: Current G4 (1.2) ...
** Could be made into a Dothan or Yonah (Single Core) @ 1.8 GHZ
(Much faster than current system)

Ibook: Current G4 (1.2)
** Could be made into a Dothan or Yonah (Single Core) @ 1.8 GHZ
(Much faster than current system)

Imac: Current G5 (1.8 to 2.0)
** Could be made into a Yonah (Dual Core) @ 2.5 GHZ
(at least comparable with current system -- possibly faster)

Pbook: Current G4 (1.5 to 1.7)
** Could be made into a Yonah (Dual Core) @ 2.5 GHZ
(Cooler, Faster, better battery, just as quiet, faster system bus etc..)

As you can see, this would be a nice start for Apple ... all without using a Pentium 4 CPU ... Yonah (dual core) will be ready early 2006 and could easily be made to work on all of the above. Right now the newst craze in the X86 world is the use of the Pentium M CPUs (Dothan) on normal motherboards with an adapter which beats even the mighty P4 Extreme and Athlon 64 FX in 3D games!! Check it out: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/
So Imagine what a dual core will do flying on your Mac ... come next year!


Cheers!
Silver Apple is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:30 PM   #23
cheapnis
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkrishnan
Neither Creative Suite nor Office consist of Cocoa apps, though....
True ... but when I said "running natively" I meant to imply that these mega companies have the huge resources to make any problem go away if they feel like it ... and the Mathematica guy was keen to stress that the app was a total mish mash of all kinds of coding ...

The delay obviously allows time for lots of smaller companies to get prepared - I just don't think that's the number one reason why... it just happens to work out better for all concerned... SJ was talking at a developer conference after all, he wasn't going to frame it any other way was he?
cheapnis is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:32 PM   #24
Bern
macrumors 68000
 
Bern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkrishnan
Neither Creative Suite nor Office consist of Cocoa apps, though....
I guess the biggest thing that concerns me is my current software. I've just spent a couple thousand upgrading to Adobe CS2 and Painter IX and whilst Rosetta may be able to get them running for me, it's really not going to be the same as having it run natively.

So for the big guns like MS, Adobe, Corel what do you think they'll do? Release point updates or are we going to have to fork out more money AGAIN to have software that will run on our shiny new Macs?
__________________
wytchecraft
Bern is offline   0
Old Jun 7, 2005, 05:47 PM   #25
mkrishnan
Moderator emeritus
 
mkrishnan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bern
So for the big guns like MS, Adobe, Corel what do you think they'll do? Release point updates or are we going to have to fork out more money AGAIN to have software that will run on our shiny new Macs?
Bern, I would say, I'm assuming that you bought this software because it runs acceptably on your hardware now, right? So, when CS3 comes out supporting Intel, or whatever, then when you hit the point where upgrading is worth it to you, then go get CS3 and an Intel mac. 'Till then...what if Jobs had said *nothing* at WWDC? I bet you if you run some benchmarks on actions in CS2, that you'll find that Jobs' announcement didn't slow them down.

Cheapnis -- I got you for what you're saying. Yes, I don't think recompiling even Carbon apps alone necessitates a year's time. And I also don't think they couldn't release Intel-based hardware in less than a year. But my take is to give them the time and let them get this right....
__________________
Mira C. Krishnan
mkrishnan is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
faking a long transition between stills - iMovie 09 uncleMonty Digital Video 8 Feb 24, 2013 08:04 AM
How long will supply constraints last? IUBall22 iPhone 4 Sep 27, 2012 10:05 PM
Supply and Demand - How Long? iRooney iPhone 3 Sep 17, 2012 08:49 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC