Apple Needs to Clarify the Situation

[MacSA]

Apple need to release a very clear and coherent statement on what exactly this will mean to owners of the PPC Mac and anyone who buys one between now and the time of transition. Or at least we need a pinned thread in one of the forums with correct information.

Reading these forums, there appears to be a quite a bit of confusion and alot of misleading and innacurate information - not to mention hysterical behaviour.

 

[Ugg]

I'm a little bit puzzled that there wasn't more information. I'm sure that it'll be forthcoming before long but still, if Stevo wanted to create panic amongst macheads, he certainly succeeded.

 

[bosrs1]

Apple need to release a very clear and coherent statement on what exactly this will mean to owners of the PPC Mac and anyone who buys one between now and the time of transition. Or at least we need a pinned thread in one of the forums with correct information.

Reading these forums, there appears to be a quite a bit of confusion and alot of misleading and innacurate information - not to mention hysterical behaviour.

Most of the misinformation on this board is being perpetuated by PPC fanboys who are upset we're going to the "evil" Intel. What they're failing to realize is Apples should have and would have been on Intel from the very beginning if Woz had had his way. But they cost to much when he designed the Apple 1 and Apple II.

Intel is not evil...



Now here's the facts.

1. Rosetta will allow all your software your currently running to run on the Intel Mac

2. The PPC Macs are going to be supported for the next 5 years (as long as anyone could hope for a Mac now anyway regardless of this change)

3. Intel Macs will be faster then the PPC Macs, when they arrive. However your PPC Mac will be top of the line for two years, as it would have been had Apple stayed with PPC.

4. This may even eliminate the need for Virtual PC eventually as someone will port Windows to the new Macs. (Opens up that giant PC software library to us all)

5. These machines will still be Macs and you'll still need one to run OSX. OSX is not being ported to PCs and won't be easy to do so should a hacker want to. Same goes for viruses.

6. All this can do is grow Apple's market share, which is good for us and for Apple, more software, more devs and more relevance to the larger PC world.

 

[DavidCar]

1. Rosetta will allow all your software your currently running to run on the Intel Mac

This is what the developer documentation says:

Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X.
Rosetta does not run the following:

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

 

[iGary]

Watch the Keynote - answers all of the questions.

 

[nrd]

I'd like clarification on if we're going back to a 32-bit architecture for all the machines, or will some of them be Itanium/some other 64-bit machine. From what I read, every reference to "Intel processors" means "IA-32". Perhaps there will be a few speed bumps to the PPC lines before the introduction of an Intel 64-bit processor (Itanium or not).

 

[bosrs1]

This is what the developer documentation says:

Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X.
Rosetta does not run the following:

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

You honestly don't think they'll update that in the next year and a half? Come on give Apple a little more credit.

 

[bosrs1]

I'd like clarification on if we're going back to a 32-bit architecture for all the machines, or will some of them be Itanium/some other 64-bit machine. From what I read, every reference to "Intel processors" means "IA-32". Perhaps there will be a few speed bumps to the PPC lines before the introduction of an Intel 64-bit processor (Itanium or not).

The first machines are going to be the consumer lines like Mac Mini and will be 32 bit. I'm assuming they're waiting for the Towers for the Intel 64 Bit chips to become more prevailent.

 

[nrd]

You honestly don't think they'll update that in the next year and a half? Come on give Apple a little more credit.

But do you really expect them to emulate PPC and AltiVec? The developers were given guides for using MMX/SSE or whatever instead of Altivec.

 

[bosrs1]

But do you really expect them to emulate PPC and AltiVec? The developers were given guides for using MMX/SSE or whatever instead of Altivec.

True. I don't think the Altivec will change, however the big one is the G4, G5 emulation and frankly not doing it is suicicde. Don't expect that G3 only stat to stay. I'm sure it and 64 bit support will be forthcoming.

 

[James Philp]

2. The PPC Macs are going to be supported for the next 5 years (as long as anyone could hope for a Mac now anyway regardless of this change)

Well, I'm using a 5 year old powerbook now, and running Tiger.
If I buy a £2500 system tomorrow, I'm going to want it to be up-to-date in 5 years' time AT LEAST!
I would hope that 5 years is the amount of a Mac say remain "up-to-date" software-wise, and will last longer than that if you "freeze" the OS, and simply upgrade apps.

 

[jamdr]

So let me get this straight:

1. Some PPC software can be emulated with Rosetta, the rest will have to be tweaked and recompiled to run on X86.

2. Windows software will still require VPC to run on Intel Macs, but VPC will probably get much faster since hardware emulation won't be necessary anymore. My question here is will some companies just write one Windows version of their software and make Mac users emulate it? Since emulation will probably be almost as fast as native, I can really see this happening, which would such for Mac users.

3. Intel OS X software, including the system itself, will still require an Intel Mac and won't run on Windows machines. However, just like #2, OS X emulation on Windows will probably get a lot faster because the hardware won't have to be emulated. Will there be an official product like Virtual Mac that will let users do this?

Most important: What about programming for the Mac now? Will Obj-C and Cocoa still be the way to write native apps? This is so confusing!

 

[bosrs1]

So let me get this straight:

1. Some PPC software can be emulated with Rosetta, the rest will have to be tweaked and recompiled to run on X86.

2. Windows software will still require VPC to run on Intel Macs, but VPC will probably get much faster since hardware emulation won't be necessary anymore. My question here is will some companies just write one Windows version of their software and make Mac users emulate it? Since emulation will probably be almost as fast as native, I can really see this happening, which would such for Mac users.

3. Intel OS X software, including the system itself, will still require an Intel Mac and won't run on Windows machines. However, just like #2, OS X emulation on Windows will probably get a lot faster because the hardware won't have to be emulated. Will there be an official product like Virtual Mac that will let users do this?

Most important: What about programming for the Mac now? Will Obj-C and Cocoa still be the way to write native apps? This is so confusing!

The answer to all of your questions is yes. You have it. And yes Cocoa and Obj-C still will run on IntelMac.

 

[nrd]

I'm sure it and 64 bit support will be forthcoming.

But do you really think it'll be Itanium? I wouldn't be surprised if the PowerMacs are offered in both PPC and Intel flavors for a short period. If all you need to do is click the Intel checkbox and compile, I'd assume you can make your Universal (oh come on, they're fat) binaries on one machine. If that's the case, there's still some usability in existing PPC machines.

 

[bosrs1]

Well, I'm using a 5 year old powerbook now, and running Tiger.
If I buy a £2500 system tomorrow, I'm going to want it to be up-to-date in 5 years' time AT LEAST!
I would hope that 5 years is the amount of a Mac say remain "up-to-date" software-wise, and will last longer than that if you "freeze" the OS, and simply upgrade apps.

You're lucky. I've never had a computer (even a Mac) last 5 years. And I wouldn't expect one to either. I upgrade every six months to two years. Anything longer and it all gets too slow.

 

[bosrs1]

But do you really think it'll be Itanium? I wouldn't be surprised if the PowerMacs are offered in both PPC and Intel flavors for a short period. If all you need to do is click the Intel checkbox and compile, I'd assume you can make your Universal (oh come on, they're fat) binaries on one machine. If that's the case, there's still some usability in existing PPC machines.

Well I know a few guys at Apple and one of them let me in on some intersting info. Apple has a team of about 500 guys working with Intel on some "proprietary" stuff like Mobos... so we may get an Apple only variant of some hardware

 

[njmac]

Trying to post questions or look for answers on this forum is getting a little cumbersome. I know it can't be helped, but I have read at least 500 posts in all of the different threads and I'm a little nervous that I'm going to post something that has been answered. Search is great if there isn't just so much information on one very specific topic.
I am just posting this here because of the confusion title of the thread. It could probably fit in about 20 different threads at this point.

 

[nrd]

So let me get this straight:
2. Windows software will still require VPC to run on Intel Macs, but VPC will probably get much faster since hardware emulation won't be necessary anymore. My question here is will some companies just write one Windows version of their software and make Mac users emulate it? Since emulation will probably be almost as fast as native, I can really see this happening, which would such for Mac users.

3. Intel OS X software, including the system itself, will still require an Intel Mac and won't run on Windows machines. However, just like #2, OS X emulation on Windows will probably get a lot faster because the hardware won't have to be emulated. Will there be an official product like Virtual Mac that will let users do this?

2: If you want to sell to the Mac market, you might as well make it native. If you don't care about the Mac, don't develop for it. I think VPC will work as a temporary fix, but in the long run you'd have to make it native OSX in order for it to be really worthwhile.

3: They could... but I think there's going to be some OpenFirmware and other hardware restrictions. It won't be that easy.

And don't forget the clause that Mac OS X can only legally be run on Apple branded hardware.

 

[bosrs1]

2: If you want to sell to the Mac market, you might as well make it native. If you don't care about the Mac, don't develop for it. I think VPC will work as a temporary fix, but in the long run you'd have to make it native OSX in order for it to be really worthwhile.

3: They could... but I think there's going to be some OpenFirmware and other hardware restrictions. It won't be that easy.

And don't forget the clause that Mac OS X can only legally be run on Apple branded hardware.

Actually that is the ONLY bad thing I can find about this move. It seems open firmware dies with the PPC. Intel Macs won't support it.

 

[nrd]

Actually that is the ONLY bad thing I can find about this move. It seems open firmware dies with the PPC. Intel Macs won't support it.

So it's going to be BIOS/CMOS for the Mac? There will have to be some kind of hardware protection to prevent the use of OS X on white-box x86 machines and to prevent the use of unstable hardware.

(Aside: everyone critiques Windows for crashing all the time. That was the case under 9x/Me, but I used to run 2000 and I rarely got a BSOD. It was only when I got a new PCI card cheap from a computer show or when my one hard drive died on me. Otherwise, Windows 2000 was relatively stable. It never got an uptime like my Mac, but it was far from being unusable.)

 

[bosrs1]

So it's going to be BIOS/CMOS for the Mac? There will have to be some kind of hardware protection to prevent the use of OS X on white-box x86 machines and to prevent the use of unstable hardware.

(Aside: everyone critiques Windows for crashing all the time. That was the case under 9x/Me, but I used to run 2000 and I rarely got a BSOD. It was only when I got a new PCI card cheap from a computer show or when my one hard drive died on me. Otherwise, Windows 2000 was relatively stable. It never got an uptime like my Mac, but it was far from being unusable.)

I wouldn't doubt it runs on a BIOS client of some kind. Probably an Apple designed one though. And you are right about them being MORE stable. However PCs still have stability issues. However my P4 2.8 I use at work hasn't given me much trouble. Not like my POS Windows ME machine used to.

 

[ravenvii]

I wonder what will replace Open Firmware for Intel Macs? Our old friend, the BIOS?

I wonder about how "normal" Apple's motherboards will be. Hopefully (and probably) they will use Intel's (very g ood) chipsets. If that is so, I wonder if it's upgradeable like regular PCs? Of course we'll have to make sure the sockets match, but other than that, it'll be fiarly easy to upgrade the CPU - just buy one off New Egg and bam faster Mac! Wow, that's just ****ing awesome to think about...

Finally, I agree with that poster above who said 5 years is too long to expect the system to stay "current". I am on a every 2 or 3 years upgrade circle. After five years, the machine is just OLD. Usable, but I wouldn't want to be stuck on it.

 

[bosrs1]

I wonder what will replace Open Firmware for Intel Macs? Our old friend, the BIOS?

I wonder about how "normal" Apple's motherboards will be. Hopefully (and probably) they will use Intel's (very g ood) chipsets. If that is so, I wonder if it's upgradeable like regular PCs? Of course we'll have to make sure the sockets match, but other than that, it'll be fiarly easy to upgrade the CPU - just buy one off New Egg and bam faster Mac! Wow, that's just ****ing awesome to think about...

Finally, I agree with that poster above who said 5 years is too long to expect the system to stay "current". I am on a every 2 or 3 years upgrade circle. After five years, the machine is just OLD. Usable, but I wouldn't want to be stuck on it.

I don't know anyone who keeps a mcahine much longer then 2 years...

 

[mauly]

You're lucky. I've never had a computer (even a Mac) last 5 years. And I wouldn't expect one to either. I upgrade every six months to two years. Anything longer and it all gets too slow.

I know this is a silly question to many - But, what do you mean by slow - the computer literally becomes slow or because of new software thats more hungry for power that it becomes slow?

I just ask because right now my iMac is perfect and runs FCE good enough for me!! and when I get 2gig of ram, wow. If its fast enough for me now, surely it will be fast enough for me in 3/4 years time???

 

[bosrs1]

I know this is a silly question to many - But, what do you mean by slow - the computer literally becomes slow or because of new software thats more hungry for power that it becomes slow?

I just ask because right now my iMac is perfect and runs FCE good enough for me!! and when I get 2gig of ram, wow. If its fast enough for me now, surely it will be fast enough for me in 3/4 years time???

It might be for you, but I want my computer to pop. I always upgrade every second Rev. That's why I went from a Dual 1.8 to the Dual 2.7. The only computer I haven't swapped out yet and may never is my PB 12". It was my first "new" Mac and it's just been beyond a dream for me. The only problem it's had was that the case bent when I dropped it, which I then fixed by bending it back myself.