Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel iMac Sales Sluggish?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yvan256 said:
HandBrake won't be noticed if it runs under Rosetta? I'm not going to notice that it takes 10 hours to encode a movie instead of 1?
bankshot said:
Even if you have no intention whatsoever to make your application run on Intel Macs, you still have to move over from CodeWarrior. Why? CodeWarrior is officially dead. There is no support. There will be no bugfixes. There will be no updates. If you hire a new developer and need another copy of CodeWarrior, you have the choice of pirating it or buying one on eBay.
budugu said:Simply shows that you never wrote a single line of Code. 7 months to port a huge software from carbon (c based) to cocoa (objective-c/Java) is not simple. over that there are lots of very minute things like threading issues, libraries, even application control flow, retraining of the people, quality testing and what not?. More over they have to replan (especially for the future) as to what else apple might pull out of their ass the next corner. More over intel will go full 64 bit in 6 months + half of tiger (BSD part) is 64 bit, the UI is 32 bit!
You would have to be a complete moron to move your codebase from Carbon to Cocoa. To move an application to Intel, the steps are: 1. Move it MacOS X (if you haven't done so). 2. Make sure it runs as a MacOS X 10.4 application - there is no MacOS X 10.3 or 10.2 on Intel. 3. Move your projects to XCode. This would be a problem if you need external libraries without source code, otherwise no problem. 4. Fix all byteorder issues.
What you say about 64 bit is garbage. One way to handle 64 bit is to _completely ignore it_. Unless your users are screaming that 2 GB of data is not enough.
Edge100 said:This is my EXACT feeling, so I'm the same boat. I wont buy a G5 iMac, because its "2x slower", but I can't buy an Intel iMac, because I can't get Logic, Ableton Live, Reason, and a ton of Audiounits plug-ins to run on it.
Now I'm really forced to wait until the apps start appearing, because I want to get the fastest machine I can at the time of purchase.
I can't really blame Apple. I know they needed to make this change, and I knew it would be difficult. But I didnt know it would affect me so much!
Just a thought - why do you want to buy an iMac for your "Pro" apps? If you want your pro apps, buy the pro machine. Apple has not and probably will not claim that the iMac is their professional grade desktop, so why are we all bent out of shape that it can't run their pro apps.
The iMac is a CONSUMER grade desktop, and the CONSUMER apps that Apple has apparently ran just fine on them. Seems like your in the wrong market.
or unless your users want speed !
IMO, you'll here about OSx64 at WWDC in June - Apple can't pretend in front of its developers that 64-bit never happened, and isn't important.
Or unless your users want the 20% or so speed improvement that 64-bit gives them on the Intel system!gnasher729 said:
IMO, you'll here about OSx64 at WWDC in June - Apple can't pretend in front of its developers that 64-bit never happened, and isn't important.
ThinkSecret is Bitter, Mad, and Wrong
OK, let's look at ThinkSecret....
1. They used to be reliable, actually, too reliable. Apple sued them, but couldn't shut them down, or get the source that TS was using.
2. Now we have the MacWorld keynote, how much did ThinkSecret get right? About 10 percent. Pretty bad. They suddenly have bad information.
3. OR, do they have "misinformation" ?
4. Now Apple (or some other bogus source) is feeding them junk, OR, (more likely), the college kid that runs ThinkSecret is having a tantrum and is now going to bad mouth Apple. MacWorld was ugly for ThinkSecret, he missed it, BIG TIME.
So, basically, AppleInsider got MacWorld right, and they say this is no big deal. I think ThinkSecret has become one unreliable web site.....
Yes, there may be some disappointed people with the Intel transition, but its going to create some discomfort. By releasing machines now, it wakes up developers that it is "really going to happen soon".
OK, let's look at ThinkSecret....
1. They used to be reliable, actually, too reliable. Apple sued them, but couldn't shut them down, or get the source that TS was using.
2. Now we have the MacWorld keynote, how much did ThinkSecret get right? About 10 percent. Pretty bad. They suddenly have bad information.
3. OR, do they have "misinformation" ?
4. Now Apple (or some other bogus source) is feeding them junk, OR, (more likely), the college kid that runs ThinkSecret is having a tantrum and is now going to bad mouth Apple. MacWorld was ugly for ThinkSecret, he missed it, BIG TIME.
So, basically, AppleInsider got MacWorld right, and they say this is no big deal. I think ThinkSecret has become one unreliable web site.....
Yes, there may be some disappointed people with the Intel transition, but its going to create some discomfort. By releasing machines now, it wakes up developers that it is "really going to happen soon".
64 bit, needed for Big Enterprise Apps
64-bit is still very important.... In the Enterprise, DataBase, Scientific or Web-Hosting space.
Has Apple suddenly forgotten about XServe? Yes, Consumer apps (and toys, read iPod) are generating the revenue, but if Apple EVER wants to be taken seriously in the enterprise or a hosting platform, they need some MAJOR improvements for XServe and OS X Server.
64-bit is required for large database applications. Windows Server, Linux, AIX eats OSX lunch on stuff like this.
And why is Apache so much faster on Linux than OS X? Design? IP Stack?
So don't give up on 64-bit, but it is a just a piece to being a big time player in the high-scale space....
64-bit is still very important.... In the Enterprise, DataBase, Scientific or Web-Hosting space.
Has Apple suddenly forgotten about XServe? Yes, Consumer apps (and toys, read iPod) are generating the revenue, but if Apple EVER wants to be taken seriously in the enterprise or a hosting platform, they need some MAJOR improvements for XServe and OS X Server.
64-bit is required for large database applications. Windows Server, Linux, AIX eats OSX lunch on stuff like this.
And why is Apache so much faster on Linux than OS X? Design? IP Stack?
So don't give up on 64-bit, but it is a just a piece to being a big time player in the high-scale space....
gregarious119 said:
I'm sorry, but this argument really misses the point. The Intel iMac is MORE powerful than the MacBook Pro, but you'd NEVER make that same argument about the MBP, would you? The iMac can, and DOES, run Apple's "pro" apps just fine. MANY people make a living making music with the tools I mentioned on "consumer" grade computers.
The point is this: Apple has given me NO reason to buy right now. I wont buy the G5 ANYTHING because, like it or not, it WILL be obsolete in a few months. I know, I know, this is the way it ALWAYS works with computers, but this time I know what the future will hold. They havent lowered the prices to lure me into buying a slower computer. And there's no software for the Intel iMac, which is only Apple's fault in a peripheral sort of way, but its frustrating nevertheless.
I can, and will, run all of the "pro" apps I mentioned on a new iMac, or whatever Intel Mac meets my price/performance requirements when the software is released. Until then, I'm gonna hold on to my $$$.
To be honest, developers have had 5 years...
I know, I know, we're talking "millions of lines of code", especially with that bloatware that Microsoft writes - did they ever consider "trimming some of the fat" that had built up over the years... Dumping old, inefficient code, replacing it piecemeal over the years... When was the last MS Office for Classic released?
Sure, sure, Apple's legendary secrecy is a two-way street, and they should have given developers some inkling of what was afoot... Then, again, Microsoft is a direct competitor in the OS front, so how much can you reveal to them - "Don't worry, Steve; my left hand won't tell my right hand what you just said..."
No, Adobe, MS and the other longterm developers should have already rewritten their apps in Cocoa by the time Panther arrived on the scene in November of 2003, or at least by the time Tiger struck in Spring of 2005. I mean, take a look at Wolfram and Mathmatica - what did they say at WWDC '05, that it took a couple hours to get it working the weekend before the developer conference? And Quark, a MacOS X "latecomer" has already announced a beta of XPress - all because they had converted it to Cocoa a couple years back.
So, don't blame Apple (except for Draconian secrecy). And at WWDC '05, Steve said, "... by this time next year..." The iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro are not six months early. As for Think Secret - well, I guess I'll just have to turn on my Mac mini Core Duo DVR and record their prognostications, then watch them on my Apple 42" Plasma Viiv... Or, I can take a more "grain of salt" taste with my rumors from the more conservative & realistic people over at AppleInsider.
MacOS X has been out for 5 years now. Developers knew back then that Carbon apps "would suffice" to work in the MacOS X environment, but Cocoa was the future. It's somewhat... hmm... "pure laziness" on their parts if they hadn't already transititioned their apps to Cocoa.SiliconAddict said:
I know, I know, we're talking "millions of lines of code", especially with that bloatware that Microsoft writes - did they ever consider "trimming some of the fat" that had built up over the years... Dumping old, inefficient code, replacing it piecemeal over the years... When was the last MS Office for Classic released?
Sure, sure, Apple's legendary secrecy is a two-way street, and they should have given developers some inkling of what was afoot... Then, again, Microsoft is a direct competitor in the OS front, so how much can you reveal to them - "Don't worry, Steve; my left hand won't tell my right hand what you just said..."
No, Adobe, MS and the other longterm developers should have already rewritten their apps in Cocoa by the time Panther arrived on the scene in November of 2003, or at least by the time Tiger struck in Spring of 2005. I mean, take a look at Wolfram and Mathmatica - what did they say at WWDC '05, that it took a couple hours to get it working the weekend before the developer conference? And Quark, a MacOS X "latecomer" has already announced a beta of XPress - all because they had converted it to Cocoa a couple years back.
So, don't blame Apple (except for Draconian secrecy). And at WWDC '05, Steve said, "... by this time next year..." The iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro are not six months early. As for Think Secret - well, I guess I'll just have to turn on my Mac mini Core Duo DVR and record their prognostications, then watch them on my Apple 42" Plasma Viiv... Or, I can take a more "grain of salt" taste with my rumors from the more conservative & realistic people over at AppleInsider.
Apple has been telling developers to move to xcode for much longer than 7 months.
It doesn't surprise me that many developers ignored that advice, considering how long it took for some pro-level 3rd party apps to even ship OS X native.
But, that was their choice to ignore Apple's clear advice.
You can bet their customers will not be blaming Apple for the delay in obtaining universal binary versions of the software.
>7 months to port a huge software from carbon (c based) to cocoa (objective-c/Java) is not simple
It doesn't surprise me that many developers ignored that advice, considering how long it took for some pro-level 3rd party apps to even ship OS X native.
But, that was their choice to ignore Apple's clear advice.
You can bet their customers will not be blaming Apple for the delay in obtaining universal binary versions of the software.
>7 months to port a huge software from carbon (c based) to cocoa (objective-c/Java) is not simple
Dear Santa Jobs...
"And I want a Mac mini that is the same cute size as it is now, and, um, I want a Radeon X1600 PCI-Exp. x16 with 256MB of DDR3 VRAM, and... umm... give it a 500GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive, so I can record American Idol, and... ummm - HEY!, WAIT YOUR TURN, YOU RAT BAS@#%&! - and, umm, where was I... oh yeah, and I want Front Row 2 with DVR/TV, and, ummm, what else... oh, and give it a 2.1GHz Intel Core Duo, with 2Gigs of scremin'fast DDR2 DRAM, a built-in Airport Express, and, umm - WHAT THE F-, OOPS, SORRY, I PROMISED MOMMY I WOULDN'T USE THAT WORD - hmmmm, what was I saying, oh yeah - WHAT THE F' DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T GET ONE FOR THE SAME PRICE OR SAME SIZE AS MY OLD MAC mini? I have to pay how much!?! Boy, what kind of cruddy Santa Claus are you?!?!?... Phhhhttt!!!"
_______________________________________
People, please, get those sugar plums out of your heads, Christmas is gone like all those trees in the landfills. Dell, NEC, Acer, et al are charging "approximately" the same (add all the extras) as Apple for their Core Duo laptops, and I haven't heard any of them announcing desktop/consumer systems (yet) with the Core Duo (like Apple's newest iMac), so what makes you think that Apple can magically afford to slash its own financial jugular vein by putting the "top-end" Yonah (brand spankin' new 65nm processor tech, no less) and 5400rpm SATA drives (think 3.5", not the 2.5" the mini has now) in a "basic consumer machine" whose chief appeal (other than MacOS X's strength & elegance) is the very affordable price AND size of the masterful design... Take a chill pill and call back in 6 months, after the iMac and MacBook Pro begin migrating to Merom.
_______________________________________
PS: Santa, can I at least get a pony?
_______________________________________eme jota ce said:I'm on that list, too. I used a mac mini in my entertainment center. It was great, but I sold it b/c I believed rumors
"And I want a Mac mini that is the same cute size as it is now, and, um, I want a Radeon X1600 PCI-Exp. x16 with 256MB of DDR3 VRAM, and... umm... give it a 500GB 7200rpm SATA hard drive, so I can record American Idol, and... ummm - HEY!, WAIT YOUR TURN, YOU RAT BAS@#%&! - and, umm, where was I... oh yeah, and I want Front Row 2 with DVR/TV, and, ummm, what else... oh, and give it a 2.1GHz Intel Core Duo, with 2Gigs of scremin'fast DDR2 DRAM, a built-in Airport Express, and, umm - WHAT THE F-, OOPS, SORRY, I PROMISED MOMMY I WOULDN'T USE THAT WORD - hmmmm, what was I saying, oh yeah - WHAT THE F' DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T GET ONE FOR THE SAME PRICE OR SAME SIZE AS MY OLD MAC mini? I have to pay how much!?! Boy, what kind of cruddy Santa Claus are you?!?!?... Phhhhttt!!!"
_______________________________________
People, please, get those sugar plums out of your heads, Christmas is gone like all those trees in the landfills. Dell, NEC, Acer, et al are charging "approximately" the same (add all the extras) as Apple for their Core Duo laptops, and I haven't heard any of them announcing desktop/consumer systems (yet) with the Core Duo (like Apple's newest iMac), so what makes you think that Apple can magically afford to slash its own financial jugular vein by putting the "top-end" Yonah (brand spankin' new 65nm processor tech, no less) and 5400rpm SATA drives (think 3.5", not the 2.5" the mini has now) in a "basic consumer machine" whose chief appeal (other than MacOS X's strength & elegance) is the very affordable price AND size of the masterful design... Take a chill pill and call back in 6 months, after the iMac and MacBook Pro begin migrating to Merom.
_______________________________________
PS: Santa, can I at least get a pony?
Norse said:
That's not strictly true, "appoximately" the same can also be read as "stuffed with software that I don't want or need and have to cough up the money anyway". The argument for a Mac costing the same as any other personal computer is not that simple. While other personal computers may bundle less, the user who purchased them may not want as much anyway, or use all that much. I know plenty of people who want to buy their "boxes" plain and without any software even an operating system, and to install whatever they wish to buy or migrate from older machines they would like, if you don't take the time to learn a little about your machine to be able to do that yourself, then you have a pay a little extra in the beganing for someone else to decide for you. Some people like me consider the Mac Mini purchase directly from Apple to be a sacrifice of freedom of software bundle while having to pay an inflated price anyway.
tcmcam said:
This may have some merit. A combination of things could be true though, maybe the execs at Apple had their eye brows a bit too high on the forecast, and that the users arent' willing to make other purchases or can not make there purchases shortly after holiday season, and the product line up at apple currently do not make sense with products being 4X faster but selling concurrently with products that are equivalently 1/4th as fast at the same price, and that thinksecret may have exaggerated what they perceived as post-holiday depression...
Any linear combination of this can cause this thread...
...full article available here :
http://macspeedzone.com/html/hardware/machine/performance_in_the_raw/06/1_23.shtml
See These Disappointing Benchmarks Yet?
Reg-Hardware: Intel Macs only one fourth, not four times faster - report
and
MacWorld: First Lab Tests: iMac with Intel Core Duo processor
Intel-based iMacs are fast, but gains don’t match Apple’s claims
Post above mine proves these two "reports" significantly misleading.
Reg-Hardware: Intel Macs only one fourth, not four times faster - report
and
MacWorld: First Lab Tests: iMac with Intel Core Duo processor
Intel-based iMacs are fast, but gains don’t match Apple’s claims
Post above mine proves these two "reports" significantly misleading.
Multimedia said:
the article i linked to just above your reply takes in due consideration your linked ( infamous ) Macworld test page...
Please tell me you're joking. The Intel iMac is the most powerful Mac in existance (except for a few top G5 towers, in which case the iMac is close in what we've seen {published benchmarks}). You're making the argument that because the machine is branded an iMac it won't run pro apps as well - if not better - than a "pro" branded machine? The branding "pro" or "consumer" has nothing to do with pro performance in this case, your argument is completely moot. I challenge you to accomplish a major computing feat on a pro machine that isn't doable with comperable effort on a new iMac G5 (of course talking about universal apps, when apps go universal). The iMac will top out the MBP, the MBP is a pro machine. As the previous user stated, you'd never make that argument about the MBP, simply because it is branded as a pro machine. You're exactly what SJ looks for, seeing the name "pro" when a "consumer" machine that costs less and has more power will get the job done better - and going for the "pro" machine. As far as Apple is concerned, right now, the iMac IS the "pro" Mac of 2006. You can argue that differently in 6 months if/when great new "pro" Intel towers are released by Apple - until then - the iMac just made you her bitchgregarious119 said:
There is no excuse for piracy. CodeWarrior IS still available from MetroWerks/FreeScale online at http://www.metrowerks.com/MW/Develop/Desktop/Mac10.htm . But with no support for Intel and no updates planned, I agree that it is at the end of its life for Mac Development.gnasher729 said:
Apple store
Agree, they are completely off : At Amazon Macs occupy 9 of the ten topseller places in computers (with the ibook on top folowed by the Intel machines). The Applestore shows Intel Imacs and macbooks just before and after ipod shuffle sales !! I have never before seen any Macs even on that list!
tcmcam said:
Agree, they are completely off : At Amazon Macs occupy 9 of the ten topseller places in computers (with the ibook on top folowed by the Intel machines). The Applestore shows Intel Imacs and macbooks just before and after ipod shuffle sales !! I have never before seen any Macs even on that list!
brettbolt said:
No one said anything about piracy! Unless of course you think "buying" a copy on eBay is piracy?