Mac OS X Intel Developer Box Feedback

[Jon the Heretic]

You've got it

Two very simple reasons:
1) Hardware eventual breaks and can no longer be repaired.
2) Maintaining an extra set of hardware is cost inefficient.

It is better to simply have the new hardware run the old software. If everytime Apple brought out a new piece of hardware it required completely new software and would not run any of the old software you would be pretty pissed. Sure, they could say to you, just keep running the old hardware for the old software, but you would not find that an acceptible solution.
<snip>
To give you a small example, imagine if every time you bought a new audio player you had to rebuy all your music - oh, yeah! The RIAA is trying to make that a reality... Okay, how about movies, imagine every few years you have to repopulate your entire movie library in a new format. That would really piss me off if I could no longer play the 1,400 VHS movies I have.
<snip>

This is an excellent analogy. Since I imagine a few of the young uns (the ones here who appear to have no responsibilities and all of that disposable income they are so willing to part with) probably barely remember VHS tapes, you can even use DVDs for a more recent example (and it is more akin to Classic compatibility since there is no overt physical platform change...my VHS won't fit into my DVD player etc.):

The day has arrived and all of your favorite movies are on HD DVD (or Blu Ray, whatever). You buy your first player and a few new HD titles on HD DVD. They are brilliant, sharp, everything you expected. But then you decide to pop in a CD for some music...Hmm, disk unreadable. Ok, how about a DVD (480p in HD parlance), same error message. What's up? You call Japanco and ask how come only HD DVD disks work. You learn that HD DVDs are in a completely new format ---which you already knew---with a complete new blue laser---which you already knew, and that Japanco thinks it makes sense for you to buy all new music in the new HD DVD-Audio format and all new HD DVD movies....and slyly they mention, "you can just keep your old DVD player and run it side by side your 8-track, cassette player, record player, betamax, and VHS recorder." Furthermore, since the same chipsets are used throughout the industry, all new HD DVD players have the same limitation, and they cite the cost of including a red laser along with a blue as "too prohibitive", the lack of adequate copy protection on "legacy" media, and of course, left unsaid, the greed of Apple, I mean, the RIAA, who would actually prefer you to buy all new movies and music. There is nothing like planned obsolescence to make a platform seem more alive that it really is.

You got a problem with that? This is an emotion reaction. Do you REALLY expect Japanco to support reading of CD technology that was invented back in the 1980s? Jeesh, that was like last MILLENIUM! And DVD movies....over 10 years old. 70% of your old titles are now on HD DVD, so go max out your credit card like a good little (brainless) consumer. Ask yourself, why is it you want HD DVD, and then you can thank me later...

 

[dcollierp]

Maybe Micrsoft is the one who should be worried here. If OS X was ported for intel/AMD boxes then people will have a choice of which OS and I think that might be good for Apple. The only problem is that I'm not sure Steve would like his OS running on just any old Dell.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Had that thought but not sure

Maybe Micrsoft is the one who should be worried here. If OS X was ported for intel/AMD boxes then people will have a choice of which OS and I think that might be good for Apple. The only problem is that I'm not sure Steve would like his OS running on just any old Dell.

I've wondered about that. But I don't think MS is going to lose any sleep over whether someone can spend 20% to 50% than a Dell at the same clockspeed just for the option of running MacOS X (from their perspective, being able to run XP or Longhorn being the base comparison).

I do think this will help some consumers (not a lot, but some) and some business (not a lot, but some) who can argue they DID buy Windows-compatible hardware, and can use that reasoning to sneak a few Macs into their homes or businesses.

On the other hand, the switch to Intel is NOT a switch to commodity pricing. You are in dreamland if you believe that. I am just wondering if the prices for the Intel systems will drop at all; they might, but probably not at the rate of the industry. Heck, you can buy a *complete* crapo PC for the price of some software (such as a new Office license). Even the Mac mini is overpriced in comparison. (Personal note: stating an opinion about the industry. not about the relative value of Mac minis compared to Crapco PCs.)

Apple could really only take on MS if they *became* another Microsoft---a software-only provider of an OS on any taker's standard hardware, a formula that utterly failed for NeXT and didn't even work well for Apple with its limited foray into clones. Microsoft's position as a monopoly protects it from this sort of challenge from other OS providers, and they are in such a good position, that even if you gave away a superior OS for FREE it would still lose: Linux for example...

 

[AidenShaw]

Heck, you can buy a *complete* crapo PC for the price of some software (such as a new Office license). Even the Mac mini is overpriced in comparison.

Or even name brand PCs.

HP Laptop $599

HP Desktop $249

...even if you gave away a superior OS for FREE it would still lose: Linux for example...

Try to convince your mother or grandmother that Linux is superior....

Try to convince a lot of companies that "kernel version hell" is superior to "DLL hell"....

 

[aegisdesign]

Our business has GIGABYTES of data in older formats. Our customer datases, accounting system, billing system, books we have published, magazines we have published and a lot more. If Apple won't support Classic on their new hardware and OS then I won't be buying either. That loses sales for Apple and pisses off the customers. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and OSs. Losing sales of legacy customers is a bad move. There a huge number of people with legacy data and applications. This isn't some little problem that goes away - the data is needed for decades or longer.

So which applications are these?

Maybe the Apple community here can help you move them on to OSX applications.

 

[aegisdesign]

b) the cost for Intel chips should be way lower than IBM chips; this could pave the way to MMP Mactels: Massively Multi-Processing towers... Imagine a 4, 8 or even 16 processors tower; with cheap dual-core CPUs and a decently revised version of OS X and Xcode compiler, Intel-based Mac towers would have nothing to envy from IBM chips, regardless of any breakthrough.

Apple has to focus on the bang for the buck factor. Apple computers should always be more expensive than other PCs, but this means they should be significantly better at everything; something that is currently more than arguable... Let's face it, Mac OS X is the only real reason Apple computers are superior, which shouldn't be. Do you know what you can get at $2999 for a PC? Compare this to the stock 512 MBs dual 2.7 GHz G5s or even worse, compare Quad Opterons to G5 xServes, and tell me Apple doesn't NEED to up the ante. We need something BIG regarding performance increase, let's hope it's the Mactels!

I don't think that is actually true.

Dual Core Opteron 275s cost around $1300.

Dual Core Xeons aren't out yet but the 3.6Ghz single is $900

Prices from Pricegrabber. So those are retail prices. But top end processors from Intel and AMD always cost a fortune.

IBM G5s use a quarter of the transistor count so cost less to produce. IBM sell entire Bladecenter servers with two G5s in for sub $2000 for instance, cheaper than their comparable Opteron blades.

You won't see PowerMac prices drop because Intel CPUs are cheaper - they just simply aren't. Pentium 4s are but those don't really compete with the fastest G5s - you have to compare against Xeon and Opteron.

At the 'low' end, the 7448, which has been sampling since February, is $100 for orders of 10,000 according to Freescale.

You can bet Apple gets a good deal on it's CPU orders, no matter who from, but the CPU isn't necessarily the expensive component in the price of a computer. Apple spends more on it's cases for instance and also takes a higher margin out of each sale. That won't change.

People shouldn't compare econobox PCs and laptops with Apple's offerings - the comparison just isn't fair when you look at the components and build of a Mac.

 

[Photorun]

So which applications are these?

Maybe the Apple community here can help you move them on to OSX applications.

Maybe you should switch back to typewriters and abacuses? It'll be hard to get more ribbons for the typewriters but the abacuses I think you can get some guy in Jersey to whittle you the little wood round things with the numbers on them.

 

[sunwarrior]

I remember some people were posting about how Intel chips sucks few weeks ago. I wonder if they'll or have already "switch".

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Lemmings

I remember some people were posting about how Intel chips sucks few weeks ago. I wonder if they'll or have already "switch".

Yup, some folks are lemmings, agreeing with Apple's directions even when they decide to point the opposite direction after talking about how great the original direction was.

The current Mac power community is very UNMac-like in character, when compared to power users of 8 or 9 years ago. Some complete reversals in viewpoints since the Second Coming of Jobs:

* CLIs are bad, the very essence of bad user interface design---became: I rarely use the Terminal but Oh How Wonderful and Liberating to have it.

* PowerPCs are advanced RISC chips and Intel x86 CISC chips are badly designed crap kept alive only by massive R&D efforts by Intel---became: PowerPC is too expensive and slow compared to the amazing, advanced, cheap, lower-power Intel chips with a GREAT future ahead of them.

* 64-bit computing is the future. Ha, ha, Intel is still 32-bit, became: Sure, Intel doesn't have it now, but they will; besides, who really needs it? Snort.

* MacOS 9.x may be crusty under the hood, but boy the UI is the world's best---became: Boy, 9.x is so dated, I can't wait to get back to my NeXT-derived MacOS X UI.

* The Mac's spatial Finder is the most amazing piece of UI work ever done. NeXT users salivate when they think they may get a truly good desktop experience---became: The NeXT-derived MacOS X Finder with its multi-column traversing replaces the dated, crusty old "spatial metaphor" with the far superior "browser" approach more appropriate for children of the computer age. Who needs a stinkin' real-world metaphor to understand more complex systems? Leave them complex; it's better that way.

* The Mac's backward compatibility is best in the industry. Heck, I can run 68K programs from the early 80s and they just work---became: I hate Classic and think it should die even for those who depend on it. Everyone should buy all new software every few years anyway, if not more often.

Heck, I chuckle when I hear a lemming applaud Apple for *taking a feature away* (not including a new and better feature, but simply removing one, to save themselves--not the consumer--a few bucks). Suddenly leadership is about NOT doing something instead of actually DOING something. Examples, include dropping Classic support, serial ports, and even the venerable floppy drive. (Re: floppies---I have no problem with Apple dropping these per se and requiring those who needed them to buy USB units, which is what I did, but it is NOT leadership to have done so. It is cost cutting. You don't lead by taking away function useful to some. Moreover, they didn't replace the floppy---cheap removable storage---with ANYthing. They told us that we didn't need removable storage and should use iDisks and other computers to back up on. This was complete and utter BS. It was YEARS before Apple actually did come up with a real strategy---CD-RW and DVD-R drives being nearly standard in new Macs---with tens of thousands of Macs being sold that had no removable storage at all in the interim. Sure, floppies are nearly useless for most folks, but to lead, they needed to replace it with standard optical rewritables for all new Macs and have done so right away, not years afterwards. That would be forward thinking, rather than just cheap.)

 

[mwpeters8182]

I think it's because you're seeing a lot of people switch over from the windows and 'nix world. These were the people that didn't enjoy using classic Mac OS - while I didn't mind it, it wasn't my preference. For example, I'm pretty sure most of us don't miss having to turn virtual memory on and off to run certain programs, or alloting different amounts of memory to programs manually.

I've always liked the Mac philosophy, and the user community. And I really, really like Mac OS X. We'll see where this Intel switch takes things.

 

[Surreal]

blanket statements about how everyone has become a turncoat are not all too useful.

i know that i am very much hopeful for a new powerbook with intel inside because i want the faster fronside bus. i wanted a G5 in the powerbooks for the same reason. Now the g5 doesnt seem so plausible though..so i now wait for an intel powerbook.

while i will admit that the 970mp confuses the issue now that it is out, it is not hard to believe that Intels roadmap might provide processors more closely suited to what apple wants in it's computers. what i am confused about here is that people are ONLY looking at SHEER processor speed. not the architecture the chip entails. one of the biggest improvements of the G5 Processor was the architecture. front side bus at half of each processors speed...cache...64 so that 8 gb of ram can be addressed...etc. in THAT sense intel very well could be ahead.

i am sad at the prospect of losing Target disk mode because of the switch from open firmware to pheonix bios. and i REALLY hope they keep firewire 400 AND 800. the g5 is a GREAT Processor...a monster for audio because of it's sheer number crunching ability..and i might buy a tower before the end of the year...but i can still hope that the intel switch will be wothwhile for me.

IBM seems to have been on a different schedule than apple. for whatever reason. maybe intel wont be.

 

[Eric5h5]

i am sad at the prospect of losing Target disk mode because of the switch from open firmware to pheonix bios.

There's no reason to think that the consumer machines will be using a Phoenix BIOS. They might, but I doubt it. Apple could very well use a custom BIOS, with target disk mode and stuff....

--Eric

 

[Multimedia]

Apple Bios Is Likely

There's no reason to think that the consumer machines will be using a Phoenix BIOS. They might, but I doubt it. Apple could very well use a custom BIOS, with target disk mode and stuff....

--Eric

I would be more surprised if Apple didn't create their own bios.

 

[AidenShaw]

or customized 3rd party BIOS

I would be more surprised if Apple didn't create their own bios.

It's not uncommon for the 3rd party BIOS vendors to do custom BIOS implementations for OEMs.

So, Phoenix (or another vendor) could be paid to add target disk mode and other Apple features to the core BIOS.

If Apple does a deal with Intel to use Intel motherboards, they could also contract a custom BIOS from Intel.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

i am sad at the prospect of losing Target disk mode because of the switch from open firmware to pheonix bios.

I'm sure that whatever BIOS/Firmware Apple uses will retain and/or increase the functionality that exists today. Anything else would be un-Apple-like!

and i REALLY hope they keep firewire 400 AND 800.

They have no reason not to. How else would you import video as easily as with Firewire? Besides, USB and Firewire are two different architectures, each with their own merits. Firewire is a peer-to-peer bus, while USB is master-slave. I don't see them getting rid of either of them.

IBM seems to have been on a different schedule than apple. for whatever reason. maybe intel wont be.

IBM really had no interest in actively developing the POWER4 chips. Apple was pretty much the only customer of PowerPC 970 chips. With the switch to x86 architecture comes access to a more competitive processor market that is being more actively developed and a choice between Intel and AMD. It can only work in Apple's favor.

 

[jhu]

IBM really had no interest in actively developing better PowerPC chips. Apple was pretty much the only customer of PowerPC 970 chips. With the switch to x86 architecture comes access to a more competitive processor market that is being more actively developed and a choice between Intel and AMD. It can only work in Apple's favor.

ibm does have a vested interest in developing powerpc but just not in the direction that apple wants. besides, ibm uses the 970 in their own servers.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

ibm does have a vested interest in developing powerpc but just not in the direction that apple wants.

Exactly. That direction happens to be cell, which is used in the Playstation 3's seven-unit processor, and the POWER5 architecture that the Xbox 360 uses for it's tricore PPC chip.

The trouble is that both of these are different from each other, and different from the PowerPC 970 family. So Apple would likely have to recompile for this, and make a Rosetta for it, and really, it isn't worth their while. Cell is great for games and repetitive SIMD-ish tasks, but difficult to implement for personal computers, and the POWER5 family (xbox 360 and current IBM PPC servers) is difficult to scale for laptops. It also isn't worth IBM's while to carry on the PowerPC 970 (POWER4) line, which they have phased out of their servers in favor of the POWER5 architecture. Thusly, Apple and IBM go their seperate ways.

 

[jhu]

Exactly. That direction happens to be cell, which is used in the Playstation 3's seven-unit processor, and the POWER5 architecture that the Xbox 360 uses for it's tricore PPC chip.

The trouble is that both of these are different from each other, and different from the PowerPC 970 family. So Apple would likely have to recompile for this, and make a Rosetta for it, and really, it isn't worth their while. Cell is great for games and repetitive SIMD-ish tasks, but difficult to implement for personal computers, and the POWER5 family (xbox 360 and current IBM PPC servers) is difficult to scale for laptops. It also isn't worth IBM's while to carry on the PowerPC 970 (POWER4) line, which they have phased out of their servers in favor of the POWER5 architecture. Thusly, Apple and IBM go their seperate ways.

ibm's power everywhere initiative isn't necessarily tied into one particular architecture. power would be in the high end (hpc, servers, etc) with cell and other derivatives in the lower end (set-top boxes, cars, video game machines). that leaves the small middle portion that was occupied by apple. so now the power architecture no longer has a viable middle portion. however, ibm still uses the powerpc chips they designed in their lower-end workstations and servers. higher end workstations and servers use power4 and power5. also, i don't think the xenon shares much with power5 other than the similarities with smt.