Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It has already been three months since Apple last refreshed their computer line. And I'm just talking about the computers- desktops, laptops only.

The most recent release was 8 November 2006. If there isn't a new product release/refresh on the 27th of February, then the earliest would be the 6th of March, four entire months without a computer refresh. And the 27th to me is doubtful, because of :apple:tv shipping.

I really hope there is a refresh of some sort before Leopard is even announced. Mac mini refresh, anyone? Or even iMac...


So would four months be the longest Apple has gone without a computer refresh? (They have released airport extreme, new shuffles in these 3.4 months, but I am only talking about computers). How long have they gone if not four months? Gosh, four months sounds like an eternity, doesn't it?

March = Leopard and other software updates. April will bring MacPros and Displays, me hopes. May probably new iPods? June the iPhone...

-=|Mgkwho

Who cares about their computer line?
 
The applications indeed get bigger with PPC and x86, both in 32bit and 64bit versions. But OSX is smart enough only to load what fits best for your system. The Universal Binary is still very useful when you use your backed up applications on an older PPC Mac, it all just works. The only bad thing is, that applications use more space on your hard drive, there are tools to remove the PPC or Intel versions tho, but in my opinion, I wouldn't do that just to save one or 2 GB on my hard drive. Binaries are small, libraries are big, but those are cross-architecture anyway.

Exactly, so there should be no performance hit at all, other than the miniscule amount of time it takes to decide which code section to load.

Most applications probably won't even bother differentiating between 64-bit and 32-bit.

64-bit MacOS (both PPC and x86) should very happily run 32-bit userland processes natively. And for most applications I wouldn't expect that there'd be any noticeable performance hit in doing so.

Unless you've got a lot of number crunching to do, there just isn't a compelling reason to spring for the increased development time and storage-size overhead of pushing out a 4-arch binary.

It won't be long before a developer can reasonably not include 32-bit code. My iMac has a 32-bit processor, but I think by the end of this year all Macs will be shipping with 64-bit processors (I think the MacBooks and minis are still using Core Duos, which are 32-bit, right?). So especially for those applications that need 64-bit numbers and such (scientific and such), you could ship only 64-bit PPC and x86, and forget about the 32-bit versions, assuming that your customers would have recent 64-bit machines. But for the general software market, we'll have to support 32-bit systems for a while yet, but that market doesn't really have much use for 64-bit apps.

Apple will have to keep supporting 32-bit systems in the OS for a long time, I'm guessing until around 2012 (that gives at least 5 years support for the 32-bit Macs they are selling right now).

I hope Apple continues to encourage PPC binaries though. Maybe someday there will be a compelling reason for Apple to switch back to PPC, or sell both PPC and x86 systems. If all apps are released with support for both, then switching back and forth whenever needed would be almost painless.
 
It won't be long before a developer can reasonably not include 32-bit code. My iMac has a 32-bit processor, but I think by the end of this year all Macs will be shipping with 64-bit processors (I think the MacBooks and minis are still using Core Duos, which are 32-bit, right?).

Not quite right. The only 32-bit machines in the current Apple line-up are the Core Duo in the Mini and the Pentium-M in the AppleTV. (iPhone is probably 32-bit too, but it's not shipping yet, and doesn't really count for this sort of thing.)

The mini will probably get bumped to Core2/Santa Rosa when Leopard comes out, just so Steve can brag about a 64-bit OS, and 64-bit computers all across the product line.
 
LOL, you know what...I was thinking exactly the same thing. I spent £2100 (that's over 4000USD to my American friends) in January. I convinced myself that would all I would spend on toys this year, but there are so many other toys I'm hearing about it's gonna hurt!

wow that is my salary
 
Yes, I agree that it makes more sense in that particular configuration. But, consider that your average user (the home user that would benefit from this most) is not likely to have external hard drive's plugged into their iMac. The more stuff we pile on our desks, the less Apple's iMac lives-up to the marketing Apple gives it.

I think if someone buys the iMac for the pure elegance (as Apple markets it), then the idea of additional cables and drives is less appealing.

For someone like myself, it just means devoting a drive to hold files that I've already decided I don't want. But, I guess we all have our preferences.

Are you making movies? Are you rendering 3d modeling? How many extra drives could you need? I think ONE external drive would solve your "problems" and the elegance of the iMac would be the same. And if you need more power you would not buy the iMac in the first place, instead the Mac Pro would be the choice. It's just one external disk. I don't see much trouble...
 
Even with an external hard drive, there would be little cable clutter. All you'd have is the FW cable and the power cable for the drive itself (provided it's a 3.5" drive). For anyone who would require the extra space 1 or 2 extra cables is hardly a big deal and still keeps your desk pretty clear of computer spaghetti.
The average home user might not need an external drive at all. An iMac with 120+gigabytes would probably go throughout its service life with only 50% capacity filled with an average user, who would most likely fill up their computer with pictures and music rather than lots of ripped DVD's and big applications to create and edit much larger files, which would probably call for a more powerful more configurable machine like the aforementioned Mac Pro anyway.
I don't see how iMacs would fail to live up to Apple's marketing claims just because some extra peripherals are tied into it. By this logic, printers, scanners, your keyboard and mouse, any external equipment for music (keyboards, guitars etc.), and even your docked iPod would "ruin" this idealized vision of computerized elegance because they all require cables to connect to your computer.

I think I'll test drive a few computers in the Apple store when Leopard comes out just to get a feel for the different functions before I actually purchase it. I'm glad that 10.5 has a vastly better pricepoint than Vista, which has a near basic-level PC price for anyone who is not eligible for the upgrade program.
 
Ok, I'm not sure where or if I posted this question, but I don't see it any where lol (yes, the blond is natural). As an ex-Windows user, I used to run Windows on PC's that I custom built myself (my last PC was a 3.0 gHtz Intel processor with a Soundblaster Audigy 2ZS, 8 gig RAM, nVidia video card, 2 optical drives, etc.). I switched to Macs over four years ago, and will never look back...

Now, I've read that some Mac Pro users have been able to swap out the Intel Dual Core processors for their new Quad Core cousins. I know that PC's with compatible chip sockets can be upgraded. When Mac switched to Intel processors, did they also change the motherboard (aka "logicboard" in Mac lingo)? If so, are the new boards used in Intel Mac's technically upgradeable? As a Dual 2.66 dual core Mac Pro user and someone who knows their way around a machine, are Macs technically PC hardware or is it still unique to Apple? :confused:

...anyone... anyone... Bueller?
 
Are you making movies? Are you rendering 3d modeling? How many extra drives could you need? I think ONE external drive would solve your "problems" and the elegance of the iMac would be the same. And if you need more power you would not buy the iMac in the first place, instead the Mac Pro would be the choice. It's just one external disk. I don't see much trouble...

Well, yes, I do use the computer to make movies.

But, I was speaking purely hypothetical regarding the elegance Apple promotes.

I don't mind the cables. I refuse to use wireless. That's the first thing I disable if I cannot physically remove it.

The point I was making, is that Apple sells the iMac by praising how few cables there are. They show it using bluetooth keyboards and mice. They even tend to show it from a view point that doesn't show the lonely power cable.

The whole marketing thing is to push you on it's simple, elegant, and uncluttered design. But, when you start adding external devices, that changes. Suddenly, you have an additional box on the desk (the hard drive), another power cable, and another data cable.

But, yes, as the other poster mentioned, there is always the networked drive option. But, then I need an empty closet (and all mine are full :confused: ).

I personally wouldn't care if there were a few additional drives on my desk. But others surely would.

As it is, on my desk is:

a Mac Mac Mini G4
an external firewire drive
a PC tower
a scanner
a printer
my speakers
two keyboards
two mice
and 3 LCD monitors (19-inch wide-screen, 15-inch, and 17-inch)
my electric stapler, and a bunch of papers.

Specs of all the above left-out for simplicity.

And, that's just the desk I'm sitting at right now. That doesn't include the other ones in the house.

So, a few cables don't bother me. The main point was that I know it would bother others since the external accessories would complicate their desk with more wires and cables and devices than they had intended when they purchased the iMac.
 
Backing up is easy. What's so amazing about Time Machine is the way you restore.

If all we end up getting in Leopard is Time Machine (I can back my data up VERY easily at the moment thank you),

Most users do a very poor backups. If they do it at all all they do is simply make an exact copy of their disk, over writing the last full image copy. This is far from optimal and not as safe as they think. The major problem is that if a file is lost or corrupt you mostly don't know it, until you try to use it and can't. So you go to your backup but if you've been doing full image backups all you will have is the same. A backup of junk is junk. What you want is a history of the file system with all the changes you made so you can go back to the time hen it wa last good, even if that was 30 backup cycles ago.

Profesionals have known this for many decades and always implement some kind of rotating incremental backup system. But the concept of an incremental is to complex for most home uses so that make full image backups and hve no way to recover a file that was delted months ago or to recover a paragraph from a Word document that was deleted by acident four backup cycles ago.

Time Machine will make the correct method easy for the average user. If all that Leopard has is this one feature it will be worth the upgrade price. Why? Good backup software costs as least asmuch as Leopard will cost.

But we do know that Leopard will have other features. There is talk about Apple "borrowing" two features from Solaris "DTrace" and "ZFS". These are major features that put OS X is the Big Leagues

The rest of the "features" may just be "fluff" like changing some minor user interface stuff around and using different colors and what not. And some incremental changes
 
....consider that your average user (the home user that would benefit from this most) is not likely to have external hard drive's plugged into their iMac. The more stuff we pile on our desks, the less Apple's iMac lives-up to the marketing Apple gives it.

I think this is why Apple added the ability to plug in USB disk to the new Airport Extreme router. The router is the best place for your backup disks to live. Many Mac users have more than one Mac. It would be best to keep all the backups in one remote place.

Now that noteboks are outselling desktops yu really don't want external drives plugged in. ou want you external to be wireless.

My plan is to attach either 500GB or 1TB to the router for use by Time machine and then periodically "clone" that drive and rotate it to an off site location.
 
I think this is why Apple added the ability to plug in USB disk to the new Airport Extreme router. The router is the best place for your backup disks to live. Many Mac users have more than one Mac. It would be best to keep all the backups in one remote place.

Now that noteboks are outselling desktops yu really don't want external drives plugged in. ou want you external to be wireless.

My plan is to attach either 500GB or 1TB to the router for use by Time machine and then periodically "clone" that drive and rotate it to an off site location.

Yes, I agree with you there.

But, now it remains to be seen as to how easy it is to gain access to information on the WiFi network. I'd hate to just hand my neighbors the keys. And, at least locally, the security of WiFi isn't proving difficult to get past. The local news is doing drive-by WiFi tests to report and hopefully awaken the people.
 
Yes, I agree with you there.

But, now it remains to be seen as to how easy it is to gain access to information on the WiFi network. I'd hate to just hand my neighbors the keys. And, at least locally, the security of WiFi isn't proving difficult to get past. The local news is doing drive-by WiFi tests to report and hopefully awaken the people.

WPA2 should be pretty safe, of course anything can be broken but WPA2 at least not by anyone driving by or your neighbor casually.
 
11.0 Felix

They're gonna stick with the Cat thing

hmm...maybe 11.0 Ocelot


Given the rate at which apple is coming out with these ads though, I personally can't wait to see what ads they cook up for leopard v. vista. That will be great.:D
 
hmm...maybe 11.0 Ocelot


Given the rate at which apple is coming out with these ads though, I personally can't wait to see what ads they cook up for leopard v. vista. That will be great.:D

Have you seen the commercial with 2 Lions talking to each other about taco bell or something ?

Visualize : Cartoon characters.

A "leopard" sitting on a hill with a female sitting there over looking a "Vista"

The girl says to the Leopard "Hi,I'm a PC"
The Leopard says "Hi,I'm a Mac".Then gobbles her up :D
 
Wow, this is the first I've heard such comments -- could you elaborate on what feels sluggish on Intel Macs that doesn't on PowerPC?

I know I have to reboot my machine far more often than my colleague with a G4 powerbook does. Having said that it's far, far less than I have to reboot my office windows machine
 
I'm not looking forward to this at all... Too many products launched too close together. Doesn't bode well for the wallet...

I would have to agree, I still owe people lots of money, bills to pay, Leopard being released, iPhone not to far away :eek:
 
thundercats.png


Lion-O



Snarf
 
Most users do a very poor backups. If they do it at all all they do is simply make an exact copy of their disk, over writing the last full image copy. This is far from optimal and not as safe as they think. The major problem is that if a file is lost or corrupt you mostly don't know it, until you try to use it and can't. So you go to your backup but if you've been doing full image backups all you will have is the same. A backup of junk is junk. What you want is a history of the file system with all the changes you made so you can go back to the time hen it wa last good, even if that was 30 backup cycles ago.

At $30, Chronosync is a lot cheaper than Leopard :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.