Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
stephenli said:
wait....wait.....
how about classic support?! i doubt.
DTP industry still need OS9 in 2005
and still need OS9 in, at least 2006
I dont think the new machine can run classic....
Wow, I haven't used OS 9/Classic in about three years. I think development of OS 9 stopped about five years ago. I am surprised there is still any OS 9 support at this point. My guess is the next generation of Apple hardware and OS will finally stop all OS 9 support, thankfully. We need to drop that dead weight and move forward. So that we can get better features and results from OS X, like printing control and capabilities.
 
PedroDiniz said:
Hey, if Apple move to Intel, could they maybe use Itanium processors like in the new SGI Prism Deskside?
Don't know much about SGI machines but a friend really rates the hardware. Mac OS X running on a really well build intel based machine like the Prism would be nice eh?
I haven't had the chance to work on a Prism yet, but if it sucks as bad as the SGI Altix (also Itanic-based) I have at the office....

Itanium is a dead-end anyway.
 
vaslav said:
Both have 32 megs but are not the same - I would agree that the newer models generally have higher numbers, but also that Apple seems to always improve upon the technology with new machines, not go backwards. So, with that, a newer Mac with 32 megs compared to an older Mac with 32 megs should be better. It is best to check out the video card manufacture's site for specific specs on a card (in this case nvidia.com).

Most of your video card specs have to do with how fast can the video card process the graphics and things like how fast AGP, which is the interface to the rest of the computer, can transfer video data (bandwidth) to the video card to process. DDR is double data rate memory (faster) and SDRAM is just the type of RAM memory used (SDRAM is fast).

So, to sum up: More video memory is good, but also depends upon the video card processor and the interface to the computer (i.e., AGP 4x, AGP 8x, etc).

Clear as mud?


Believe it or not I think i got it. I'm a marketing guy so all I need is a little bit of knowledge , then i talk like I'm an expert and create all sorts of problems. You've created a video card monster! :D
 
sacear said:
Wow, I haven't used OS 9/Classic in about three years. I think development of OS 9 stopped about five years ago. I am surprised there is still any OS 9 support at this point.
I only moved from OS9 to OSX about 7 months ago. I could have easily continued using OS9 had I not wanted to upgrade to newer versions of some software. Lot's of companies with Macs are still using OS9. I worked at a large int'l ad agency last year and they were still using OS9 and Photoshop 6!
 
MontyZ said:
I only moved from OS9 to OSX about 7 months ago. I could have easily continued using OS9 had I not wanted to upgrade to newer versions of some software. Lot's of companies with Macs are still using OS9. I worked at a large int'l ad agency last year and they were still using OS9 and Photoshop 6!

Why? Lack of budget or resistance to change?
 
MontyZ said:
I only moved from OS9 to OSX about 7 months ago. I could have easily continued using OS9 had I not wanted to upgrade to newer versions of some software. Lot's of companies with Macs are still using OS9. I worked at a large int'l ad agency last year and they were still using OS9 and Photoshop 6!


A non-profit arts organization that I know in Portland still uses many Macs running OS 9. The reason they haven't switched is $$$.

Apple needs to implement a non-profit discount program (like some PC manufacturers) to help these type of businesses upgrade their hardware and operating systems.
 
MacinDoc said:
I am stunned! I wonder what Intel chips Apple will be using... Hopefully Pentium M or some of the dual core chips in the pipeline...
Expect Mac sales to tank in the next 1-2 years though...


What I want to know is if Apple/Freescale gave a license to Intel for the Altivec instruction set to go into these future Intel based Macs...

I am beyond stunned. I hope the Macs of the next two years will also come with at least a G4 chip too (in addition to its new Intel master), that way new Mac owners won't have a problem with compatibility issues or software they find available for sale.

----------------------------------
Another point of concern is whether the new Intel-based Macs will also have their graphics card options intentionally crippled via hardware. If this isn't rethought, Intel-based Macs will still be at a disadvantage videocard wise just as the current PowerMacs are. A $150 videocard for a PC should not cost $600 to be added to a Mac.

PCI Express adoption should also kick into overdrive.
 
digitalbiker said:
1) SJ said that the first Mactels would be shipping prior to the WWDC next year. It has been widely reported, (Cnet) that Apple would start with the consumer low-end machines first and slowly add intel to all product lines. This means most likely +1 probably +1.5 years before PB intel.

No way.

Yonah PBs will be first MacIntel product out of the gate in Jan 2006, followed by the Mini. Whatever is next in the Intel line will show up on everything but PowerMacs/Xserves around WWDC 2005. After a 970MP refresh (?) this year or (more likely) early next year, PowerMacs and Xserves will go Intel before, Jan 2007.

Why?

1) PB First: PB's are the product in most serious need of an upgrade, and that have been most hampered by IBM/Moto's inability to produce a good mobile chip. Yonah is due Q4 '05/Q1 '06.

2) 1 year max switch time (except PM): PPC hardware sales are going to fall off a cliff once Apple starts introducing Intel hardware. The change is going to get massively accelerated, otherwise Apple is going to lose to much money. Furthermore, this gets worse the longer the time since WWDC 2005. It's March 2006. Do you wait for the new Intel iMac or buy the now somewhat long-in-the-tooth G5 iMac? Unless you absolutely need the computer, you wait.

3) Whatever incentive IBM had to improve the 970/970MP is gone. After the 970MP refresh, where else can Apple go with its PM line?

Two years? Piffle. Try one.
 
eVolcre said:
Why? Lack of budget or resistance to change?
Probably a bit of both. They have hundreds of Macs, so, I think the prospect of moving to a totally new OS with all new versions of all software, plus some custom apps they developed, was too daunting. It's possible that they made the move since I was last there, but, somehow I doubt it. With this Intel announcement, I'll bet they are going to hold off even longer if they haven't switched yet.
 
tdewey said:
Apple will wait for Yonah (dual-core). Want a significant performance jump for switching.
Don't you think the PB line is in a dire need of a performance boost? You can always wait for a faster chip, so why not just introduce it now? It does not prevent Apple from upgrading it in a later stage.
 
vaslav said:
A non-profit arts organization that I know in Portland still uses many Macs running OS 9. The reason they haven't switched is $$$.

Apple needs to implement a non-profit discount program (like some PC manufacturers) to help these type of businesses upgrade their hardware and operating systems.

The guys still using OS9 are not really relevant to the issue of upgrading to intels. At this time if these guys were to update their hardware, new software would be unavoidable anyway as no new macs boot OS9.
 
jr0977 said:
Im fairly new to being a registered memeber to Macrumors, but I have been paying attention to the threads for a year now. I laugh almost everytime I read some of these. Sure they have good insight to what might happen. But these guys who claim to be "mac-know-it-alls" seem to be wrong with their predictions almost everytime. I feel like Im watching chats from the comic book nerd/guy on simpsons. They all think they know eveyrthing, and they don't. Its absolutley foolish to think that Intel has some alterior motive for Macs. Why would it be bad if Intel made processors? THey make chips that compute info, they have nothing to do with traditional PC's or Microsoft, they just make chips for them. Steve Jobs is right, IBM has failed, there genius G5 has failed almost all of its benchmarks. It was supposed to perform much much faster than it has, at this point we are supposed to be at 3.5. Not to mention, its a huge bulky chip, that they swore would be scaled down within the first year, and now its 2.5 years later and still nothing. Lets not forget the promise that it was a new chip, so it would run hot, and within a year that would be fixed too. My powerbook practically burns my lap when i use it, and its only a G4. In my opinion they have failed miserably. and if Intel is going to put out faster, cooler, smaller processors...then why are we complaining? Not to mention, any who thinks OSX will be running on Dells are just even more foolish than anyone thought. I think everyone will be surpised when they see how fast OSX will run, once the transformation is complete, and how Mac will totally dominate the market with the new Power book. A rumor from good sources say next Julys powerbook will be the thinest, lighest laptop to hit markets, with batterlifes in the 8 hour range. GO MAC AND INTEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Totally agree with everything said above. Someone whose posts don't seem clouded by some sort of deranged emotive fixation about the evils of Intel.
 
The reasons behind Apple switch to Intel

From MacBidouille:
Since the end of last year, relationship between Apple and IBM are bad, very bad... Apple considers IBM as the new Motorola. IBM has been facing huge problems with the PPC975, lately renamed 976 then 980 that has been continuously postponed.
The 970MP processor project has been launch to avoid a big gap and a abnormal delay between processor update. But it would have been ready only by beginning of 2006 at the earliest, while IBM is still facing problems to manufacture the PPC970FX in large volume.
Concerning the PowerBookG5, all developments have been stopped. The reason: no way to manufacture PPC970GX necessary to answer both requirements for mobility and battery lifespan. In addition, they could not setup an efficient cooling system as well as a corresponding battery.
IBM has also decided to drop the PPC750VX which was designed to replace the G4 in entry-level computers.

Apple, as confirmed by Steve jobs, had planned this "Just in case" possibility with Intel processor option. Due to IBM problems for development or manufacturing PowerPC, Apple has activated Marklar project, and we are just starting to see who deep this project goes.
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Don't you think the PB line is in a dire need of a performance boost? You can always wait for a faster chip, so why not just introduce it now? It does not prevent Apple from upgrading it in a later stage.

Absoutely. I just don't see any Intel product until Jan 2006. Could be wrong. A sales crash may force Apple to move up its release dates (see above).

I'm convinced that a sales crash will happen for PPC macs once the first Intel product is released, forcing Apple to accelrate the tranisition, but perhaps the sales crash started yesterday.

Personally, I'm not buying a new PB until its Intel based.
 
fatfish said:
The guys still using OS9 are not really relevant to the issue of upgrading to intels. At this time if these guys were to update their hardware, new software would be unavoidable anyway as no new macs boot OS9.
I'll bet all the companies who are still using OS9 are glad they didn't make the big switch yet after hearing the Intel news. It would be more efficient to just upgrade all the computers and software at the same time.
 
Mac / Intel

I'm not a fan of Intel, infact I wish they went with AMD if they were going to switch processors like this. The fact of the Matter is IBM has a great chip but they were ****ing Apple up the *ss. I am looking forward to seeing a OSX verus Windows Photoshop test. This will show the optimization of the OS(s). Hardware is irrlevant, it is all about the OS. Mind you Intel Chips suck. But still if Apple get's intel to do some innovative things with there chips then we are in business. As for the PPC, Hey who is to say the G6 comes out in 3 years what is wrong with people picking there processors? I love the PPC, my 1.8 G5 is screaming fast compared to my bro's 3.2 P4. I have the photoshop test to prove it to! It's going to be a Microsoft / Apple slug fest and the world is the prize. Go Apple!
 
iMeowbot said:
The Apple II and the toy Commodores had the same CPU.
The original Mac and the toy Ataris had the same CPU.
The current Mac and the toy Xbox 360 have the same CPU.
And now, the new Macs and the toy peecees will have the same CPU.
Somebody's got to show those toys how to act when they grow up :D


Toy? Watch what computers you call toys! IBM came a micron close to buying Atari back in 1979 thanks to the engineering strength that brought out the Atari 800 back when IBM wanted to acquire an existing computer company for their new PC division.

And you may recall that the Atari ST series and the Commodore Amigas were as powerful - if not more powerful - than the Apple Macs of their era, in color, all the while the Macs were two to three times as expensive. The first Macintosh laptop was the Atari STacy equipped with the MagicSac/Spectre GCR/etc. with Mac Roms attached.

Toys my a$$. The reason why many of us today are Mac fans is because the Macs have now become what we'd have today had the ST and the Amiga survived. The ST and the Amiga both had two-button mice in 1985.
 
tdewey said:
Absoutely. I just don't see any Intel product until Jan 2006. Could be wrong. A sales crash may force Apple to move up its release dates (see above).

I'm convinced that a sales crash will happen for PPC macs once the first Intel product is released, forcing Apple to accelrate the tranisition, but perhaps the sales crash started yesterday.

Personally, I'm not buying a new PB until its Intel based.
I fear that sales crashed when it said: It is true! on the keynote.
Some people try to convince me that Mac sales wont hurt (some even suggest that sales will rise), but I fear sales stoped the second Jobs announced the transition.
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I fear that sales crashed when it said: It is true! on the keynote.
Some people try to convince me that Mac sales wont hurt (some even suggest that sales will rise), but I fear sales stoped the second Jobs announced the transition.

You are probably right. Like I said, I'm not buying a new PB until it is Intel. Unless you have to buy, why buy?

I rather wish the transition was 6 months.
 
PowerPC logo printed on early Power Macs

Doctor Q said:
It's the same with the stickers. I remember there being some kind of "PowerPC" label (I forget the wording) on my first Power Mac, which was promoting the chip over previous non-Power Macs. If a new and better processor is in a Mac you buy a year from now, it shouldn't be offensive to see that fact promoted.
You are absolutely correct. "PowerPC" is screen-printed on all the platinum-box era PowerPC Performas and Power Macs. Those models prior to the PowerMac G3 series, the "thousand number" series boxes: 4xxx, 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx, 8xxx, and 9xxx.

Since Intel is the topic, Apple also made a Macintosh "Centris" series (three models) for eight months in 1993. Those had Intel CPUs inside. Hmmm.
 
MontyZ said:
I'll bet all the companies who are still using OS9 are glad they didn't make the big switch yet after hearing the Intel news. It would be more efficient to just upgrade all the computers and software at the same time.

That may be true, but it is a much bigger switch going from OS 9 to OS X for Intel than it would be for going to OS X for PPC. But really anyone using OS 9 still, should have upgraded by now. As Steve said in his keynote there is only about 9% of the current installed base still using OS 9 and that doesn't seem likely change even 1 year down the line when the adoption of Tiger has reached 50% and Macs have started to move to Intel. Those still remaining using OS 9 are unlikely to change for the forseeable future if they have lasted this long already. To be honest they are little more than an irrelevance in this debate and can be largely disregarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.