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.
iMeowbot said:
It's kind of Apple's fault :D Years ago they lobbied and won laws (notably in California) that gave them a tax break for donating computers to schools.
OMG, that is so lame. "Apple gave computers to schools in the 1970s and 1980s, so they owe me one for free today." No, it doesn't work that way.

Actually, the computers were not given entirely freely. The computers were given to the schools on grants that stipulated that the schools had to prove the computers were being used productively by the students. Physical results had to be presented to Apple; such as a newsletter, a yearbook layout, a science report, a spreadsheet, a database, etc. or the grant was terminated. I believe the grant program was actually Woz's idea.
 
Jason Vene thank you for such a thorough post. I really appreciate the unique perspective. My main concern with the Intel switch is that it's generally agreed that Intel doesn't scale as well with multiple processors as does the G5. If the future of computers lies in multi-core multi-processor machines does it really make sense to abandon the one processor that scales really well in this regard?
 
eVolcre said:
What's hardware DRM? Heck what is DRM? Is there a software DRM too? :confused:

DRM = Digital Rights Managment

It is what allows you to have your iTunes Music Store purchases play on a limited number of machines. Essentially it is copy protection. Allegedly Intel is incorporating this feature into their CPUs requiring more effort to circumvent the copy protection.
 
sacear said:
OMG, that is so lame. "Apple gave computers to schools in the 1970s and 1980s, so they owe me one for free today." No, it doesn't work that way.

*sighs* non-profits have to often look to corporations for discounts/freebies/etc. because They are NON-PROFIT, he's talking about charities and other non-profit institutions not personal. Now does apple OWE them anything, no, but you're overreeacting a bit.
 
springdaddy said:
Here's what I want to know. I just purchased a new PowerBook and what will happen to my notebook when the switch is final?
Hmm, it will probably grow wings and fly away.

Remember the flying toasters from Berkeley Systems After Dark screen saver? This will the the flying PowerBooks. When the switch is final, all pre-Intel machines will grow wings and fly away, high up into the sky, flying to the sun. They will fly to Sun Microsystems. They will inundate Sun Microsystems' San Mateo campus in a massive attack of pre-Intel Macintoshes.
 
Don't need emulators for PPC

egor said:
So, to sum up.

Will PPC macs still be supported? Ie. will future releases of Mac OSX run on them? I get the impression that xserves will remain running PPC chips, this is correct, yes?

What about apps, we've seen that there's an emulator for PPC architecture on an x86 machine running X, what about the other way round, will many people feel abandoned... will there have to be two products compiled for each platform by many devs? I'm thinking some will chose to forego that once the point is reached that PPC is virtually phased out of the mac platform.

Any thoughts, people?

Personally I think apple should keep the PPC option constantly open and always be developing emulators for both platforms, should a G6 thats superior to intel's offerings for instance, they could go with that for some of their products. I see no reason for this silly all or nothing nonsense...

PPC will be supported for many years. You don't need Rosetta emulator for universal binaries. A developer just toggles the PPC and x86 buttons and compiles one binary for both platforms. One distribution loads the appropriate binary bundle onto the appropriate architecture.

Rosetta emulator is only neccessary to run old PPC apps that have not been written using Xcode.

Watch the keynote, as it explains the process well.

Users of current PPC have the least to worry about. It's intel-mac users that face the biggest problems. Mainly because of legacy PPC apps and os 9 apps that won't run on Rosetta emulator. Therefore intel mac users will lag in software and most likely will have to endure 1st gen architecture bugs.
 
egor said:
Its not exactly supported though, now is it? I think what people are reffering to alot of the time is apps, as in, will new apps be developed for both platforms simultaneously? I don't think so for very long.

From what I've read, developers will use Xcode to develop the apps and then Xcode can "output" both x86 and PPC binaries. So they don't have to develop for one or the other, they do it once and when they are done they have both.

Someone who actually does software development for a living should correct me if I am wrong.
 
ManchesterTrix said:
*sighs* non-profits have to often look to corporations for discounts/freebies/etc. because They are NON-PROFIT, he's talking about charities and other non-profit institutions not personal. Now does apple OWE them anything, no, but you're overreeacting a bit.
The original poster in this matter was talking about a publishing company, not a non-profit. Who and where did it switch to non-profit?

There are plenty of avenues for non-profits. Apple has a whole staff set-up for non-profits and educational institutions. Apple offers many grants every year.
 
Will Apple change the names Powermac and Powerbook?

Apple can't call the computers power anymore, since the PowerPC CPU is history. Or can they? After all, it's just marketing hype.

Can anyone think of some new names?

Time to bring the venerable "mac LC" moniker out of retirement. And also a Gordon Moore signature edition!

GM xxx2!

:D
 
digitalbiker said:
Watch the keynote, as it explains the process well.

Does anyone know where one can acquire a downloadable version of the keynote? I'm temporarily on a poopy 56K connection and the stream doesn't seem to be doing me any good.
 
eVolcre said:
Umm .. NO! Lenovo can use the IBM name. That doesn't mean IBM is branding it. The business was sold to Lenovo. The products are not being sold by IBM. If they are, it is similar to Best Buy selling a Dell. The retailer has no control over what chip goes into a machine. Trust me on this - the business was SOLD to Lenovo.
Nobody said it wasn't sold to Lenovo. I know that it was in November 2004. Yet, IBM does still sell laptops and desktops with IBM branding. You said IBM does not.

So, yes, IBM sold their desktop division, to the same company that was actually manufacturing the products in China in November 2004.

IBM does sell desktop and laptop products from their own website with the IBM branded logo. They did not get out of the business.
 
chatin said:
Apple can't call the computers power anymore, since the PowerPC CPU is history. Or can they? After all, it's just marketing hype.

Can anyone think of some new names?

Time to bring the venerable "mac LC" moniker out of retirement. And also a Gordon Moore signature edition!

GM xxx2!

:D
The Power moniker for Apple came years before the PowerPC chip. I think the PowerPC may have even been named after the Apple moniker, during the Apple-IBM-Motorola venture in the mid-nineties. The first "PowerBook," the PowerBook 100 using a Motorola 68k CPU, came out in 1991, seven or eight years before the PPC CPU was used in Macs. So really there is no need to change the name.
 
sacear said:
The original poster in this matter was talking about a publishing company, not a non-profit. Who and where did it switch to non-profit?

There are plenty of avenues for non-profits. Apple has a whole staff set-up for non-profits and educational institutions. Apple offers many grants every year.

Go look at your post #2315 and the quote you replied to in that post. The word non-profit was used twice in two sentences.
 
ManchesterTrix said:
Go look at your post #2315 and the quote you replied to in that post. The word non-profit was used twice in two sentences.
That was not the original post or even the original reply. The original post was back in the eighties pages somewhere. Someone was complaining that their DTP and ad agency business was still using OS 9 and still needed support for OS 9 from current machines and OS, which to me does not make sense. Unfortunately, the absence of nested quotes and only one quote level, makes things seem out of context. In post #2315, vaslav was responding to a response of mine from earlier, why he mentioned a need for a non-profit discount program to help DTP and ad agency businesses upgrade their hardware and operating systems is beyond me and somewhat far-fetched.
 
sacear said:
That was not the original post.

*shrugs* you asked me when non-profits came into it. It came into it when you quoted a person saying that apple should offer discounts to non-profits and you replied with somewhat scathing comments
 
Hey all that mentioned it – many thanks for the welcome! Ravenflight, I’m getting to you shortly….

Egor:

I’ve always held the philosophy that one should invest the least money into technology, WITHOUT the need, plan or assumption that the investment will somehow last. It won’t, and that’s the simple truth of it. Nothing that moves this fast in development cycle could really last all that long, except as an example my old dual AMD. It’s not the hot box it once was, but I only paid $800 for it. It’s dated now, but I’d have to fork over about $1800 and change and perform my own upgrade to achieve double the performance, and it’s just not worth it to me yet. I’m waiting for dual core AMD’s on dual boards before I bother to switch (there I can get nearly a 4 fold increase in power, but at present I’d have to fork over about $3000 – parts only, mind you).

That said, you can rest assured that for a long while OS X and applications will be targeted to run on PowerPC based machines. Only when the installed base drops to a point were only about 20% of the Mac’s in use are still PowerPC would they bother to drop a PowerPC distribution, and that’s more than two years out I’m sure.

Now, that all or nothing choice has to do probably more with contracts and ticked off business partnerships than anything. And the notion of a superior G6? These processors leap frog each other all the time. The “superior” today becomes the “old stuff” pretty darn fast in this business.



Ravenflight:

Well, the Opteron scales better at present, that’s true. Intel is in a bit of a defensive posture with respect to AMD, both at 64 bit and multiple core design. Still, Jobs didn’t move to AMD – why? If PowerPC is really superior, or the vaporware G6 appears to be superior, why would Jobs choose inferior sources? Isn’t it likely that he’s got a view of things we aren’t privy to view within Intel?

Perhaps Intel can’t deliver what they suggest – that’s been known to happen. Jobs can still move to AMD, with open arms welcoming him I’m sure.

Scaling on the Pentium Xeon? Well – let’s just say Intel isn’t exactly incapable of designing a good chip. I hear that virtually all of the Itanium wizards are no longer working on the Itanium…sounds like something’s in the works to me.

You can expect a few things from the future x86 Mac. It will be faster than the chips you can buy toay. There will probably be dual and quad core options. They’ll either by 90 or 65 nm chips, you might be able to get as much as 16 or 32Gbytes of RAM, and the bus to memory and the peripherals will be faster than what you have today. How do I know – all designs, Apple, Intel, whatever – have moved in those directions for years – it’s nearly a simple x * c kind of thing.

And – Apple needs to improve OS X’s thread launch overhead anyway – that’s as much of a hinderence to threaded performance as minor differences of scaling performance at 2 or even 4 core machines. I’m almost certain (I’d say about 95% certain) that when Intel’s chips are more commonly applied (and compared to Opterons) in 8 or more core designs, they’ll HAVE to deal with improving the scaling performance, and I believe the can. If they don’t, Jobs has a quick jettison path to AMD for higher performance in multicore designs, at least the way that looks at the moment.
 
Wow is all I can say.
What a high-profile loss for IBM.
A great gain for Intel.
Arguably one too for future Apple users considering the probable ability to run Windows natively on Macs. Symbiosis is the word du jour.
 
I think games on a PC/MAC just don't have a market anymore. When you can buy a dedicted gaming console for 200 bucks why will you play them on your computer? Heck, if I was a developer I would develop only for consoles, why even bother with home computers.

You would think wrong. PC gaming has a large market. It's still a billion dollar industry. What was Apple's revenue last year? <g>

Some games are far more suited to computers then consoles. The resolution of your television is quite pitiful and this really hurts in alot of games.

Consoles aren't very strong at RTS, MMPORG, and Simulations like the Sims2. To get the most out of those "cheap" next gen consoles your going to need to buy a HDTV if you haven't already. Even then the lack of keyboard and mouse built in will keep lots of people playing computer games.

The last time new consoles were released they were saying the same thing about computer games they are now. People like to play games on their computer. They will be around.

Pete
 
calyxman said:
Ouch! I remember that feeling when I had my 600mhz iBook and months later I found out the graphics card wouldn't support quartz extreme.

Thank you Apple for making my investment worthless at the time! :)
Oh for crying out loud, I use a five year old Pismo PowerBook as my main computer and it runs Panther flawlessly.
 
runninmac said:
some of my schools computers were this year untill january! :eek: They were so slow and bogged down with viruses and ad aware. Now we use WinXP and there still as slow as hell.
One of the reasons that Windows is vulnerable to viruses and worms is that programmers store the user preferences in the Program Files tree, which they were never supposed to do. Users have to have administrator access to change them, so that means most user accounts on Windows are administrators (with the power of root users in Unix), and that means that viruses and worms can go anywhere they like, even into system files.

When the programmers started this bad habit (which even Microsoft did on several versions of Money), it was largely harmless. After that the relentless attacks on Microsoft began and now they absolutely must go by the rules.

Microsoft is taking two initiatives to combat this. First, they are educating developers to put user preferences in the Documents and Settings tree, where they belong. This involves an extensive education program and a certification program to motivate programmers to comply. In Longhorn, they will have to comply. Next, they plan to put a "My Programs" directory in each user's Documents and Settings tree. (It will probably have a different name because the "my" prefix drives non-narcissists bats. That was a well-intended attempt to get chummy with the user that backfired.)

The result is that a least-priviledged user will be able to run all applications and even install applications, but those applications only have free run of the individual's Documents and Settings tree.

By the time Longhorn is out this problem should be solved. Adminstrators will be able to set up least-priviledged use accounts for users and that will go a long way--more like a quantum leap--to protecting the system.

This is a combination of Microsoft's oversight and programmer laziness, but it is not a state of affairs that will last very long.

So crow while you can.

The main difference here is that Windows is primarily a business OS and Macintosh is primarily a consumer OS. No one in all these gadzillions of postings had talked about their employer's strategy for implementing Macs, or the difficulty they have had convincing their employer to update their workstation to Tiger. There is nothing analogous to that sort of discussion you'd find about Windows. All of you guys are either geeks or consumers like me. Apple, as I said before, has to become price competitive so that it can move into the workplace. Then they will really cash in.
 
Panu said:
Apple, as I said before, has to be come price competitive so that it can move into the workplace. Then they will really cash in.
This is what I've been saying as well. Everytime I try to convince a friend or family member to buy a Mac, the biggest resistance is not compatibility or a new OS or a one-button mouse: it's the price that always turns them off immediately. Which is understandable when you can get a Dell for $399 compared to a $799 eMac, the lowest-priced complete solution from Apple (with monitor, keyboard and mouse). They wonder why they have to pay double, and saying "OSX is the best OS and it's fun and easy ot use" doesn't really work. They think they should be getting a lot more if they pay a lot more. Most people are not willing to pay a lot more even if the overall design is better. Just look at how many $40 DVD players WalMart sells. They're usually broken after a month, but, they still sell like hotcakes.
 
Panu said:
obeygiant said:
does anyone know or want to speculate on what apple will call these beasts? I cant imagine them calling and intel box a G5 or G6. I have no idea.
My crystal ball says they will be called... "Macintoshes."
I want mine to be called "Yellow Delicious." Mmmmm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.