No G5's until (late) 2003

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: What ? No more OS9 ?? What about Protools ??

Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I don't give too much weight to the "OS 9 will not run on the next generation of desktop Macs, or on G5s"... I have heard no compelling technical reason why this should be so. Even in this thread this rumor was phrased to say, "OS 9 won't work, but classic will" Umm, if classic will, why not OS 9?

"Classic" is actually two pieces: OS 9 and the Yellow Box in which it runs. The Yellow box is a sort of wrapper, or... box, around OS 9 that allows it to boot into a special environment, as its own OS X process, where it is not allowed to touch the hardware directly.

OS 9 running in the Yellow Box does not follow the same boot procedure that OS 9 running by itself does. Keeping Classic running on future machines will be a matter of keeping the Yellow Box updated to support newer revisions of OS X (if necessary). Keeping OS 9 running as its own OS on future machines would be a matter of directly updating OS 9, with new point releases - which would be a lot more work.

If I'm not mistaken, most new hardware releases in recent years have been accompanied by point revisions of the (classic) Mac OS which included changes necessary to accomodate the new hardware. If you need an example of how an OS that is allowed to languish can eventually become unbootable and or otherwise buggy/unusable, look at BeOS - not updated since 2000 and now won't boot on newer systems because they're just too different from what BeOS was written/compiled to support. Or for a Mac example, look at the PowerBook G4, on which any OS <9.2 won't run.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: What ? No more OS9 ?? What about Protools ??

Originally posted by iamspooky

Aloha,

I read most of the threads and are we to believe that there is a high probability that OS 9 will not work on the new line of Macs scheduled to be released at MWNY ?? This concerns me because I am a Protools user with plans to purchase one of the new Mac G4's or (G5??) in July specifically for Protools.

I don't think Digidesign is will have PT OS X ready soon, so that leaves a big gap, (at least for ProTools users). If anyone could elaborate or comment on this I would appreciate the input.

What exactly is the rumoured change in the new Mac hardware design that won't allow OS 9 to load??

Hmm...Maybe I should grab one of the good deals on present stock of Mac G4s happening now ??

Regards,
Mark

It's certainly a possibility that the upcoming Power Macs won't run OS 9 natively. The Xserves don't, and the new Macs are rumored to use similar new technology. In order for the new Macs to run OS 9, there will have to be a new OS 9 release at MWNY (9.2.3 or 9.3) to accompany them. Jobs has stated that there would be no more OS 9 releases, and this is consistent with the lack of recent activity on the OS 9 front (not much happening in the Software Update control panel, no iPhoto for OS 9, etc...). Sooooo... I'm guessing you will have to either wait for that Carbonized Pro Tools or not buy a new Power Mac. But I would wait 'til MWNY to make a decision, because who knows if Apple will give OS 9 a stay of execution... you could get lucky.

Alex

 

[Nipsy]

Re: Re: OS sucX

Originally posted by BOOMBA


That is actually pretty funny, and yet sad at the same time because it is true.

I think the best thing Jobs could announce at MWNY is a $1000 price cut across the board. They really need to drop their prices to gain market share.

Sign me up for a slew of $99 eMacs!

 

[barkmonster]

maybe they'll stay at 9.2.2 and just use a system enabler

I got OS 8 with my beige G3, it had a system enabler in the system folder so it was compatable, of course I updated to OS 8.5 as soon as I could but it still ran OS 8 just as well as it runs OS 9.1 now.

I think the rumours of the new G4s not being compatable with OS 9 are based on the Xserver, not some actual fact that OS 9 is too archaic to run on a newer motherboard. The Xserver comes with Mac OS X server, obviously it's not going to ship with OS 9 because it's not needed. Also, maybe there's some drivers needed to access some of the extra hardware the Xserver has that the desktops don't and it only works with OS X because apple didn't need OS 9 running on them so didn't add drivers to OS 9 that work with the Xserver.

Maybe I'm wrong and apple are going to release speedy new powermacs with DDR and then alienate a large proportion of their existing userbase just to push them into using OS X. I really doubt that though.

 

[Cappy]

Apple has the ability to make it very difficult to run older OS's on new hardware. We will really just have to wait and see.

 

[TechLarry]

Re: Re: x86 Macs...

Originally posted by eunuchs
I doubt if the price of parts (to Apple who sells millions of units annually) is appreciably different. Apple could make far cheaper machines right now! But they have shareholders who prefer fat dividends cheques. The reason they can get away with such high margins is that they have no direct competition. Who else sells a consumer-level PPC machine?

Now imagine this scenario:

"White box" P4 2 GHz = $700
Apple "iIntel" P4 2 GHz = $2000
(all other specs the same - and they could be)

You can upsell OS X and everything that's great about a Mac... but it's going to be pretty fricken tough convincing Joe Sixpack that he's not being had by Apple.Apple has a great history of reinventing their own platform and not losing every last developer they have. BUT, I think if they switched to x86 at this point in time - just when developers have finally managed to Carbonize and Cocoa-fy, not without some expense - they would successfully alienate all but the hardcore developers. Those who remain, would have their exit route clearly illuminated for them (once you eliminate the problem of writing code for two different architectures).Undoubtedly. All the more reason for Apple to get on board NOW.Again, remember Apple's raison d'etre: profits. Apple has successfully weathered a downturn that has just about every tech company reeling. Not only weathered it, but managed to stuff several billion into the proverbial coffers. Marketshare is important, but so is the bottom line. They've taken care of the latter, and with "Switch", it looks like they're starting to go after the former.

Dropping an AMD Athlon XP in a Mac does not make it a PC.

It is simply a Mac with an x86 processor inside.

Why are some folks thinking that just because a Mac has a x86 under the hood, it's a PC all of sudden?

A Mac is a Mac. The Mac is made by it's OPERATING SYSTEM and build design/quality, not by it's processor.

I firmly believe a Mac can be a Mac without having Motorola involved.

TL

 

[TechLarry]

Originally posted by GPTurismo


I agree. All my friends that work for IBM and SGi think the itaniums are pure trash. Basically Intel and MS needed something fast so they can actually try and compete in the real server market (high end aix, irix, solaris) and they rushed out a 64 bit processor and archetecture.

It's not a very capable archetecture.

The biggest thing apple could do to win this war is do away with bus speeds like SGi's and other higher end servers. That requires more intelligent components that can talk directly to each other at full speed, but if they could get that at an affordable cost, their systems would fly...

Are we to repeat the mistakes of the past?

I was one of those people sitting in the meeting for Apple Dealers in Reston, VA, years ago when they were showing the charts where the PPC was rocketing higher and higher and higher, and the Pentium was stuck at 450Mhz forever.

I think you see where I'm going with this...

The x86 crowd KICKED Apple/Motorola's Ass. It doesn't matter who's fault it was (Motorola), the fact is it happened, and we can't just keep assuming the same old stupid things.

It's time to move on, move up. Move on to a company that can provide the processors we need NOW, not 5 years from now (if ever).

TL

 

[TechLarry]

Re: replace PowerPC with x86/AMD ?

Originally posted by etoiles
Could Apple start using x86/AMD cpu's but still build macs (propriatory box, does not run windows) ? OSX would still only run on Apple's machines...

I do not understand a lot about hardware, so this is a question more than a suggestion I understand that the software side of things could be a bit tricky, but I am sure they could come up with something...(remember the time when Windows was running on different processors intel, alpha ?)

At least they would not have to worry about matching PC processor speeds any longer...

Absolutely.

Dropping in an x86 does not turn a Mac into a PC, like some here have insinuated.

It's still a Mac, with a different processor inside.

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.

TL

 

[TechLarry]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
Do you think Apple reads these forums and knows how unhappy everyone is? I mean, I've never really seen people this unhappy on this forum, and it seems to be getting worse. They must know they're in big trouble, right? I mean, Steve's gonna pull out the big guns soon, isn't he?

i shudder to think what will happen if he doesn't.

It's called venting. It's theraputic

TL

 

[TechLarry]

Originally posted by alex_ant

I don't know what you mean by "work out a deal," but if you mean "get AMD to start manufacturing PPCs," that's probably not possible because AMD needs every bit of production capacity it can muster at the moment to compete against Intel. I can't see how they would be keen on manufacturing chips for a competitor when they don't even have the resources to do so.

Secondly, I don't think it would be wise for Apple to have anything to do with AMD, because it has shown that it is unable to turn a substantial profit even though its product is better than its main competitor's. It is forced to sell its chips practically at or below cost just to keep them competitive with Pentiums price-wise. I don't think their long-term prospects are very rosy - one wrong move and they're screwed. Remember the Intel F00F bug fiasco? If that happened to AMD, it would be all over for them.

How about Apple put P4s in its Power Macs? (JOKE) Heehee, I would predict a mass suicide of Mac fanatics if that were to happen.

Alex

AMD is stronger than you give them credit for...

TL

 

[cooker22]

Another ProTools ?

I'm a newbie here, been lurking in the shadows for a while, trying to learn as much as I can, but forgive me if I break thread rules.

My question goes back to Alex_ant's concern about ProTools. I'm about to be a convert to a Mac, planned on picking up the 933, but then decided to wait for MWNY to either pick up a better machine, or get a better deal on the 933.

Reading the rumor that ProTools isn't going to be compatable with OSX and the new lineup causes a big concern. ProTools is the sole purpose of picking a Mac up. So my question boils down to this (and I realize there is much speculation here, but everyone here knows more than I do, so I need some advice):

Do I take advantage of rebates now and pick up a 933 that is ProTools certified, or wait for MWNY and see if the rumored less than spectacular line up, and hope that there will be a version of 9 that can run ProTools?

(Like I said, I'm a beginner, so any replies, - Try not to lose me technically. Thanks.)

 

[eunuchs]

Re: Re: Re: x86 Macs...

Originally posted by TechLarry
Dropping an AMD Athlon XP in a Mac does not make it a PC.

At what point did I say this? I was merely pointing out that the price comparison for the average consumer would be much more stark. Right now, Apple can hide behind statements that the PPC and x86 architectures are too different for direct price comparisons. If they plop in x86 processors, they remove that proviso and they'll have to rely on the Apple mystique alone...

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.

No noticeable change?? Ask developers if they thought there was no noticeable change...

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: replace PowerPC with x86/AMD ?

Originally posted by TechLarry


Absolutely.

Dropping in an x86 does not turn a Mac into a PC, like some here have insinuated.

It's still a Mac, with a different processor inside.

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.

TL

That was a completely different scenario and, yes, ask developers how they liked it. The thing people forget about is that there are issues like big and little endian when it comes to cpu's. 68k went one way while x86 is the other. Forgive me while I claim temporary amnesia on forgetting which is which. PPC lets you do both so it made life easier to migrate to it from 68k.

Now that's not to say that Apple might have some technology from Next on dealing with both since they used multple platforms. I don't know for a fact but I've heard rumors that they do. Either way it's not easy technically. The other thing is that an emulator would be needed. Developers I spoke with were always quick to point out that a 68k emulator was very easy to write. A PPC emulator is a whole other story.

It really comes down to is it doable? Probably. Is it useable? I might have my doubts unless the P4's and AMD's get much faster in proportion to Moto's. Is it worth it? Only Apple can answer that. People don't give them enough credit for the financial job and forecasting that they have done. They're problem has always been execution.

 

[agoldweber]

wishing rumor of no OS 9 on new Rev came earlier

I'm in a near panic.

my palms: clamy. my back: tense, aching. my chest: jumpy with anxiety.

here I was getting comfy as I new the recent rebates would come and go and give way to better ones after MWNY. or better yet: better towers with added analog audio input, speed bumps and other forgetten goodies.

yes, I was content to wait to buy until August. but now, with the prospect of no OS 9 on the new machines--eek!

here's hoping this is a false rumor and that the run on OS 9-capable machines doesn't get bloody--cos it's gonna happen.

 

[tjwett]

why not?

wouldn't Apple feel better if they just dropped in a high mhz AMD chip and called it good? i mean, they wouldn't have to deal with dispelling the whole mhz myth, which is becoming harder to prove everyday. They would, like the competition, have a 2ghz+ processor which would leave the PC converts left to make only one decision, the OS. And I think it's pretty clear that OSX rocks anything out there right now. With all the effort spent trying to convince John Q. Public that mhz doesn't matter they should just spend the time and money severing their ties with Motorola and move on. if I was Steve Jobs (yeah right) i'd love to have the mhz off my back and just concentrating on what Apple does best; making beautifully designed machines that run a great OS, only now they would be just as fast as the competition, and any Joe Schmo could see it without having to learn about floating point calculations and gigaflops.

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: Another ProTools ?

Originally posted by cooker22


Do I take advantage of rebates now and pick up a 933 that is ProTools certified, or wait for MWNY and see if the rumored less than spectacular line up, and hope that there will be a version of 9 that can run ProTools?

I don't think you will be hurt either way by waiting a week after MWNY after the immediately following NAMM and Digiworld. The new product will not be shipping until closer to fall anyway. From what I can tell at their site, Digi says that the big system is not currently OS X compatible but they are working diligently towards that end. Their Ads and Promo materials are definately showing Macs more visibly than ever before (I would take this as a good sign that it will be OS X ready as soon as possible).

And if you are dropping a minimum of 8 grand on a ProTools system, there will always be old compatible hardware available to you in that price range. I think MBox IS already Os X compatible, which I would take as another positive sign if I were you.

Any big piece of software with a lot of plug in architecture and drivers does tend to lag making it to a new OS. Probably the stragglers will be the plug ins, they usually wait until the installed base is up to snuff before refiguring their code if necessary.

My personal bet... if you want to use Pro Tools in OS X, you will have to be running Jaguar. I know I would want to be running Jaguar.

 

[beatle888]

Re: Another ProTools ?

Originally posted by cooker22

Do I take advantage of rebates now and pick up a 933 that is ProTools certified, or wait for MWNY and see if the rumored less than spectacular line up, and hope that there will be a version of 9 that can run ProTools?

(Like I said, I'm a beginner, so any replies, - Try not to lose me technically. Thanks.)

Oh, you definetly should wait a few weeks. Any machine released this
MWNY will run PROTOOLS and I bet in the future PROTOOLS
will be released under OSX.

The rumor about dropping support for OS9 implies that it will not happen
till late 2003 so I wouldnt let it effect any of your hardware purchases
at present since thats more than a year away. Think about that, no support
for OS9 in a year and a half, WHO CARES? Any software company planning
to stay with the MacOS will have OSX versions by then anyway.

You state above that reply's should refrane from being to technical.
Buddy right there that tells you that you should get a Mac, you have
more important things to do with your time than to try and work our
the problems of a PC.

Good luck with your music and check out the latest from
David Bowie "Heathen". Pete Townsend and him mailed a CD with the
PROTOOLS mix back and forth over the POND (atlantic) as it was
the most convenient way do so due to timing constrants.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by TechLarry


AMD is stronger than you give them credit for...

TL

Thank you for your logical, in-depth and insightful response.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: replace PowerPC with x86/AMD ?

Originally posted by TechLarry
Absolutely.

Dropping in an x86 does not turn a Mac into a PC, like some here have insinuated.

It's still a Mac, with a different processor inside.

Yes, a Mac that is faster but inferior to the real Mac it is replacing, and a Mac that few will buy because of this. Will people buy the Athlon Mac, or the faster Athlon Windows machine with gobs more available software for the same price? The only reason Apple is alive today is because it is able to compete on a non-level playing field thanks to its different hardware. Once that distinction is gone, Apple will get eaten alive by much larger companies like Dell and Compaq who are able to sell faster, cheaper machines for less than Apple. It doesn't matter if Apple makes its own x86 machines or not. It doesn't matter if Apple has a superior OS or not - nobody cares, as evidenced by Be, who had the superior OS but was unable to GIVE it away. If an x86 Mac were such a great idea, it would have been done by now.

When Apple switched from 68K to PPC, there was no noticible change. The same thing can be done again.

No noticeable change for the end user. Ask the developers how much they loved the transition - I'm sure they'd be happy to tell you.

Apple: "OK, Adobe, we've got this new OS coming out and we want you to painstakingly update all your software to run on it."

Adobe: "Um, what? You have like 5% of the market."

Apple: "Just do it, wink wink, nudge nudge."

Adobe: "Okay.........."

Apple: "Change of plans, we're porting our new OS to x86 now. We need you to port all your software over. Thanks for Carbonizing it by the way."

An x86 Mac, proprietary or not, would be suicide. 1) The conversion would take years. 2) Developers would abandon Apple en masse. 3) Users would abandon Apple en masse. What more evidence do you need? I agree that Apple needs a faster CPU, but the Athlon is not it.

Alex

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: Re: Re: replace PowerPC with x86/AMD ?

Originally posted by alex_ant

I agree that Apple needs a faster CPU, but the Athlon is not it.

[/B]

Apple needs someone who can provide fast CPUs that they already use, in usable yields in a timely manner. They should have gone with IBM and bypassed Altivec completely... they would probably be getting equal or better performance now without it, or with a solution from a more able partner.

This problem with Motorola is by no means new. It goes back before the days of mac clones... Motorola could easily keep a new Mac from the market for over 6 months because they were dribbling out their small yields to the smaller customers, such as those selling 68k upgrade cards, rather than saving up inventory in the numbers Apple needed for a product launch. Its not necessarily those in Chip design at Moto that are at fault, its the entire rest of the company, from manufacturing and quality control, to general management.

I wonder if Apple has ever threatened to pull their business from Motorola, in an attempt to get them to farm the manufacture of their design over to more competent hands.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: replace PowerPC with x86/AMD ?

Originally posted by Wry Cooter


Apple needs someone who can provide fast CPUs that they already use, in usable yields in a timely manner. They should have gone with IBM and bypassed Altivec completely... they would probably be getting equal or better performance now without it, or with a solution from a more able partner.

Doubtful. Mac OS X would have been even slower in the eyes of the media and public plus IBM still doesn't have their G3 anywhere within Intel/AMD highend speeds. Don't let frustration blind you.

Originally posted by Wry Cooter

This problem with Motorola is by no means new. It goes back before the days of mac clones... Motorola could easily keep a new Mac from the market for over 6 months because they were dribbling out their small yields to the smaller customers, such as those selling 68k upgrade cards, rather than saving up inventory in the numbers Apple needed for a product launch. Its not necessarily those in Chip design at Moto that are at fault, its the entire rest of the company, from manufacturing and quality control, to general management.

That was a problem with Apple and their execution. Moto did what a company should do...sell to its customers.

People need to realize that even though we can point fingers all day long at who we think is responsible for Apple's cpu's being slow, the Mac is fighting a goliath in the x86 platform. It's not just Intel, AMD, MS, Compaq, or Dell. Linux is coming on strong. The x86 platform provides more flexibility to customers by using competition to weed out the various motherboard manufacturers and such. Lets not forget IBM is still associated in terms of mindshare to the platform. I still hear lots of folks mention IBM compatible.

All of these things carry alot of weight that works against Apple. I'm flat out amazed that Apple has been able to remain where they are. Everyday is truly a struggle on multiple fronts. I'm not trying to make excuses for them but can anyone ever look at Apple as being the #2 or even #3 platform and be happy for a change? Apple has never had more than a 10-15% marketshare and their amount of marketshare now is a much higher number productwise than ever before. Other than Linux there really isn't much else out there in the end unless you start looking at niche areas in more detail. Someone has to fill in those 1, 2, and 3 slots. Those are it. I'd prefer to look at Apple as #3 than last. Optimism works better at selling a system than pessimism.

Yes, they need to improve but you know, everyone else says and does the same thing. Going with Intel or AMD guarantees nothing in terms of sales. Remember, for every action there is a reaction.

 

[Wry Cooter]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: replace PowerPC with x86/AMD ?

Originally posted by Cappy


That was a problem with Apple and their execution. Moto did what a company should do...sell to its customers.

It was Apples problem that they happened to have a large order already in line (naturally enough) but motorola could only make a smaller number at a time, so the smaller orders were being filled first, for a period of six months or more after a publically announced product including the same chip? Even when Apple was the first to have their order in, in fact may have even pushed the development of the product that was being dribbled out in smaller numbers to others?

(This happened for those that were not around, in the 68030 and 68040 iterations of Macintosh product, if not other times)

Apparently Motorola is the king of small yields, and not being able to build inventory to meet initial large orders, despite standing backorders.

 

[fitzg2md05]

geez

Its kinda painful to hear some of you talk that way. The only true reason I use Macintosh is for the OS. be it 9 or X. Its mac. Hell it could be running on a AMD, an intel machine, or whatever combination of hardware you throw at it for all I care. As long as it WORKS. Macs have a long history of WORKING. Hence the beauty. No one here can say that our G4s are faster or as fast in everyday use than a comparable priced Windows machine. Mind you it does matter what you consider "every day use", but reguardless...thats a hardware issue. I say, if apple can make it WORK like always, and then implement the faster processor that is plausible. Apple very well may consider a *86 derivative not plausible. However, to say that that would ruin the mac platform is simply being an apple zealot. Its the same idea of some people saying not to buy or use M$ products because of the fact that its from M$. Thats silly. I dont know about you, but I use what works. M$ office works. Nicely. A *86 processor will not "kill the mac". And for those of you who feel that stacking a 2 Ghz apple machine (*86) against a similar spec windows machine is any different that what we have now, I have a question for you. Why did you buy a Mac? If it was because it was the fastest available processor and bus etc, then may i insist you have your head checked. Its obvious that for the most part macs are not on the cutting edge of speed. However...the Mac OS is what runs that hardware. Ok, ill stop preaching here...but one last thing. If apple can sussesfully create a platform that is on the cutting edge of speed and combine the consistant quality of its OS, then im all for it. If it cant maintain that quality...then forget it. Cuz that IS the reason i use macs.

 

[alex_ant]

Re: geez

Originally posted by fitzg2md05
The only true reason I use Macintosh is for the OS. be it 9 or X. Its mac. Hell it could be running on a AMD, an intel machine, or whatever combination of hardware you throw at it for all I care. As long as it WORKS. Macs have a long history of WORKING. Hence the beauty. No one here can say that our G4s are faster or as fast in everyday use than a comparable priced Windows machine. Mind you it does matter what you consider "every day use", but reguardless...thats a hardware issue. I say, if apple can make it WORK like always, and then implement the faster processor that is plausible.

And it's not possible, so end of story. X86 WOULD kill the Mac by destroying compatibility, disgusting developers, infuriating end users, obliterating currently rich revenue streams, and ultimately bankrupting Apple. Again, I don't care if it's a proprietary machine or not - it would happen.

If you want to call me, an owner and user of one Mac, one Linux PC and one SGI a Mac zealot, feel free, but keep in mind that I've criticized the Mac's speed more than just about anyone else here, and I would be using a dual 2GHz PPC G6 laptop running BeOS R7 instead of a TiBook right now if the gods had smiled upon it.

If apple can sussesfully create a platform that is on the cutting edge of speed and combine the consistant quality of its OS, then im all for it.

Well of course, who wouldn't be. If they were able to, though, they would have done it already. It's not like these Motorola problems just materialized out of thin air yesterday - Motorola-Apple relations have been sour since the early '90s. It's not like Jobs is sticking with PPC because he gets off on red ink.

Alex

 

[topicolo]

The problem is, moto's goals don't align properly with apple's goals as well as amd's or intel's goals do. Moto's into the embedded processor market where the speed competition isn't as great as the mainstream cpu market so they're lazy and not doing anything productive. Since it seems that the wintel side is pulling away from the ppc camp at an accelerating rate, I don't find it hard to imagine that at one point, x86 based processors will be 2-3x faster than powerpcs. Because of this, Apple WILL need to switch to the x86 platform eventually. I don't think this is a good time right now, but apple should start preparing and maybe begin the switch in 1.5-2 years. The mac IS the OS and hardware with little more class. If apple moved to x86 processors, they'll still be able to distinguish themselves by making macs that are designed to stand out. Would any one of you be willing to buy a 2.53GHz P4 Mac with a 533Mhz bus, 512mb DDR 333 ram, a GF4 4600, and a 120Gb hard drive in the same quicksilver enclosure for the same price as a 933Mhz G4? I know I would. Apple needs to ditch Moto. Just look at what they did to palm; Moto kept the palm at 33Mhz for 2 years! Could this happen with the PPC? Maybe.
I don't want to find out though.