So whats the PPC community's two cents on the new announcements?

[Amethyst1]

But as an OS for Intel it was simply transitional IMO.

I'm afraid I don't get this. I agree Snowy is what Leo should have been but how was it transitional? Sorry for being thick.

 

[sanfrancisofont1984]

My biggest problem was the lack of H.264 support. I switched because better GPU, more RAM etc., not because higher Intel Geekbench. But these mobile GPUs were terribly problematic. Like the 2011 MBP series. In my eyes, the last good era was in 2012. The user friendly nonretina Macbooks, the 4x Mac Mini, the Mac Pros, and a good GTX iMac. The mobile market has rewritten everything. Today, we are running with “hand computers” that can be used to make phone calls.

what lacks/lacked what h.264 support?

 

[sanfrancisofont1984]

And the current Windows on ARM machines are all but laughable.

The snapdragon PCs are pretty nice actually. The CPUs are not fast and x86 emulation makes it even slower in many cases. However, fanless + very long battery life makes media consumption, video chat, “productivity”, etc. very sweet.

 

[Amethyst1]

The CPUs are not fast and x86 emulation makes it even slower in many cases.

And the lack of native ARM applications (even Office is emulated AFAIK) makes that a deal breaker. x86-64 applications don't run either yet.

 

[wm2]

what lacks/lacked what h.264 support?

If I want hardware accelerated H.264, Linux is the only option (on G5 PM). With this support, PPC machines would have lived much longer. Like my 10y old Arrandale i3 VAIO with ATI 5470 which plays 1080/60 videos without any problems. Of course, performance has already mattered here (this mobile processor is approx. equal to the performance of the G5 quad).

 

[B S Magnet]

The downside is that, it will become more specialized, more appliance like which incidentally was what Steve Jobs envisioned computers would become. An throwaway appliance which you can't or not cost effective to service. So if an M1 fails, then you need to buy a brand new computer. Good for Apple, because it forces people to adopt forced obsolescence and I think people will be more receptive to this idea once we know newer computing power helps bring new software innovation.

Strange. I have appliances which are pushing forty years old and they can still make rice, mix dough, purée fruit, and toast bread like total champs.

 

[Amethyst1]

I have appliances which are pushing forty years old and they can still make rice, mix dough, purée fruit, and toast bread like total champs.

And you can presumably replace individual parts when they fail. But on a computer where literally everything is soldered on, you can't.

 

[B S Magnet]

And you can presumably replace individual parts when they fail. But on a computer where literally everything is soldered on, you can't.

Not long ago at all, you very much could. Strange.

 

[iluvmacs99]

Strange. I have appliances which are pushing forty years old and they can still make rice, mix dough, purée fruit, and toast bread like total champs.

And so is true with old cars and old computers, especially a 30 year old Amiga computer that is still running GPRS in Grand Rapids, Michigan to control heat and AC for 19 schools. There's nothing wrong with us using old stuff, but how often do you see people still using a 30 year old Amiga 2000 computer today for things like modern apps such as Zoom, Chrome, Edge and Google apps? To us, it's strange that a school is still using an old 30 year old Amiga, but it works for them and they actually used the funding they got in 2011 for upgrading the computers to modernize the environmental school systems. They actually fixed this computer over years from parts bought off eBay and these type of computers were much easier to fix than the computers we have today.

I'm agnostic to what I use. If an appliance helps me improve my living, then I'll buy it. If a computer helps improve my work productivity, then I'll own it. They're just tools to improve a person's life. Whether it's 1 year old or 40 years old appliance should not make a difference as long as it works. I still use a PowerPC Mac simply because there are applications that I still use and works even being close to 16 years old. It works. I also have a new modern fast PC that helps with my WFH needs.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I'm not so bothered by the "everything is soldered" issue, because despite all of the repairability downsides, it has one very clear upside—it allows for smaller, lighter computers. That's a big deal on a laptop I need to carry around with me!

This is similar to my feelings about non-user-replaceable batteries. Does it suck that I have to go to shop and pay them $60 to get my iPhone 6S's battery replaced? Yes, it does! But as a trade-off, my phone has a bigger battery overall than what would otherwise fit. I'm very willing to make that trade.

Where I get (very) annoyed is when Apple creates barriers to repairability for no apparent rhyme or reason. Replacing the camera in an iPhone 12 should not require authenticating with a special Apple server, that's completely inexcusable. And it ought to be flat-out illegal.

 

[B S Magnet]

And so is true with old cars and old computers, especially a 30 year old Amiga computer that is still running GPRS in Grand Rapids, Michigan to control heat and AC for 19 schools. There's nothing wrong with us using old stuff, but how often do you see people still using a 30 year old Amiga 2000 computer today for things like modern apps such as Zoom, Chrome, Edge and Google apps? To us, it's strange that a school is still using an old 30 year old Amiga, but it works for them and they actually used the funding they got in 2011 for upgrading the computers to modernize the environmental school systems. They actually fixed this computer over years from parts bought off eBay and these type of computers were much easier to fix than the computers we have today.

I'm agnostic to what I use. If an appliance helps me improve my living, then I'll buy it. If a computer helps improve my work productivity, then I'll own it. They're just tools to improve a person's life. Whether it's 1 year old or 40 years old appliance should not make a difference as long as it works. I still use a PowerPC Mac simply because there are applications that I still use and works even being close to 16 years old. It works. I also have a new modern fast PC that helps with my WFH needs.

Unlike the Amiga of yore, which was never designed as an “appliance”, Moore’s Law kind of ended in the last decade and computers built a decade ago aren’t radically slower than those being churned out now. What is different is how planned obsolescence is being more aggressively pressed into the end product unlike any time before this and coercing consumers to begin accepting their laptops and desktops as “appliances” — going so far as to make nothing replaceable and nothing upgradeable.

To counteract the end of Moore’s Law as its own kind of planned obsolescence, computer manufacturers, such as Apple, have turned to non-upgradeable/non-replaceable parts, going so far as to prohibit third-party vendors (such as LG) from selling replacement parts to anyone other than Apple.

I say, acerbically, it’s “strange”, because no consumer group or base ever clamoured for this decision and direction, yet here we are.

 

[eyoungren]

I'm afraid I don't get this. I agree Snowy is what Leo should have been but how was it transitional? Sorry for being thick.

It's not about you being thick, it's just my opinion.

Apple started to transition the look and feel of OS away from Leopard starting with Lion. So, I see SL as the perfection of Leopard before Apple abandoned that look and feel and begin working toward the look and feel we have in the later versions.

Thus, to me, SL is a transition between the old (Leopard) and the new (Lion and beyond).

 

[eyoungren]

I say, acerbically, it’s “strange”, because no consumer group or base ever clamoured for this decision and direction, yet here we are.

When Moore's Law ends and people hold on to their stuff because it still works for them, then new product doesn't sell. Hence, planned obsolescence and product you can't repair unless you are an electrical engineer.

Have to make sure the stockholders get their expected dividends.

 

[B S Magnet]

I'm not so bothered by the "everything is soldered" issue, because despite all of the repairability downsides, it has one very clear upside—it allows for smaller, lighter computers. That's a big deal on a laptop I need to carry around with me!

I’m unsure how “light” and “thin” we’re to expect laptops to become before a) we’re, uh, happy(?), or b) recognize that (Apple) laptops have been pretty light for quite some time, going back to the PowerBook 12'', and then the MacBook Air of post-2008. My unibody early 2011 13'' MBP, is several orders more powerful than the fastest PB 12'' and it isn’t heavier. In addition, parts within it can be (and certainly have been) replaced.

Where I get (very) annoyed is when Apple creates barriers to repairability for no apparent rhyme or reason. Replacing the camera in an iPhone 12 should not require authenticating with a special Apple server, that's completely inexcusable. And it ought to be flat-out illegal.

That would fall under consumer protection law and anti-trust law, and this is a conversation well worth having.

 

[iluvmacs99]

Unlike the Amiga of yore, which was never designed as an “appliance”, Moore’s Law kind of ended in the last decade and computers built a decade ago aren’t radically slower than those being churned out now. What is different is how planned obsolescence is being more aggressively pressed into the end product unlike any time before this and coercing consumers to begin accepting their laptops and desktops as “appliances” — going so far as to make nothing replaceable and nothing upgradeable.

To counteract the end of Moore’s Law as its own kind of planned obsolescence, computer manufacturers, such as Apple, have turned to non-upgradeable/non-replaceable parts, going so far as to prohibit third-party vendors (such as LG) from selling replacement parts to anyone other than Apple.

I say, acerbically, it’s “strange”, because no consumer group or base ever clamoured for this decision and direction, yet here we are.

Like any technology innovation, there was an adoption stage and that it took decades until computers became mainstream. When computers were first introduced, there were only a handful of pioneers who saw the potential and I was one of the few. Decades ago, if you ask a normal Joe/Jane consumer whether they would own a home computer. The answer would always be a resounding "NO". It took decades to change the mindset of the general population to accept it as part of their appliance. If you see what most people use a computer for; it's mainly for web browsing, banking, work from home (WFH) and finances. Most of these people are not hobbyists. They don't take apart computers, upgrade stock parts and make them better. They just buy a computer, a cheap computer and use it until it becomes abhorrently slow and then they buy a new one. I've worked in the digital imaging and computer field for close to 3 decades and see that mainly the consumers are dictating what Apple and the rest makes. It's true that computer technology had stagnated and which accelerates the consumer non-replaceable part mentality, but that mentality comes from wanting a cheaper price. The main reason? Income inequality. Income inequality began in 1975 and accelerated for much of the 80s, 90s and what you see today. The top 10% owns the wealth of the bottom 90% and sadly, it is the bottom of the 90% that get the end of the stick in terms of cheap and flimsy computers, whereas the top 10% get the brand new shiny Mac Pro expandable computer. Innovation stops because of the wealth divide. Why do anyone want to spend lots of money to innovate and create a working Quantum Computer when there's no one else other than the top 10% who could afford it? Also Quantum Computing deals Qbits and not binary and the people who are ideal for these type of work are actually women. And yet when I was working in the tech field, men always look down on women and how technology should progress in the women's point of view and still is today. The progress towards Quantum Computing is "limited" by the mindset of the current thinking. The technology can progress further; but it is up to the people who wants progress.

Currently, there is a lot of talk to move the clock backwards. To bring back the good old days. It is the people who want this and so actually the people want a commodity computer and so Apple made that for them. The people are the ones who buy computers and they are the ones who should embrace the new mindset of Quantum Computing, which requires a whole slew of monumental shifts in consciousness which unfortunately we are not there yet. And that shift is working together in unity and not continue to be divisive. You can not have new innovative technology developed with a protectionist mindset either.

 

[B S Magnet]

When Moore's Law ends and people hold on to their stuff because it still works for them, then new product doesn't sell. Hence, planned obsolescence and product you can't repair unless you are an electrical engineer.

Have to make sure the stockholders get their expected dividends.

Apple have reached where it is in market cap and revenue from intangible goods as the App Store, and they will continue to do so.

That the internal design of their new macOS-based hardware has literally shut out repairability? This does not to dramatically improve their revenue stream the way making changes to the Apps ecosystem will — especially once consumers become less and less ecstatic about their trusty laptop being unfixable once something unexceptional (bad RAM, a swollen battery, a broken retina screen), goes wrong and the principal consumer recourse is to buy another one with the same risk of outcome (and adding more quickly to the waste stream).

This is unsustainable.

 

[B S Magnet]

It's true that computer technology had stagnated and which accelerates the consumer non-replaceable part mentality, but that mentality comes from wanting a cheaper price. The main reason? Income inequality. Income inequality began in 1975 and accelerated for much of the 80s, 90s and what you see today.

1980 was a very bad year for locking in the exacerbation of income inequality, its repercussions literally having shaped the circumstances in which we all find ourselves in 2020. This didn’t just occur by happenstance in some passive-voiced “huh, stuff happened back then, income inequality got worse, stability lost its footing, and here we are today.”

Technology advanced and advances irrespective of this, though.

Producing equipment designed to fail and also be unfixable — even by force (i.e., prohibiting parts vendors from selling replacement components) — is no advancement of technology. Rather, when factoring in shareholders into this under-regulated market, the chasm between unprecedented wealth for the privileged few and poverty for many more extends itself further.

You can not have new innovative technology developed with a protectionist mindset either.

Citation needed.

 

[Amethyst1]

I'm not so bothered by the "everything is soldered" issue, because despite all of the repairability downsides, it has one very clear upside—it allows for smaller, lighter computers. That's a big deal on a laptop I need to carry around with me!

I'm afraid I totally agree with you on the laptop bit. But on a desktop such as the Mac mini, soldered RAM and storage is taking it too far. I mean, the current Mini has exactly the same dimensions as the 2010 one, yet that one allowed replacing RAM, HDD/SSD and the optical drive. And it had more ports too.

Thus, to me, SL is a transition between the old (Leopard) and the new (Lion and beyond).

Ah, I see. Got it!

I’m unsure how “light” and “thin” we’re to expect laptops to become before a) we’re, uh, happy(?), or b) recognize that (Apple) laptops have been pretty light for quite some time, going back to the PowerBook 12'',

That's just my opinion, but to me, the 12" MacBook, which was "of course" discontinued, is pretty much perfect in terms of size and weight. Yes, it could use more powerful hardware and more ports, but is fine for what I use it for. The 13.3" MacBook Air is both too big and way too heavy for an ultraportable notebook so I don't get why the 12" MacBook was killed off. The MBA is not an ultraportable!

On the other hand, my 12.1" Toshiba Portégé R500 weighs a frickin' 800 grams (SSD, no ODD) and makes the MacBook feel heavy.

 

[eyoungren]

Like any technology innovation, there was an adoption stage and that it took decades until computers became mainstream. When computers were first introduced, there were only a handful of pioneers who saw the potential and I was one of the few. Decades ago, if you ask a normal Joe/Jane consumer whether they would own a home computer. The answer would always be a resounding "NO". It took decades to change the mindset of the general population to accept it as part of their appliance.

My wife saw computers as a fad when they first started being adopted. She figured they'd go away eventually and then went right back to her typewriter.

Since I met her in 1995, I've had to pull her kicking and screaming into the the modern world of tech. The last five years have been particularly educational for her as getting her Bachelors degree required constant and repeated use of a laptop for papers, online assignments, email, etc. Her last semester was entirely online.

She is now working in her field (education), but due to COVID, it's from home with a school issued laptop. Every day she's on Zoom and dealing with Google Classroom. And she's helping teachers and kids learn some of this stuff. It's truly amazing how far she has come in the last few years.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I’m unsure how “light” and “thin” we’re to expect laptops to become before a) we’re, uh, happy(?), or b) recognize that (Apple) laptops have been pretty light for quite some time

There isn't a sudden threshold where a computer becomes "light enough"—absent other tradeoffs, smaller is always better. If someone made a computer the size of a credit card which magically transformed into a full-size workstation when you clapped your hands, I think a lot of people would want that! And if the design necessitated non-replaceable parts, I think it would be a bit silly to complain.

The question is what we're willing to trade in exchange for portability, and that will be different for everyone. I use an 11-inch Macbook Air, because I'm willing to give up some screen realestate. I am absolutely not willing to give up a good keyboard, however, which is why I never even considered getting one of the 12-inch Macbooks, even though it was smaller.

But on a desktop such as the Mac mini, soldered RAM and storage is taking it too far.

But the Mac Mini's purpose is to be a very small desktop, right? It's something you can slot into a closet, or conspicuously under a desk. I do think the size is a big part of it's appeal. (Although I do take your point that it's not any smaller now than in 2010, which sucks.)

The weird thing about the Mac Mini, though, is that it's the only option in its price class. You can't get an upgradable desktop from Apple at a price that's reasonable for a consumer.

 

[Amethyst1]

I use an 11-inch Macbook Air, because I'm willing to give up some screen realestate. I am absolutely not willing to give up a good keyboard, however, which is why I never even considered getting one of the 12-inch Macbooks, even though it was smaller.

It's a shame - you either have an Apple ultraportable with great keyboard and a crappy screen (MBA11") or one with a crappy keyboard and a great screen (MB12").

But the Mac Mini's purpose is to be a very small desktop, right? It's something you can slot into a closet, or conspicuously under a desk. I do think the size is a big part of it's appeal.

Yes, of course. But the 2010 Mini was way more repairable/upgradeable than the current one without being any bigger.

The weird thing about the Mac Mini, though, is that it's the only option in its price class.

Yep. Some people buy it because it's simply the cheapest Mac they can get. When I bought my first mini in 2005, I did so because of price, not size (in fact, I didn't care about its small size at all).

 

[Wowfunhappy]

It's a shame - you either have an Apple ultraportable with great keyboard and a crappy screen (MBA11") or one with a crappy keyboard and a great screen (MB12").

I think people make too much hey about the MBA11" screen. The viewing angle isn't a significant problem on such a small screen (it's definitely more problematic on the 13" of the era), and the resolution is perfectly adequate. If they went with a full retina screen, the battery life would have to be worse in order to power all of those pixels. The 12" Macbook could get away with including a larger battery because it had a thinner (but terrible) keyboard, and a CPU that didn't need a fan (but was slower).

My only real wish, particularly compared to modern laptops, is that the bezels were smaller. And I wish it could have a 1TB SSD. (Ironically, OWC makes 1TB SSDs for the 2012 MBA which would work, but the ones for the 2014 MBA require High Sierra )

 

[Amethyst1]

think people make too much hey about the MBA11" screen. [... ] and the resolution is perfectly adequate.

I'll be blunt and say the resolution is, IMHO, crap. Not enough screen estate. I run my 12" MB at "looks like 1440x900" and can just about get by. But to each his own.

 

[Amethyst1]

(Ironically, OWC makes 1TB SSDs for the 2012 MBA which would work, but the ones for the 2014 MBA require High Sierra

AFAICS, "designed for APFS" is just a recommendation. If the SSD is not an NVMe one (but AHCI) it should work fine on Mountain Lion and up. Worth asking about.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

AFAICS, "designed for APFS" is just a recommendation. If the SSD is not an NVMe one (but AHCI) it should work fine on Mountain Lion and up. Worth asking about.

I did, but their support told me in no uncertain terms that it's an NVME drive and will absolutely not work on 10.12 and below.