What really worries you about the Intel transition?

[Jovian9]

.....that all the software I have purchased will not work or will run slower on a mactel machine when I upgrade late next year. Too much $ spent on software to have to upgrade it all when I upgrade a machine.

 

[jefhatfield]

while the transition will happen and complete itself, i am afraid that the mac crowd will grow impatient of the slow process and prematurely pan the mactel out of frustration

the pentium m, or soon to be upcoming variant(s), have a long record of low voltage, high yield processors which would be perfect for the ibooks and powerbooks at a reasonable price point

i don't expect all to be mindblowing here at mwsf in the very near future and things may trickle out bit by bit over this year

 

[jefhatfield]

1- Adoption of Intel® Celeron evilness (or whatever new name Intel would be introducing for their new line of "broken" processors)

it's not the celeron that is broken, or unacceptable, but the machine's operating system usually found on a celeron, or pentium, or amd powered pc

one could blame the hardware they see on a pc, but it's mostly the operating system that lends itself to too many functions, counter-intuitive design, and unnecessary vulnerability to viruses

 

[Daveway]

I'm more worried about this "WINE" stuff and Windows "emulation". The whole idea of Windows and Mac OS starting to interconnect at the core os level.
Mainly this is because there is SOO much uncertainty about how "WINE" could effect us. Will developers stop porting Mac versions because the Mac OS can run the Windows version anyways? These are big questions that no one really knows and never will know until they actually start to happen.

No doubt about it, the Intel transition is the hardest curveball we, the Apple community, have felt since the transition to a GUI in the 1980s.

 

[iMeowbot]

I'm worried that we'll look under the cover and find a perfectly normal Intel-based PC, but Apple will pull an Apple and randomly switch a few wires around for no reason other than to make it harder for non-Apple operating systems to run. That kind of silliness was standard procedure for computer makers up into the 1980s, but I'm not sure that buyers will stand for that now.

 

[Voidness]

I was thinking about the software issue, since most posts in this thread are concerned about the lack of support or discontinuation of PowerPC software. Actually, if developers follow the guidelines Apple has set for making universal binaries, this shouldn't be an issue at all. Games are a completely different story, but here's an article from Apple about this: http://developer.apple.com/business/macmarket/aspyr.html

Jovian9 has pointed out another issue to be concerned about, that is the performance of Rosetta in emulating PowerPC software. How well will the existing apps run on the new x86-based Macs? They obviously won't run as well as you would expect from an x86-native app (especially heavy apps like Final Cut Pro), since they will be emulated. But it seems Rosetta has improved a lot since WWDC. At WWDC, it was known that Rosetta could only emulate a G3 (which lacks Altivac). Now, if the reports are true, Rosetta could emulate a G4 with Altivac, which is really good news.

 

[Blue Velvet]

That Rosetta will be too ungainly for graphics and layout apps and everything associated with running a studio from network printing to databases to font management.

And as long as we're still a Quark setup, how long it will take them to pull their finger out — their historical record on transitions is abysmal.

Also, whether our software and hardware cycle of purchasing will make this transition problematic. We're due for a software upgrade this year (OS & core apps) and a hardware upgrade the year after which should make life slightly interesting.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

a well designed operating system will not allow this to happen (eg openbsd). so you're worried that mac os x isn't well designed?

Well Apple hasn't "fixed" the sudo grace period, that I mentioned above. That is a clear security risk. Once you've given rights to one command/application with your admin password, any other script running can execute code using it for 5 minutes (I think it was), e.g. a script that runs "sudo rm -r *", that wouldnt be good (). There are ways to set the grace period to 0, thus eliminating the problem, but they are a bit fiddeling and Apple should set it to 0 as default, IMO.

There are also other holes in the OS, both in the underlaying FreeBSD and on a higher level. System software and Mac apps like Safari/Webkit and especially QuickTime have more than enough holes to exploit, it's just a matter of being able to running the code... but up until now Apple has been very good at releasing Security Updates before anyone has been able to exploit any known issues...

It's not that long since a proof of concept virus was demonstrated, and I hope you remember the controvercy around widget installation around the time Tiger was released...

Point is: All OSs have holes, even Mac OS X, but there has been some added security in running on a PPC platform (this is why there are a limited number of Linux viruses out there, all x86 native, none working on PPC Linux installs), and now we may loose that advantage and solely rely on Apple pluggging holes faster than the malware writers can use them.

And remember it takes only one virus/spyware incident to break a perfect record...

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Now that Macworld is just a few days away, and with anticipation for the new Intel-based Macs, I thought about what really worries me about the Intel transition, and I came up with 3 issues:

1- Adoption of Intel® Celeron evilness (or whatever new name Intel would be introducing for their new line of "broken" processors)
2- Adoption Intel® eXtreme Graphics (Intel® Media Accelerator, as they are calling it now)
3- The attack of the clones!

What are you guys worried about?

Nothing is wrong with Intel Celeron. And is Extreme Graphics really that bad? Its a lot cheaper and people with things like a low-end Mini only need a computer for Word processing and web surfing etc. You wouldn't need an X800 to do that would you? Or are you scared that Integrated graphics will go inside the Power Mac?

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

i just hope the transition isn't too tough on developers. if all the major apps are universal binaries by the end of this year (by WWDC ideally) that'll be good.

 

[dr_lha]

Microsoft

One of the things that concerns me is we haven't heard from Microsoft about this transition. Like it or not Office is a major application on Macs, and one I use every day. It doesn't look like an easy port either, being as its not even a Mach-O binary, but the old PEF file, so some major work will be needed to make it a Universal Binary. I'm sure MS isn't using Xcode for example and have a huge amount of legacy code in their still remaining from the port from OS9 -> OS X.

I think its extremely likely that Office 2004 will never see a x86 port, and instead MS will announce Office 2006 that will be x86 native, to recover the large cost of the port. Also I don't expect it until late 2006 at the earliest, giving almost a year of unsatisfactory Rosetta performance with Office.

Oh, that and the Buffer Overrun thing mentioned above.

 

[freeny]

Loss of quality for the price of speed.

 

[jaw04005]

One of the things that concerns me is we haven't heard from Microsoft about this transition. Like it or not Office is a major application on Macs, and one I use every day.

Did you miss the WWDC 2005 keynote where Roz Ho announced Microsoft's support for the transition? She said that Microsoft was in the process of porting all their code to xCode for future products.

The transition comes at an unusual time for Microsoft. Typically because they usually ship a new Mac version the year after the latest PC version. So if we assume that Microsoft will release Office 12 in 2006, then we can expect a Mactel-native Office in 2007.

 

[jaw04005]

I'm worried that Apple will use become a standard PC vendor shipping all the same parts as Dell or Gateway, but maintaining a premium price tag. Mac OS X and the fancy chassis alone are not worth the extra $300-$500 for me personally.

I'm also worried that Rosetta is being over-hyped and won't be able to deliver on its promises. Emulation is never as efficient or stable as a true platform. Look at the requirements for some of the game emulators (NES, SNES, etc) that require a 600Mhz G4 to emulate an 8-bit game system (NES) accurately. Or more relevant—Virtual PC, what a joke that is.

Not a big fan of Celeron or Integrated Graphics either.

I also think the transition will open our platform up to potential spyware and virus issues—not to mention wide-spread piracy of Mac OS X.

Unlike some on the forum, I'm not buying into Apple's hype. Their public relations department has really been on the ball with this transition, and that always makes me leery.

 

[jaw04005]

Nothing is wrong with Intel Celeron. And is Extreme Graphics really that bad? Its a lot cheaper and people with things like a low-end Mini only need a computer for Word processing and web surfing etc.

You're assuming that bulk of mini's customers are low-end consumers. However, I would beg to differ. I bet if Apple released the sales figures for the mini, it would show the bulk of mini buyers are repeat Mac buyers (prosumer) that use the mini for iLife and home entertainment or just as additional machine. I know that's why I purchased one. I don't think the mini really hit Apple's target audience.

 

[jefhatfield]

Unlike some on the forum, I'm not buying into Apple's hype. Their public relations department has really been on the ball with this transition, and that always makes me leery.

apple's pr has often been able to smooth over bad/slow/sloppy transitions and failings, where someone like a mega company pc vendor (dell/hp/sony/etc) would just make an error and not care what anyone thought because they knew they had a built in audience because they ran windows

there are so many myths started by apple and its users designed to cover up a shortcoming here or there, and as time has gone on, people could see right through it so much to the point that steve jobs is considered a big joke outside of mac circles and sometimes within mac circles

but at least steve jobs and apple is concerned about what we think and always tries to modify their products to keep us happy, and i would not be happy with dell or hp knowing that there is not much they have to do to keep their clientele happy because they are, being windows users, used to sub par performance...windows is the standard, and as we know a bad one, but a standard nonetheless

it's picking one evil over the other...a lying company/culture who believes their own lies/hype but makes a superior product vs. a rich pc company that never measures up to apple's quality and that simply does not give a rip

in the past, right now, and very likely in the future, i will stick with apple even though they use hype too much to cover up a promise delivered too late...apple still beats out all pcs in the long run and to me, that's worth an extra 10-15% percent in sticker price

 

[devman]

I'm not that worried about this move. Here are some things I think about, but I'm not worrying about any of them.

The loss of open firmware and what that might mean. I love target disk mode and would hate to lose that feature (note: I don't know if this is just a firewire thing or open firmware or both).

The length of time it will take Adobe, Microsoft, Intuit, MYOB (did I miss any other major Carbon app companies?) to get their apps runing on Intel. And then, what they'll do regarding PPC.

Which leads to in general - how long companies will bother with universal binaries and support of PPC.

Finally, what companies will do re: pricing for PPC apps going universal. The cynical view is they'll coincide with new versions which means upgrade $$$.

 

[simie]

I just looked through the Photoshop Test again, looking for a benchmarked Celeron - I could not see one, please someone correct me if I am wrong

Here are some of the Intel and AMD processors that MR users have in their PC's

Dual Xeons
Dual Core Intel
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core
AMD's Athlon 64 socket 939 and 754
AMD Opteron™ processor
Intel Pentium M
One User benchmarked his Sempron
No Celeron

So will Celeron based Macs be welcome?

 

[Voidness]

Nothing is wrong with Intel Celeron. And is Extreme Graphics really that bad? Its a lot cheaper and people with things like a low-end Mini only need a computer for Word processing and web surfing etc. You wouldn't need an X800 to do that would you? Or are you scared that Integrated graphics will go inside the Power Mac?

Believe me, as someone has mentioned above, the Pentium 4 based Celeron is hideous, since it's basically a broken Pentium 4 with half the cache (256KB, in that case). The Pentium M based celeron, however, isn't as bad.

On the other hand, Intel® eXtreme Graphics, is a real joke. Maybe the newer ones got slightly better than before, but they still can't really keep up with the current-gen dedicated graphics. They eat up some of the RAM to use as VRAM, eat up CPU cycles, and just basically cripple the graphics performance. This doesn't just apply to Intel's offerings, even ATI and NVIDIA's integrated graphics offerings do the same (Radeon 9100 IGP and NVIDIA nForce 2 IGP, for example). Mac OS X really needs a good graphics processor (IMO, my iBook's Radeon 9550 is barely sufficient for Mac OS X).

On a side note, I have a Pentium 3 based Celeron with Intel® eXtreme Graphics, which I got as a prize. I'm not exaggerating, but this thing sucks so bad that at this moment, I'm using it as a footrest as I am typing this post! It's a 1.1 GHZ Celeron, and I still have a 500MHz Pentium 3 with Radeon 8500 which is running Windows XP fine, and even plays some games.

 

[MacsRgr8]

My $ 0.02 worries:

- Too easy product comparison with "other" Intel based PC's. The consumer can literally compare the numbers and base their decisions on price alone.

- Shootouts between Intel Macs and Intel Windows PC's. I assume the drivers (grfx cards, sound cards) are more matured on the Windows side, and the existance of DirectX, many games etc. will probably run much faster on the "same hardware-PC".

- "No 3 GHz by this time next year"

 

[generik]

apple's pr has often been able to smooth over bad/slow/sloppy transitions and failings, where someone like a mega company pc vendor (dell/hp/sony/etc) would just make an error and not care what anyone thought because they knew they had a built in audience because they ran windows

Same shafting! Now with sweet whipped cream!

PR doesn't change the reality..

 

[Voidness]

Or are you scared that Integrated graphics will go inside the Power Mac?

They actually are inside a Powermac, but it happens to be the Powermac case only! (The developer systems are Powermac G5 cases with Intel motherboards inside, for those of you who don't know)

 

[Voidness]

The loss of open firmware and what that might mean. I love target disk mode and would hate to lose that feature (note: I don't know if this is just a firewire thing or open firmware or both).

Mactels won't be using Open Firmware anymore, according to this document from Apple: http://developer.apple.com/document...iversal_binary_tips/chapter_5_section_22.html But this doesn't mean macs would loose target disk mode, since I think Apple could implement this feature using what ever Mactels have as an I/O system.

 

[jefhatfield]

PR doesn't change the reality..

you are right, it doesn't

but at least apple listens to us sometimes, vs. a pc company that seemingly never listens and puts out beige boxes, oh...he he...now the pc companies have changed the case color from beige to silver or black, but same generic concept

i like the attention to detail apple puts into their operating system and their industrial design

the pc side seems to be a few months ahead on getting the latest video card, but how many of us are professional video editors or serious hard core gamers? in three to six months, we get the said nvidia or ati video card and it's not that long of a wait

 

[jhu]

Well Apple hasn't "fixed" the sudo grace period, that I mentioned above. That is a clear security risk. Once you've given rights to one command/application with your admin password, any other script running can execute code using it for 5 minutes (I think it was), e.g. a script that runs "sudo rm -r *", that wouldnt be good (). There are ways to set the grace period to 0, thus eliminating the problem, but they are a bit fiddeling and Apple should set it to 0 as default, IMO.

first off "sudo rm -r /" is much worse. secondly, the sudo grace period is the default behavior on most unixes. you can always recompile it to suit your needs. of course most unixes also require the root password to run sudo with mac os x being an exception.