Discussion:
here are considerations - OSX on Intel
(too old to reply)
Chip
2005-06-06 19:55:03 UTC
Permalink
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.

as an extension to this - how many developers currently make software
for:
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98

The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.

So.....
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p


-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Kirk Brooks
2005-06-06 21:10:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
You must be kidding. Obsolete? Why on earth are they obsolete? Apple
is not going to abandon the PowerPC platform anytime soon, and having
fat binaries around gives you enough flexibility to switch when
needed.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "abandon."
I think that the nice G4 17" powerbook I'm typing this on now has the
same status as my Centris 68040 did when Apple announced the Power PC
line. Yes, those boxes are still around and "yes" they can still run
the software they ran on that day. What's going to happen is that these
machines are going to begin to slip into the back water of tech
coolness. And once a box gets there it never gets out again, no one
writes any new software for it and slowly but surely all the cool new
things just won't quite run on it. I would imagine that of the Centrii
still around 95% are running Linnux as some sort of server and the
other 5% are sitting under dust covers in small church offices waiting
for someone to remember that it hasn't been turned on since the Clinton
administration.

Apple has never been one to let lack of backward compatibility stand in
the way of moving to the next "wicked fast" widget. I think that the
software resources in Apple are (have been) aimed at the future. The
apps that can't make the jump are going to be shunned like your out of
town relatives at a singles bar. I mean, one thing Apple has learned is
how important it is to have some snazzy stuff that actually runs on the
new box when the new box comes out. Let's see - who is going to write
that...

Kirk Brooks
650-430-3449
San Carlos, CA

==========================================
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dan Katz
2005-06-06 21:22:57 UTC
Permalink
waiting for someone to remember that it hasn't been turned on since
the Clinton administration.
<sigh>

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-06 20:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Wow, you really are unhappy about this arent you?
Were you as grumpy when Apple came out with X?
Or when Apple ditched the Motorola 68000 line?
Did you start a petty class action suit then?

What EXACTLY is wrong with Apple moving from a CPU that is not scaling
up performance wise to one that clearly in their eyes will?

I would far rather see a slick Apple branded high performance intel
CPU'd laptop than either a sluggish PowerPC G4 based one or G5 based
one with its own power generator and cooling plant.

Yes hidden in your rant are some legitimate concerns, but hey dude,
chill, take a pill or something.
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
as an extension to this - how many developers currently make software
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98
The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.
So.....
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-06 20:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
Why?
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Mehboob Alam
2005-06-06 21:31:03 UTC
Permalink
The more accurate statement here would be "ANYTHING
that you can buy is already obsolete"...
Post by Chip
Post by Chip
All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now
immediately obsolete.
sincerely,
m|a

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Tito Ciuro
2005-06-06 20:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Hello Chip,
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
I will I have I have to. Apple will support G3/G4/G5 systems for
quite a while, so if I have to buy a system before next June, I won't
hesitate to get an iMac or PowerMac G5.
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further
development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
Unless you do assembly code, why do you have to worry? The new Xcode
2.1 allows you to compile for PowerPC and Intel, creating fat
binaries. Where is the problem?
Post by Chip
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
:-)
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
We'll see that in a year.
Post by Chip
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
You must be kidding. Obsolete? Why on earth are they obsolete? Apple
is not going to abandon the PowerPC platform anytime soon, and having
fat binaries around gives you enough flexibility to switch when needed.

This is similar to the switch we had from 68K to the PowerPC family.
This was a solid switch... did it piss anyone? The switch from Mac OS
9 to Mac OS X was completely different, since developers had to
carbonize their apps. But the processor switch was another story,
being completely transparent to the user.

Sorry, but I don't understand the issues you're raising...
Post by Chip
as an extension to this - how many developers currently make software
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98
The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.
Chip, I don't know if you have been reading the details. This is a
major switch, true, but Mac OS X is already running on Intel. It has
been doing so for the last 5 years! Meanwhile, the team at Apple has
been busy crafting a way to minimize the transition for us,
developers. Take Mathematica for example. They took two hours to make
the transition. Done. Yes, not all apps are the same, and chances are
that Apple's Marketing chose carefully Wolfram Research to make sure
they had a great example to showcase.

In any case, Mathematica's example is amazing, don't you think? So
chances are that most developers won't have much trouble recompiling
their apps for Intel. If you access Apple's frameworks, it'll be a
lot easier. For assembly code buffs, it may be a totally different
story.

I just don't agree about all this "pissing off" people theory.

Regards,

-- Tito
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Daniel
2005-06-06 20:30:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
You must be kidding. Obsolete? Why on earth are they obsolete? Apple
is not going to abandon the PowerPC platform anytime soon, and having
fat binaries around gives you enough flexibility to switch when needed.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "abandon." Apple formally
stated today that by the end of 2007 all new Macs will be Intel-based.
The PowerPC platform will be abandoned in favor of an Intel platform;
this is exactly what they said today. That's barely more than 2 years
from now, and it seems pretty soon to me.

Daniel

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Tito Ciuro
2005-06-06 23:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel
Post by Chip
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
You must be kidding. Obsolete? Why on earth are they obsolete?
Apple is not going to abandon the PowerPC platform anytime soon,
and having fat binaries around gives you enough flexibility to
switch when needed.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "abandon." Apple formally
stated today that by the end of 2007 all new Macs will be Intel-
based. The PowerPC platform will be abandoned in favor of an Intel
platform; this is exactly what they said today. That's barely more
than 2 years from now, and it seems pretty soon to me.
To me, "abandon" is equivalent to "don't care for it anymore". This
will not be the case. This is what we have fat binaries now. As far
as my spanking-new PowerMac Dual G5 2.5GHz, I don't worry about
having an "abandoned" Mac. It'll rune fine for quite a while...

-- Tito
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Mehboob Alam
2005-06-06 21:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tito Ciuro
In any case, Mathematica's example is amazing,
don't you think? So chances are that most
developers won't have much trouble recompiling
their apps for Intel. If you access Apple's
frameworks, it'll be a lot easier. For assembly
code buffs, it may be a totally different story.
Mathematica's example is not so amazing, because they
have done most of their cross-platform architecture
upfront in their application design. You can run the
UI and the calculation engine on the same machine, or
separately across the network on different machines.

And then, since MacOSX is BSD-based at its API core,
porting Mathematica amounted to a matter of finding
some stupid "programming typos" left behind by a
careless developer..

IMHO.. :)



sincerely,
m|a

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Peter Bozek
2005-06-07 08:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tito Ciuro
I will I have I have to. Apple will support G3/G4/G5 systems for
quite a while, so if I have to buy a system before next June, I
won't hesitate to get an iMac or PowerMac G5.
Apple will, but existing developers will according to they resources,
and new one will not, so after some time, offer of available software
and hardware for PPC platform will be smaller.
Post by Tito Ciuro
Unless you do assembly code, why do you have to worry? The new
Xcode 2.1 allows you to compile for PowerPC and Intel, creating fat
binaries. Where is the problem?
As any plug-in developer will tell you, there are problems. As soon
as you read/write native data, you need to be concerned about native
byte ordering etc. Companies that offer cross-platform capabilities
(including 4D!) already had to solve this problem, but for the rest
it may be problem.

The positive effect is it will force companies from storing binary
data to XML/Unicode/whatever representation that is platform
independent.

Maybe this is the goal of Apple - make a first step to PC-compatible
Mac OS - what do we know?
Post by Tito Ciuro
Post by Chip
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
You must be kidding. Obsolete? Why on earth are they obsolete?
Apple is not going to abandon the PowerPC platform anytime soon,
and having fat binaries around gives you enough flexibility to
switch when needed.
Don't forget the main customer base for Apple are not corporate
buyers with fixed yearly budgets, but home users. For them, PPC line
may be obsolete and they can (and probably will) postpone further
purchases until new line of Intel Macs arrive.
Post by Tito Ciuro
This is similar to the switch we had from 68K to the PowerPC
family. This was a solid switch... did it piss anyone? The switch
from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X was completely different, since
developers had to carbonize their apps. But the processor switch
was another story, being completely transparent to the user.
The switch to PPC was very painful in fact and almost killed Apple.
Did you forget the problems Apple had with OS (7.5 was almost
unusable, first at least a bit stable system was 7.6.1), there was no
developer tools (if it was not for Metrowerks, there would be no
native software - Apple suggested developers buy IBM AS/something
machine for $25 grand for development of native software etc.) It was
a big mess. Apple is much better prepared now, but it is not a small
task still.

BTW, only point that worry me is not mentioning CodeWarrior - or
rather, mentioning that current CodeWarrior developers would have to
switch to XCode. CodeWarrior already has full x86 tools, and
supporting new fat binaries would be easy for them. It seems that
partition of former Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance is not without
problems and hard feelings, which is surely not going to support
sales of PPC Macs in the following year.
Post by Tito Ciuro
In any case, Mathematica's example is amazing, don't you think? So
chances are that most developers won't have much trouble
recompiling their apps for Intel. If you access Apple's frameworks,
it'll be a lot easier. For assembly code buffs, it may be a totally
different story.
As I wrote, it is not just assembly. Any code that manipulates saved
data will have to deal with byte swapping issues. Another issue I
missed is support of Classic by the PPC emulation software.

Peter Bozek
http://www.inforce.sk


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-07 19:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bozek
BTW, only point that worry me is not mentioning CodeWarrior - or
rather, mentioning that current CodeWarrior developers would have to
switch to XCode. CodeWarrior already has full x86 tools, and
supporting new fat binaries would be easy for them.
Wrong. Freescale recently sold off all their x86 development technology to
Noki. Note that they did not make any public announcements. The only way
this was found out is that the Mac development tools suddenly became
unavailable, and when questions were asked on the newsgroup, Metrowerks
employees explained that the contract under which the x86 stuff had been
sold off required that all vestiges of it be removed from the current
product, thus the products were temporarily unavailable while that was being
done.

This was a really stupid move even before yesterday's announcements because
one the remaining strengths of CW was the ability to do cross-platform
development. I think CodeWarrior is now DEAD on the Mac, Killed by Freescale
executives who couldn't be bothered to figure out what their users wanted.
Post by Peter Bozek
We are not doing Intel at this time and have no plans for doing it.
It looks like CW 10 will be something for people to have so they can
continue to maintain their current applications. It had some cool new
features which are probably not useful and one that is probably worth
buying it for. Text based project formats.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Lahav Wolach
2005-06-06 20:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Chip:

1) IBM??? I thought PowerPC was made by Motorola as part of a joint
development with IBM and Apple. Actually thinking about it, the PowerPC
chip that powers the IBM AS400 line is very different than the one used
by apple. Could it be that future demand for the PowerPC chip could not
justify continued development?

2) If the transition is painless from the consumer point of view, the
switch will not have such a dire effect. Are YOU a Mac user because of
the chip it runs on, or the operating system that powers it and the
software that runs on it?

3) The number of pissed off software vendors/developers will be directly
effected by the amount of pain they will have to endure during the
transition and the business potential it will open/close for them.

Yes, I do believe that there will be some short term negative effect on
Apple's bottom line, but I think they are looking at the long term here,
and no one knows what they have in store for the future.....

Regards,

Lahav
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
as an extension to this - how many developers currently make software
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98
The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.
So.....
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-07 14:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lahav Wolach
1) IBM??? I thought PowerPC was made by Motorola as part of a joint
development with IBM and Apple. Actually thinking about it, the
PowerPC chip that powers the IBM AS400 line is very different than
the one used by apple. Could it be that future demand for the
PowerPC chip could not justify continued development?
Motorola spun off its computer chip manufacture to a separate company
Free(something)
They have been 'developing' dual core G4s

The G5 chip is a modified IBM Power 4, older chipset IBM used in their
servers.

Microsoft is using 3 - PPC chips (G5s I think) in the X-Box 2
Sony is using 'Cell' and IBM, Sony, Toshiba collaboration in their PS3
Nintendo is supposed to be using PPC chip(s?) in their Game Cube 2

so... no demand, is not low.
Post by Lahav Wolach
2) If the transition is painless from the consumer point of view, the
switch will not have such a dire effect. Are YOU a Mac user because
of the chip it runs on, or the operating system that powers it and
the software that runs on it?
it is a combination of the 2

also the transition to intel - is joke
AMD processors are faster, cheaper, and carry less legacy crap than
intel's.

The itanium (intel's only true 64bit chip) has been dropped by most
manufacturer's including HP (one of the most closely tied vendors to
intel).
Post by Lahav Wolach
3) The number of pissed off software vendors/developers will be
directly effected by the amount of pain they will have to endure
during the transition and the business potential it will open/close
for them.
Just think - OS/2
dual binaries for intel - how long did that last?

also think dual binaries for 68xxx and PPC how long did they exist?
Post by Lahav Wolach
Yes, I do believe that there will be some short term negative effect
on Apple's bottom line, but I think they are looking at the long term
here, and no one knows what they have in store for the future.....
Regards,
Lahav
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further
development on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective
immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing
apple hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98
The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.
So.....
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class
action suit - can anyone guess why? :p
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"A corrupt society has many laws." - Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Pooser
2005-06-07 14:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
also the transition to intel - is joke
AMD processors are faster, cheaper, and carry less legacy crap than
intel's.
I would suggest that Apple has already tried being the better alternative as
opposed to the better-marketed alternative. Being better isn't nearly as
profitable. Once they have the x86 transition down, there will be
opportunities to play AMD and Intel against each other, but initially
there's a lot of Intel marketing clout that Apple can piggyback on.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com



**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Basil Bourque
2005-06-09 08:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
The itanium (intel's only true 64bit chip) has been dropped by most
manufacturer's including HP (one of the most closely tied vendors to
intel).
Incorrect.

As of last week, HP made moves to converge all its high-end server
lines to Itanium.

HP did abandon Itaniums for workstations last year, to focus on their
64-bit Xeon workstation line.


http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5719209.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040927-4235.html


--Basil Bourque
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Colin Clements
2005-06-06 20:25:58 UTC
Permalink
I suppose it really is a pain if you have just invested a large
amount of cash in a new Mac but I am sure it will still work just fine.
This is not the first time Apple has switched chips and they managed
680xx -> PPC just fine.
The real star is OSX. If I have to buy full price replacement
versions of all my apps I will not be too impressed but I bet there
will be upgrade offers.
Apple will know that they have to take a hit in hardware sales in the
short term but long term if IBM can't deliver then it has to be Intel.
If I have to choose I prefer OS X to XP any day. I don't care what it
runs on.
Time will tell
Colin Clements
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further
development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
as an extension to this - how many developers currently make software
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98
The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.
So.....
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Tom Dillon
2005-06-06 21:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p
C'mon, be honest, this is _really_ about Apple dropping the 6502.


Actually, this move does perplex me a bit in that I would think that the
computing world is about ready for a new architecture. The x86 line is
surely nearing the end of its lifetime, right?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Dillon 900 S. Coors Dr.
DataCraft Lakewood, CO 80228
TomDillon-6eH5/jFXs2M73d6yEZ2DlAC/***@public.gmane.org 720/962-4880
------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all just 1's and 0's. You just have to get them in the
right order.
------------------------------------------------------------------


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Mehboob Alam
2005-06-06 21:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Apple is NOT planning on offering today's Intel
processors, next year.. surely Intel offered a sweet
deal and committed to making something worthwhile for
Apple..

Just google "Intel Yonah" for the really good news..
<http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050602_143758.html>
Post by Chip
Post by Chip
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to
start a class action
Post by Chip
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p
C'mon, be honest, this is _really_ about Apple
dropping the 6502.
Actually, this move does perplex me a bit in that I
would think that the
computing world is about ready for a new
architecture. The x86 line is
surely nearing the end of its lifetime, right?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Chip
Tom Dillon
900 S. Coors Dr.
DataCraft
Lakewood, CO 80228
720/962-4880
------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Chip
It's all just 1's and 0's. You just have to
get them in the
right order.
------------------------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
Post by Chip
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
sincerely,
m|a



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-06 21:53:50 UTC
Permalink
A year is a really long time. Who knows what iron Intel will be
delivering to Apple? Just because the development toolkit is pentium
based does not mean that the final platform will be a stock pentium as
we know it. The chip is very likely to be 64 bit, hopefully dual core,
and perhaps without much of the legacy stuff demanded by Windoze
backwards compatibility.

Lets not forget, Apple have not said this with be MacOS X running on
"PC's", but rather it is MacOS running on Intel powered Apple branded
kit.

Anything we say now is pure speculation.

Yes, I am disapointed that PPC seems to have hit a brick wall, but to
be honest, as long as the support snail trail for this transition is
as long as it was for 68000 to PPC and MacOS 9 to X I will be happy.

Given that it _seems_ to be relatively straightforward to port, if
apple are to beleived, I see no good reason why quality vendors wont
do so. Obviously there will be those that choose not to.

It is worth considering that many (most?) vendors new to MacOS are
likely to be working with Cocoa already (which is supposed to make it
easier). You have to question the commitment of any existing vendors
who have not grasped Cocoa and are still relying on Carbon - sooner or
later they would have had to wean themselves of Carbon, or give up.

The sky is not falling in clucky lucky and henny penny!
Post by Tom Dillon
Actually, this move does perplex me a bit in that I would think that the
computing world is about ready for a new architecture. The x86 line is
surely nearing the end of its lifetime, right?
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-07 14:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Lets not forget, Apple have not said this with be MacOS X running on
"PC's", but rather it is MacOS running on Intel powered Apple branded
kit.
No - not quite -
Schiller stated (paraphrase):
we will do nothing to preclude the running of windows on our box - but
OSX will not run on any other box but ours.

so.... it *WILL* be a pentium, otherwise windows does not run and they
are going to *try* to limit the OS installation to an Apple box - that
will last about 30 minutes (conservatively).

-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-07 16:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Sorry Chippie but "wont preclude" does not equal "actively enable".
Preclude would mean Apple would make it impossible to do.
And I do not see the basis for your absolute statement that it *WILL*
be pentium.
A lot of your statements are so very absolute but sadly absolute without reason.
The bottom line is that at the moment we simply just dont know until
all the detail falls out.
A year is really a long time in IT world and I am sure the spec for
the kit is very fluid.
Anything we say is pure speculation (or rant).
Post by Chip
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Lets not forget, Apple have not said this with be MacOS X running on
"PC's", but rather it is MacOS running on Intel powered Apple branded
kit.
No - not quite -
we will do nothing to preclude the running of windows on our box - but
OSX will not run on any other box but ours.
so.... it *WILL* be a pentium, otherwise windows does not run and they
are going to *try* to limit the OS installation to an Apple box - that
will last about 30 minutes (conservatively).
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Pooser
2005-06-06 20:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
Me. In fact, I'm going to buy three Xserves, a couple of iMacs, and a dozen
laptops.

1) I imagine most corporate buyers are in the same position-- I've got a lot
of cash budgeted for capital expenditures, and I've got users who are still
carrying four-year-old laptops. Sitting on my thumb for the next 18 months
is not an option. Among other things, that budget money vanishes.

2) I'd rather have the last incarnation of the tried-and-true Mac-on-PPC
than tiptoe the bleeding edge with Mac-on-x86. There will be teething
problems. I don't want to experience them.

3) Apple has already committed to a "fat binary" application model. If it's
as easy to port code to Intel as they say, then we'll see lots of
application vendors also shipping fat binaries. My new Macs aren't going to
be obsolete before my three-year computer lifecycle ends. What I will have
is more time to see how imaging machines will work, etc.
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
Why wouldn't they? If a tiny amount of additional work gets them access to
today's market and tomorrow's machines as well, that's not an incredible
hardship. Right now what we're likely to see is a focus on cleaning up their
PPC code for maximum portability. That's why Apple gave them a 1-year
window.
Post by Chip
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
They have an insane cash reserve built up. They'll take a hit, but it'll be
a storm they can weather.
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
I'm guessing only a few, most of them nobody we've ever heard of. Apple
appears to be bending over backward to do this in a developer-friendly
manner. And this certainly holds promise to expand Apple's market share.
Post by Chip
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product?
Probably the same ones who swore they were leaving Apple because they hated
[System 7, Mac OS 8, the decision not to buy Be, killing the Newton, the
deal with Microsoft, Apple's cruelty to Karelia, Mac OS X]. Some people seem
to make a career out of getting pissed off.
Post by Chip
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
"So, Mr. Scheide, you are telling this court that despite a career in the
computer industry you were still taken completely by surprise at the
revelation that new products are often introduced and such introduction
makes older products less desirable?"
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jeffrey Kain
2005-06-06 20:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
Current Mac hardware based on the G5 certainly gives great performance
that's competitive with anything else out there. Apple is giving developers
a year to move to XCode (perhaps the hardest part of this transition for a
lot of developers?) and prepare for Universal Binaries which will be with
us forever, so there should be no obsolescence to really worry about here.
It won't matter what chip is inside as long as the OS and compilers
continue to be developed and optimized for both architectures.

Buying a G5-based product in the next year shouldn't worry anyone -- they
are great computers no matter how you evaluate them. As for the older G4
line, Apple is selling a lot of portables and Minis now, and they don't
come close to matching comparably priced Windows hardware in terms of raw
speed. It's not the most important attribute to buyers in this segment, so
as long as people don't develop irrational fears of obsolescence (hi,
Chip!), Apple's sales in this segment could remain very strong over the
next year.

Jeff

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Frank Martin
2005-06-06 23:00:29 UTC
Permalink
I'm relieved that Apple is switching. PowerPC has been a long-time
disappointment, failing to meet the performance promises since the
day it was introduced, right up to the current day, with 3 Ghz chips
a no-show a year after they were promised, and new portable
processors not even on the horizon. This is a huge step forward for
Apple: no more playing second fiddle, performance-wise! Now we can
have cutting edge industrial design, _and_ cutting edge performance
too.

Although a 2 year time frame is mentioned, that time frame is for
conversion of the entire line. I expect the first Apple x86's well
before that. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something by the fall.
And while there may be teething pains, this is also a chance for
Apple to step up to the plate with new features, even-more-gorgeous
designs and lower prices. I, for one, can't wait to see what they'll
come up with.

A great, great day for the Mac platform and for Mac enthusiasts.
--
Regards,
Frank Martin
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-07 14:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Martin
Although a 2 year time frame is mentioned, that time frame is for
conversion of the entire line. I expect the first Apple x86's well
before that. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something by the fall.
explicitly laid on in the keynote -
June 2006 for the first intel macs -

BTW - anyone remember how well apple does at delivery of new systems??
think original G4 powerbooks (titaniums) there was a 3month delay
Think G5 towers again 3 months of delay
Think iPods, iMac

so... June 2006 is more likely (from apple's track record) to be
October 2006
Post by Frank Martin
And while there may be teething pains, this is also a chance for
Apple to step up to the plate with new features, even-more-gorgeous
designs and lower prices.
can apple produce a PC for $300 with a monitor? Dell does
how about a cpu with OS for $100 - Linspire does that and it is a linux
varient
Post by Frank Martin
I, for one, can't wait to see what they'll
come up with.
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Doug Hall
2005-06-07 18:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
BTW - anyone remember how well apple does at delivery of new systems??
think original G4 powerbooks (titaniums) there was a 3month delay
Okay, that was bad. I forgot if it was a chip supply problem or not,
though.
Post by Chip
Think G5 towers again 3 months of delay
This was definitely IBM's fault, not Apple's.
Post by Chip
Think iPods, iMac
Much higher demand than anticipated. (For both, I think)

Intel is the largest producer of microchips in the world. By a fair
margin, I believe. Also, they have broader variety of chips than others
have. Of course historically, they're more prone to design flaws - if
you remember the floating point error they had many years ago. But if
anything, your points support the switch to Intel, not against it.

I was more concerned about the additional heat that the x86 chips
produced, compared to the RISC PPCs. From the comments I've read,
though, this was apparently not the case going _forward_.

Doug

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Batton
2005-06-07 08:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Chip,
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further
development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product?
I think this is why Apple is a technology leader, rather than
out of business. They don't give a damn if you can't keep up with
them. And neither do I. ;-)
--
Dave Batton
http://4DToday.com/


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dan Babcock
2005-06-07 13:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
This is about the only negative impact I'm concerned about. I will
certainly delay purchases until next year.
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
If they are using Apple's dev tools, I don't see why they would. I'd
rather be ready to bolt out the door with an Intel flavor ASAP with the
new hardware. Time to grab or keep market share.
Post by Chip
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
I'm a die hard Mac fan. I just can't imagine having Windows as my
development or personal use computer. This won't change that at all.
Apple has repeatedly demonstrated their ability to migrate to different
architectures. I have no reason to doubt they won't succeed here.

Personally, I would have liked it if IBM could have gotten the job done
with PowerPC. However, they made decisions recently that really
concerned me about their commitment to providing Apple with chips that
could compete in the marketing hype wars.

Part of me churns with the thought that Microsoft has bragging rights
for picking the winning horse. Not because it's better, it survived
the computer wars as the CPU of choice. Part of me is very excited
because now purchasing decisions get reduced to price and quality. The
nonsense of MHz comparisons is over, I hope.

I think this will help "switchers" too. Now, for computer neophytes,
it's just a better windows computer. Of course, they're incorrect, but
mindshare is everything.

I'm just very glad Apple made the decision now before it was too late
and they were too far behind in the race. I think it is good timing.

Dan


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Justin Leavens
2005-06-07 17:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Babcock
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
This is about the only negative impact I'm concerned about. I will
certainly delay purchases until next year.
Just a differing opinion here. The only reason I'd wait until next year
to buy a Mac is if I didn't need a computer until next year. If I
needed one this year and postponed my purchase until next year on the
speculation of what's to come (and when it might be coming), I just
bought myself a lot of frustration and a loss of productivity between
now and then. Off with the nose, "so there!" to the face.

If history is any lesson, the first of these machines released will be
the top-of-the-line, most expensive models. And three months later,
they won't be the top of the line anymore... How long do you wait?
--
Justin Leavens, jleavens-***@public.gmane.org

Lizeric, Inc. - 4D and Macintosh Support Specialists
Certified Apple Consultants Network Member / 4D Partner
234 E. Foothill Blvd. Arcadia, CA 91006
(626) 357-3906 x203 / (626) 357-3956 (Fax)
http://www.lizeric.com http://www.webhomeserver.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-07 18:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin Leavens
If history is any lesson, the first of these machines released will
be the top-of-the-line, most expensive models. And three months
later, they won't be the top of the line anymore... How long do you
wait?
Jobs said - June 2006 bottom end machines first to intel, then by June
2007 top end machines

dont forget to add Apple's infamous under production problems, so...
June 2006 will likely be September, or November 2006, same for 2007
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Steve Hussey
2005-06-07 19:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
dont forget to add Apple's infamous under production problems, so...
June 2006 will likely be September, or November 2006, same for 2007
...but many of Apple's infamous production problems were due to delays in
the delivery of Motorola chips...

Steve
--
The lyf so short - the craft so long to lerne
"Never confuse information with knowledge."
"Think twice - code once."


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Leonard Soloniuk, MD
2005-06-07 19:19:37 UTC
Permalink
What makes the current makes obsolete is that software developers will
no longer develop for the existing PPC computers. 4D has committed to
provide 4D 2003 compatibility with OS 10.4. But beyond that, they would
be foolish into putting any more effect into a 4D version that will not
run on the new Intel hardware. In 1-2 years, the current PPC-based
machines will be obsolete: I won't be able to run the latest version of
4D on them. I currently run 4D 2004 fine on PPC-based machines that are
5 years old.

I think that Apple/Steve Jobs is going to experience the "Osborne"
effect.

I'll certainly need new hardware in the next year, but I'm certainly
not going to buy more Apple Hardware until the picture is clarified.
(Currently, I own 28 Macs and 2 PCs).

Soon, I'm going to have to upgrade the machine that I'm using as a 4D
server (a G5). There seem to be several reasons for choosing a Windows
box instead of a Mac
a) it's cheaper
b) it runs faster
c) it's not obsolete
d) managing OS X Server (not 4D server, but OS X Server) is as
difficult as managing Windows Server (ease of use disappears when
transitioning from OS X Client to OS X Server)

L.
Post by Dan Babcock
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
This is about the only negative impact I'm concerned about. I will
certainly delay purchases until next year.
Post by Chip
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further
development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
If they are using Apple's dev tools, I don't see why they would. I'd
rather be ready to bolt out the door with an Intel flavor ASAP with
the new hardware. Time to grab or keep market share.
Post by Chip
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
I'm a die hard Mac fan. I just can't imagine having Windows as my
development or personal use computer. This won't change that at all.
Apple has repeatedly demonstrated their ability to migrate to
different architectures. I have no reason to doubt they won't succeed
here.
Personally, I would have liked it if IBM could have gotten the job
done with PowerPC. However, they made decisions recently that really
concerned me about their commitment to providing Apple with chips that
could compete in the marketing hype wars.
Part of me churns with the thought that Microsoft has bragging rights
for picking the winning horse. Not because it's better, it survived
the computer wars as the CPU of choice. Part of me is very excited
because now purchasing decisions get reduced to price and quality.
The nonsense of MHz comparisons is over, I hope.
I think this will help "switchers" too. Now, for computer neophytes,
it's just a better windows computer. Of course, they're incorrect,
but mindshare is everything.
I'm just very glad Apple made the decision now before it was too late
and they were too far behind in the race. I think it is good timing.
Dan
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Alain Dupont
2005-06-07 19:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard Soloniuk, MD
Soon, I'm going to have to upgrade the machine that I'm using as a 4D
server (a G5). There seem to be several reasons for choosing a
Windows box instead of a Mac
a) it's cheaper YES but < 10 to 15 % to get a brand one
b) it runs faster YES about 20 to 50 %
c) it's not obsolete {All PC are also obsoletes... just at the output of
the factory}
Post by Leonard Soloniuk, MD
d) managing OS X Server (not 4D server, but OS X Server) is as
difficult as managing Windows Server (ease of use disappears when
transitioning from OS X Client to OS X Server)
Major points here...
1)- Cost of maintainance of a PC is 3 times the cost of a Mac
3)- Murphy's law on PC is always maximum...{if you are a Mac guy}
3)- Updates for viruses and patches will cost 3 to 20 times more
4)- Cost for CAL licences with Crimosoft is a pain in the a..

Question: Is this worth the move ?

After 10 + years experience with Mac's and PC, I will certainly buy
PowerMac's with
Intel Processor inside ; in the mean time I will definitively choose to
Buy a Standard
PowerMac G5.

The Dark Side, remember!

The Force {Of the Mac} be with you...

Alain.
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Pooser
2005-06-07 20:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard Soloniuk, MD
d) managing OS X Server (not 4D server, but OS X Server) is as
difficult as managing Windows Server (ease of use disappears when
transitioning from OS X Client to OS X Server)
Hmm.. Mind giving an idea what sort of difficulty you had? My own experience
setting up an Xserve as a 4D server went something like:

1) Set up server as standalone server; turn on SSH and ARD access only
2) Install 4D server and copy over structure and data files
3) Drink beer.

Never a lick of trouble, as long as in step 3 I stick to high-quality
components like Shiner Bock instead of Budweiser and its ilk. :^)
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jeffrey Kain
2005-06-08 05:04:21 UTC
Permalink
But beyond that, they would be foolish into putting any more effect
into a 4D version that will not run on the new Intel hardware.
The effort that developers will expend on Intel versions of their
Macintosh applications will not preclude them from releasing PowerPC
versions simultaneously.
In 1-2 years, the current PPC-based machines will be obsolete: I
won't be able to run the latest version of 4D on them. I currently
run 4D 2004 fine on PPC-based machines that are 5 years old.
That's crazy. Apple will be *selling* PowerPC-based systems for the
next 2 years at least (that's millions and millions of new PPC Macs),
according to the presentation. Neither Apple nor developers will
ignore the huge installed base of PPC Macs, and I'd bet anything that
PPC systems will be fully supported by most all developers well into
the next decade, at least.
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Leonard Soloniuk, MD
2005-06-08 05:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Just happened to check my office statistics. Using Softsinc's Fax Pack
and 4-Sight Fax, we've sent 152,244 faxes since starting with it in
Jan, 2003. No unscheduled downtown for over a year (when the old Mac
8500 bit the dust). The kind of plug-in I like: it just works.

Len

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-08 15:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Kain
But beyond that, they would be foolish into putting any more effect
into a 4D version that will not run on the new Intel hardware.
The effort that developers will expend on Intel versions of their
Macintosh applications will not preclude them from releasing PowerPC
versions simultaneously.
it may -

*EVEN* if the "fat" binary is as simple to make as setting a checkbox
during compile
The software developer *STILL* has to test the 'final' code on both
platforms (MacIntel, and PPC)

imagine writing a 4D system for someone on a PPC Mac, compiling it for
both Mac and PC, and sending to the end user without testing the PC
side!

this additional testing will cost $, large companies (Adobe) can and
probably will absorb the additonal costs [at least at first], medium
sized companies (4D inc) can easily be hard pressed to absorb the cost.
small companies (most of us developers) have no reasonable way to
include the cost of additional testing - it is simpler to just NOT
produce the software for one or more platforms (ie drop Mac support
altogether, or just test intel solutions).

Using 4D inc as an example - we already see that there are differences
in the way some operations work between platforms (PPC Mac and Intel
PC) - some of the bugs that get posted here show a difference in the
way the software (4th dimension and its related tools) behaves on
different processors and OSes. I think I remember someone posting that
a windows problem showed up on intel hardware, but not in VPC.

Adding yet another hardware platform means a requirement for 4D, and us
as developers (if we are going to support PPC macs), means 50% more
testing then is currently required. ***THAT*** is additional costs.

So - what is simpler and more cost effective - produce software for 3
hardware platforms at a minimum of the cost of additional testing, or
simply drop support for the 'older' now obsolete PPC Mac, or even for
Mac (even on Intel) entirely and focus soley on Intel.

-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-08 16:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Chip,

What do you expect Apple to do about the PPC performance/power
consumption/failure to scale into laptops, problems if they do not do
what they have announced?

i.e. what is your informated alternative strategy?

All I am hearing is complaints and problems but no alternatives.

Martin
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-08 18:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
What do you expect Apple to do about the PPC performance/power
consumption/failure to scale into laptops, problems if they do not do
what they have announced?
i.e. what is your informated alternative strategy?
All I am hearing is complaints and problems but no alternatives.
cell?
Power 5?
Dual Core G4?

Their own chip plant?
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-08 19:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Chip,

In answer to your 'propositions':

Cell - The CELL processor is a collaboration between IBM, Sony and
Toshiba, is there a low power cell processor availiable for laptops or
even desktops? Does it have the requisite compilers for all modern
languages supported by macos? If not who will scale it? Who will build
it? If IBM wont scale PPC why will they do it for cell? Apple cant
because they dont own it.

Power 5 - a server oriented chip, that is very unlikely to be scaled
down to laptop size in terms of heat, space and power requirements.
The same problems but multiplied over the problems with scaling donw
the requirements of G5. If it could be scaled down, IBM might choose
not to do it and they own it.

Dual Core G4 - does IBM make this? How many years would Apple have to
limp on with an old soldier processor just because? If IBM choose not
to do it, who does?

Their own chip plant - interesting concept. Do you have any idea what
is involved in designing and fabricating a new chip? It does not
involve magic wands, it involves hundreds of millions of dollars and
immence expertise and R&D - again, how long must we wait?

I really dont get your apparent head in the sand approach to this. My
understanding is that despite the best wishes and intentions of Apple,
they simply could not get a decent chip out of IBM for some reason or
other.

Foremost theory is (if you read the press) that IBM really could not
be bothered with the hassle of working on the G5 relative to the
returns posed by developing MASS market chips. It seems to me Apple
hand no choice but to go to either AMD or intel and there is nothing I
have seen so far that would preclude AMD and intel in the future.

So Apple have a strategy that will relatively seamlessly migrate users
over a period of time from one chipset to another. Given the rapid
pace of IT and the typical design life of approximately 3 years, their
strategy looks pretty darn good.

They did the 68040 -> PPC transition very well (did you sue them for
that by the way? If so how did you get on?).

They also did the Mac OS 9 to X transition well also (did you sue them
for that by the way? If so how did you get on?).

Personally I would have loved to see the PPC consortium deliver a
continum of RISC chips to power apples, but being realistic, faced
with the choice between great looking but relatively sluggish
equiopment, and the alternative of great looking high performance kit,
I will take the latter every time.

So, unless you are an assembly programmer whos life has centred on
hand carving PPC calls, there is little to truely gripe about.

If you love your PPC based kit some much, just keep using it, choose
not to upgrade anything on it and it will still be fit for purpose as
sold by Apple.

It frightens me how I have managed to spend nearly an hour debating
this stuff, but I do like a good flame/rant.

Enjoy! (I await the next measured, researched and informed installment).

:-)

MM
Post by Chip
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
What do you expect Apple to do about the PPC performance/power
consumption/failure to scale into laptops, problems if they do not do
what they have announced?
i.e. what is your informated alternative strategy?
All I am hearing is complaints and problems but no alternatives.
cell?
Power 5?
Dual Core G4?
Their own chip plant?
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-08 19:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Do you have any idea what
is involved in designing and fabricating a new chip? It does not
involve magic wands, it involves hundreds of millions of dollars
You're living in the past ;-) I think it's well over the billion dollar mark
these days. Certainly chip fabs for current-generation processes are past
the billion dollar mark per facility.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Charles Miller
2005-06-08 20:09:41 UTC
Permalink
I think I just read that IBM's chip plant was in the range of 3.5 to 4
billion dollars to build

Chuck
Post by Scott Ribe
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Do you have any idea what
is involved in designing and fabricating a new chip? It does not
involve magic wands, it involves hundreds of millions of dollars
You're living in the past ;-) I think it's well over the billion dollar mark
these days. Certainly chip fabs for current-generation processes are past
the billion dollar mark per facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Miller Voice: (617) 739-0306
Informed Solutions, Inc. Fax: (617) 232-1064
PO Box 1720 mailto:cjmiller-***@public.gmane.org
Brookline, MA 02446 USA
Registered 4D Developer
Providers of 4D and Sybase connectivity
http://www.informed-solutions.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attached documents contain information which may be
confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.  These materials are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this
transmission, you are hereby notified that any distribution, disclosure,
printing, copying, storage, modification or the taking of any action in
reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited.  Delivery of this
message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not compromise
or waive such confidentiality, privilege or exemption from disclosure as to
this communication. 


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-08 20:34:13 UTC
Permalink
BTW - Apple cash reserve is:
7.06 Billion
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-08 20:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Chip,
Cell - The CELL processor is a collaboration between IBM, Sony and
Toshiba, is there a low power cell processor availiable for laptops or
even desktops? Does it have the requisite compilers for all modern
languages supported by macos? If not who will scale it? Who will build
it? If IBM wont scale PPC why will they do it for cell? Apple cant
because they dont own it.
as I understand - this of course could be incorrect -
Cell is, a at its core, a single PPC processor with 8 'sub processors'

it is a low to medium power consumption processor - and the numbers I
have seen for PS3 claim 2 TERA-flops. Since it is based on the PPC
processor it is possible that Mac OS would run as is.

Apple does not own it - would sony/toshiba/IBM be willing to license
its use?
I do not know
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Power 5 - a server oriented chip, that is very unlikely to be scaled
down to laptop size in terms of heat, space and power requirements.
The same problems but multiplied over the problems with scaling donw
the requirements of G5. If it could be scaled down, IBM might choose
not to do it and they own it.
G5 is a modified Power 4 I do not know enough about the Power 5
specifications regarding power consumption and heat to make any claim.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Dual Core G4 - does IBM make this? How many years would Apple have to
limp on with an old soldier processor just because? If IBM choose not
to do it, who does?
No - Freescale (ex-motorola - spun off a year o 3 ago) does.
Since the PPC architecture is an IBM/Apple/Motorola collaboration Apple
should have as much right to it as any other PPC chip (see cell)
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Their own chip plant - interesting concept.
I thought about this a bit more - a plant could be purchased from Intel
(or others - Freescale), or built as available/needed.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Do you have any idea what
is involved in designing and fabricating a new chip?
Well... I know the IBM Fishkill Plant was about $10 Billion - but that
plant has capacity far in excess of what Apple (currently and likely
for the forseeable future) needs. With absolutely no hard numbers, it
would seem likly that Apple could build a fabrication plant for 2-3
Billion, and would be able to have this plant available in the same
time frame as an intel Mac.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
It does not
involve magic wands, it involves hundreds of millions of dollars and
immence expertise and R&D - again, how long must we wait?
Yes and no -

at no time did I suggest that Apple *design* a new chip from scratch, I
was trying to suggest that Apple get their own fabricate plant to
produce their chip(s).

I *do* understand that there is significant amount of work, effort,
expertise, and time in designing a chip.

Apple does not have to design a new chip from scratch do they?
If Apple has/had their own fabrication plant, they can/could produce G5
chips, and/or Dual-core G4s to meet their supply requirements. THis
might even make IBM happier, as then they would have a bit more
capacity to produce Cells for Sony, and if Apple's plant had excess
capacity IBM could even buy that capacity (or production) from Apple to
produce additional PPC chips for xbox and nintendo - if they needed.

Apple could continue to work with IBM &/or Freescale to develop lower
power G5 chips, faster dual core G4s, and dual core G5s (already in
alpha state); and then do the final chip fabrication themselves.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
I really dont get your apparent head in the sand approach to this. My
understanding is that despite the best wishes and intentions of Apple,
they simply could not get a decent chip out of IBM for some reason or
other.
Foremost theory is (if you read the press) that IBM really could not
be bothered with the hassle of working on the G5 relative to the
returns posed by developing MASS market chips. It seems to me Apple
hand no choice but to go to either AMD or intel and there is nothing I
have seen so far that would preclude AMD and intel in the future.
So Apple have a strategy that will relatively seamlessly migrate users
over a period of time from one chipset to another. Given the rapid
pace of IT and the typical design life of approximately 3 years, their
strategy looks pretty darn good.
They did the 68040 -> PPC transition very well (did you sue them for
that by the way? If so how did you get on?).
They also did the Mac OS 9 to X transition well also (did you sue them
for that by the way? If so how did you get on?).
Personally I would have loved to see the PPC consortium deliver a
continum of RISC chips to power apples, but being realistic, faced
with the choice between great looking but relatively sluggish
equiopment, and the alternative of great looking high performance kit,
I will take the latter every time.
So, unless you are an assembly programmer whos life has centred on
hand carving PPC calls, there is little to truely gripe about.
If you love your PPC based kit some much, just keep using it, choose
not to upgrade anything on it and it will still be fit for purpose as
sold by Apple.
It frightens me how I have managed to spend nearly an hour debating
this stuff, but I do like a good flame/rant.
Enjoy! (I await the next measured, researched and informed installment).
:-)
MM
Post by Chip
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
What do you expect Apple to do about the PPC performance/power
consumption/failure to scale into laptops, problems if they do not do
what they have announced?
i.e. what is your informated alternative strategy?
All I am hearing is complaints and problems but no alternatives.
cell?
Power 5?
Dual Core G4?
Their own chip plant?
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-08 20:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for that! I have had a crap day and your reply made me laugh so
much that sprite bubbles came out my nose!
Post by Chip
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Chip,
Cell - The CELL processor is a collaboration between IBM, Sony and
Toshiba, is there a low power cell processor availiable for laptops or
even desktops? Does it have the requisite compilers for all modern
languages supported by macos? If not who will scale it? Who will build
it? If IBM wont scale PPC why will they do it for cell? Apple cant
because they dont own it.
as I understand - this of course could be incorrect -
Cell is, a at its core, a single PPC processor with 8 'sub processors'
it is a low to medium power consumption processor - and the numbers I
have seen for PS3 claim 2 TERA-flops. Since it is based on the PPC
processor it is possible that Mac OS would run as is.
Apple does not own it - would sony/toshiba/IBM be willing to license
its use?
I do not know
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Power 5 - a server oriented chip, that is very unlikely to be scaled
down to laptop size in terms of heat, space and power requirements.
The same problems but multiplied over the problems with scaling donw
the requirements of G5. If it could be scaled down, IBM might choose
not to do it and they own it.
G5 is a modified Power 4 I do not know enough about the Power 5
specifications regarding power consumption and heat to make any claim.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Dual Core G4 - does IBM make this? How many years would Apple have to
limp on with an old soldier processor just because? If IBM choose not
to do it, who does?
No - Freescale (ex-motorola - spun off a year o 3 ago) does.
Since the PPC architecture is an IBM/Apple/Motorola collaboration Apple
should have as much right to it as any other PPC chip (see cell)
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Their own chip plant - interesting concept.
I thought about this a bit more - a plant could be purchased from Intel
(or others - Freescale), or built as available/needed.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Do you have any idea what
is involved in designing and fabricating a new chip?
Well... I know the IBM Fishkill Plant was about $10 Billion - but that
plant has capacity far in excess of what Apple (currently and likely
for the forseeable future) needs. With absolutely no hard numbers, it
would seem likly that Apple could build a fabrication plant for 2-3
Billion, and would be able to have this plant available in the same
time frame as an intel Mac.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
It does not
involve magic wands, it involves hundreds of millions of dollars and
immence expertise and R&D - again, how long must we wait?
Yes and no -
at no time did I suggest that Apple *design* a new chip from scratch, I
was trying to suggest that Apple get their own fabricate plant to
produce their chip(s).
I *do* understand that there is significant amount of work, effort,
expertise, and time in designing a chip.
Apple does not have to design a new chip from scratch do they?
If Apple has/had their own fabrication plant, they can/could produce G5
chips, and/or Dual-core G4s to meet their supply requirements. THis
might even make IBM happier, as then they would have a bit more
capacity to produce Cells for Sony, and if Apple's plant had excess
capacity IBM could even buy that capacity (or production) from Apple to
produce additional PPC chips for xbox and nintendo - if they needed.
Apple could continue to work with IBM &/or Freescale to develop lower
power G5 chips, faster dual core G4s, and dual core G5s (already in
alpha state); and then do the final chip fabrication themselves.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
I really dont get your apparent head in the sand approach to this. My
understanding is that despite the best wishes and intentions of Apple,
they simply could not get a decent chip out of IBM for some reason or
other.
Foremost theory is (if you read the press) that IBM really could not
be bothered with the hassle of working on the G5 relative to the
returns posed by developing MASS market chips. It seems to me Apple
hand no choice but to go to either AMD or intel and there is nothing I
have seen so far that would preclude AMD and intel in the future.
So Apple have a strategy that will relatively seamlessly migrate users
over a period of time from one chipset to another. Given the rapid
pace of IT and the typical design life of approximately 3 years, their
strategy looks pretty darn good.
They did the 68040 -> PPC transition very well (did you sue them for
that by the way? If so how did you get on?).
They also did the Mac OS 9 to X transition well also (did you sue them
for that by the way? If so how did you get on?).
Personally I would have loved to see the PPC consortium deliver a
continum of RISC chips to power apples, but being realistic, faced
with the choice between great looking but relatively sluggish
equiopment, and the alternative of great looking high performance kit,
I will take the latter every time.
So, unless you are an assembly programmer whos life has centred on
hand carving PPC calls, there is little to truely gripe about.
If you love your PPC based kit some much, just keep using it, choose
not to upgrade anything on it and it will still be fit for purpose as
sold by Apple.
It frightens me how I have managed to spend nearly an hour debating
this stuff, but I do like a good flame/rant.
Enjoy! (I await the next measured, researched and informed installment).
:-)
MM
Post by Chip
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
What do you expect Apple to do about the PPC performance/power
consumption/failure to scale into laptops, problems if they do not do
what they have announced?
i.e. what is your informated alternative strategy?
All I am hearing is complaints and problems but no alternatives.
cell?
Power 5?
Dual Core G4?
Their own chip plant?
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Basil Bourque
2005-06-09 07:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
this additional testing will cost $, large companies (Adobe) can and
probably will absorb the additonal costs [at least at first], medium
sized companies (4D inc) can easily be hard pressed to absorb the cost.
small companies (most of us developers) have no reasonable way to
include the cost of additional testing
As I remember from the days of porting all of NeXTSTEP from Motorola
black boxes to Intel white boxes, it worked very well. I don't
remember the NeXT community experiencing any significant problems.
Actually I don't remember any at all. Except they lost the parts of
NeXTSTEP that supported NeXT's advanced hardware features not found
on white boxes, such as high quality sound & music.

By contrast, when NeXT later ported the application support layer,
without the underlying Mach BSD operating system, to run on other
host OSes (SunOS, HP Unix, and Windows NT) there were some hiccups
and problems. But we are not facing that challenge, at least not yet.

I really think people are overreacting.

(a) Your PowerPC machines aren't going away.
Apple will be supporting them for years to come.

(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.

(c) 4D 2004 broke off support for all older OSes, presumably because
they have been reprogramming to only the latest most modern APIs from
MS and Apple. Therefore, the 4D team should be in a good place for
this transition.

--Basil
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-09 14:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Bourque
(a) Your PowerPC machines aren't going away.
Apple will be supporting them for years to come.
the physical machine is not -
third party support is/will

try to find new, anything, for my 512K.
it still operates, it still exists - just nothing new
PPC macs are now in the same 'boat'
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Post by Basil Bourque
(c) 4D 2004 broke off support for all older OSes, presumably because
they have been reprogramming to only the latest most modern APIs from
MS and Apple. Therefore, the 4D team should be in a good place for
this transition.
I would expect 4D to drop support for PPC as soon as possible due to
extra cost & tie of testing if for no other reason. IT is a smart
business (cost) choice.

-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Terry Pierce
2005-06-09 14:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Usually, Apple just puts out a new machine and then people who bought a new
machine last month which is now "obsolete" start screaming about the
injustice.

In this case, Apple has given a years notice that there will be new machines
using new chips beginning at the end of that 12 months and this time there
are people screaming that their machines will be "obsolete" (ignoring for a
moment, the arguments that they will not in fact, be "obsolete") a year from
now.

Apple can't win with some folks, they'll never be happy, no matter what they
get.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm thrilled that:

1) Apple won't have to play second fiddle in the processor speed wars,
trying to convince normal home users and small businesses that their 2.0 ghz
PPC is as fast as a 3.0 ghz Intel chip. An argument they rarely won (IMO).

2) I can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel chip that will allow me to run
Windows of my choice, as well as OS X, without having to run Virtual PC to
do so. (Add Linux as well).
--
Terry K. Pierce
ISS 2
UAB Dept. of Occupational Health & Safety
http://www.healthsafe.uab.edu
205.975.8671

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Charles Miller
2005-06-09 15:16:52 UTC
Permalink
I think if you read what Steve Jobs had to say, you will not be able to do
this. At least you will not be able to buy some one else's PC (Dell, HP)
etc. and install OSX. I would think that this would work both ways. I hope
you are correct that you nwill then have a dual boot machine.

The idea of virtual PC is that you do not have to reboot machine to run a
windows application

Regards

Chuck
Post by Terry Pierce
2) I can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel chip that will allow me to run
Windows of my choice, as well as OS X, without having to run Virtual PC to
do so. (Add Linux as well).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Miller Voice: (617) 739-0306
Informed Solutions, Inc. Fax: (617) 232-1064
PO Box 1720 mailto:cjmiller-***@public.gmane.org
Brookline, MA 02446 USA
Registered 4D Developer
Providers of 4D and Sybase connectivity
http://www.informed-solutions.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attached documents contain information which may be
confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under
applicable law.  These materials are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this
transmission, you are hereby notified that any distribution, disclosure,
printing, copying, storage, modification or the taking of any action in
reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited.  Delivery of this
message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not compromise
or waive such confidentiality, privilege or exemption from disclosure as to
this communication. 


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Pooser
2005-06-09 15:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Miller
I think if you read what Steve Jobs had to say, you will not be able to do
this. At least you will not be able to buy some one else's PC (Dell, HP)
etc. and install OSX. I would think that this would work both ways.
Per Phil Schiller, Apple won't support Windows on their machines but won't
make any special effort to stop people from using it either. Personally, I
hope they rethink this stance and certify their machines for Windows
compatibility, as it would simplify my life to buy large numbers of
PowerBooks and deploy them with the appropriate OS for individual users.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Terry Pierce
2005-06-09 15:48:24 UTC
Permalink
I did read that earlier...sounds to me exactly like they will not prevent
Windows running on their machines. Which to me sounds exactly like I'll be
able to do so.

Certifying for windows means nothing to me. I realize that it's an issue
for some, but not for me.

But, the advantages of certifying for windows are readily apparent, as it
would be the only computer available that could run Windows, and OS X
natively (without emulation). Like you, in that case, I would no longer buy
Dell laptops for users in my department, but Powerbooks, and let them choose
their OS.

Though I never said that I'd be buying a Dell and expecting to run OS X on
it.
--
but won't make any special effort to stop people from using it either
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dan Babcock
2005-06-09 16:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pooser
Per Phil Schiller, Apple won't support Windows on their machines but won't
make any special effort to stop people from using it either.
Personally, I
hope they rethink this stance and certify their machines for Windows
compatibility, as it would simplify my life to buy large numbers of
PowerBooks and deploy them with the appropriate OS for individual users.
--
I can certainly sympathize with not trying to support PC like
hardware, it's such a nightmare. However, think of the possibilities
if we no longer had to by 2 computers!

I have no Mac clients who don't also have PCs around to perform some
tasks. Usually, it's a lone PC off in a corner because nobody wants
to use it. Many, many times my customers have abandoned Macs to have
a single platform in the office. It would be pretty sweet to be able
to dual boot Windows and Mac OS on the same hardware.

I doubt Apple will want to enter the Windows support quagmire. My
hope is that Microsoft will build a better VirtualPC. I don't see
why Microsoft wouldn't. They get to sell the emulator, a copy of
their OS and all their business apps for every hybrid machine. Seems
like a win for MS. I don't think they care what hardware their
software runs on.

Dan
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Mehboob Alam
2005-06-09 17:23:06 UTC
Permalink
My bet is that Apple will get this on running on
Leopard in a hurry.. instead of VirtualPC being the
sole solution..

<http://www.vmware.com/products/desktop/ws_features.html>
for $189, it's a pretty neat and enterprise-tested
solution. Especially since it's not controlled by
Microsoft and their "business whims"..



sincerely,
m|a

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Pooser
2005-06-09 16:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Chip, you seem to be making an effort to be dense.

We already see all Old World machines-- up to and including G3/333MHz towers
and Wall Street PowerBooks-- with support dropped by Apple as of 10.3. With
the advent of 10.4 the original iMacs and Lombard PowerBooks also faded out
of the picture. No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it. Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is. Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped-- just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.

I'm sure there are people who complain that they can't buy the latest
software for their Power Mac 6100s. We have a technical term for these
people: morons. Please don't join their ranks.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-09 18:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Pooser
Post by Chip
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Chip, you seem to be making an effort to be dense.
We already see all Old World machines-- up to and including G3/333MHz towers
and Wall Street PowerBooks-- with support dropped by Apple as of 10.3. With
the advent of 10.4 the original iMacs and Lombard PowerBooks also faded out
of the picture.
this is in it self not a problem -
these machines are 6 or 7 years old.

What Apple has done, with the intel switch, its to place the NEWEST
(Dual 2.7ghz towers for example)
into **THIS SAME CATEGORY**

these machines (all PPC based macs) are now no different then a 68k
IIci as far as new software, hardware, and possibly updates (this will
part will be true June 2006 also).

AS I have said elsewhere -
WHY would a vendor develop anything for the PPC machines?

this would be akin to developing a supercharger for an Edsel - sure you
*can* do it, yes there would be a market - amazingly tiny as it would
be - but there would be NO (or very limited) profit, and you can/could
not be sure to even get your dev costs back.
Post by Dave Pooser
No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it. Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is.
Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped--
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
Post by Dave Pooser
just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer.
Post by Dave Pooser
I'm sure there are people who complain that they can't buy the latest
software for their Power Mac 6100s. We have a technical term for these
people: morons. Please don't join their ranks.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Alberto Bachler
2005-06-09 18:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Chip,

Don't you think is time to stop this nonsense discussion?
Or take it to another place...
Apple move is done and current machines will stay around for a 5 or 10
years as usual.


Alberto.
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
Post by Chip
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Chip, you seem to be making an effort to be dense.
We already see all Old World machines-- up to and including G3/333MHz towers
and Wall Street PowerBooks-- with support dropped by Apple as of 10.3. With
the advent of 10.4 the original iMacs and Lombard PowerBooks also faded out
of the picture.
this is in it self not a problem -
these machines are 6 or 7 years old.
What Apple has done, with the intel switch, its to place the NEWEST
(Dual 2.7ghz towers for example)
into **THIS SAME CATEGORY**
these machines (all PPC based macs) are now no different then a 68k
IIci as far as new software, hardware, and possibly updates (this will
part will be true June 2006 also).
AS I have said elsewhere -
WHY would a vendor develop anything for the PPC machines?
this would be akin to developing a supercharger for an Edsel - sure you
*can* do it, yes there would be a market - amazingly tiny as it would
be - but there would be NO (or very limited) profit, and you can/could
not be sure to even get your dev costs back.
Post by Dave Pooser
No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it. Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is.
Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped--
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
Post by Dave Pooser
just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer.
Post by Dave Pooser
I'm sure there are people who complain that they can't buy the latest
software for their Power Mac 6100s. We have a technical term for these
people: morons. Please don't join their ranks.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-09 18:43:04 UTC
Permalink
So essentially you know better than the majority wisdom!
Good on you Chip! A+ for being determined.
I am pretty sure you are wrong though, but we will see.
As an aside, you repeatedly slag off the 680x0 -> PPC shift as an
example of how terrible Apple are being, while also saying they will
never survive a similar shift to intel - well, they did it then, they
have survived the shift to X, and they most probably will, despite how
much grinding noises a minority make.
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
Post by Chip
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Chip, you seem to be making an effort to be dense.
We already see all Old World machines-- up to and including G3/333MHz towers
and Wall Street PowerBooks-- with support dropped by Apple as of 10.3. With
the advent of 10.4 the original iMacs and Lombard PowerBooks also faded out
of the picture.
this is in it self not a problem -
these machines are 6 or 7 years old.
What Apple has done, with the intel switch, its to place the NEWEST
(Dual 2.7ghz towers for example)
into **THIS SAME CATEGORY**
these machines (all PPC based macs) are now no different then a 68k
IIci as far as new software, hardware, and possibly updates (this will
part will be true June 2006 also).
AS I have said elsewhere -
WHY would a vendor develop anything for the PPC machines?
this would be akin to developing a supercharger for an Edsel - sure you
*can* do it, yes there would be a market - amazingly tiny as it would
be - but there would be NO (or very limited) profit, and you can/could
not be sure to even get your dev costs back.
Post by Dave Pooser
No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it. Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is.
Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped--
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
Post by Dave Pooser
just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer.
Post by Dave Pooser
I'm sure there are people who complain that they can't buy the latest
software for their Power Mac 6100s. We have a technical term for these
people: morons. Please don't join their ranks.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dennis Little
2005-06-09 18:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Chip,
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
Post by Chip
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Chip, you seem to be making an effort to be dense.
We already see all Old World machines-- up to and including G3/333MHz towers
and Wall Street PowerBooks-- with support dropped by Apple as of 10.3. With
the advent of 10.4 the original iMacs and Lombard PowerBooks also faded out
of the picture.
this is in it self not a problem -
these machines are 6 or 7 years old.
What Apple has done, with the intel switch, its to place the NEWEST
(Dual 2.7ghz towers for example)
into **THIS SAME CATEGORY**
these machines (all PPC based macs) are now no different then a 68k
IIci as far as new software, hardware, and possibly updates (this will
part will be true June 2006 also).
AS I have said elsewhere -
WHY would a vendor develop anything for the PPC machines?
1. Because the difference in creating a PPC and Intel application vs
an Intel only will be ONE CHECK BOX.
2. Take a look at the number of macs sold LAST quarter. Would you
really want to leave out that many people? What about the number that
have purchased hardware since OS X was released and still runs OS X
just fine? If so, can you please point them in my direction.
Post by Chip
this would be akin to developing a supercharger for an Edsel - sure you
*can* do it, yes there would be a market - amazingly tiny as it would
be - but there would be NO (or very limited) profit, and you can/could
not be sure to even get your dev costs back.
Well... Umm.... Perhaps you should have done a quick search. See
http://www.vs57.com/history.htm and look for edsel. One was made for
the 1958 with 361 cid engine.
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it. Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is.
Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped--
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
I hate to tell you this, but it has happened for EVERY computer made
regardless of what happens If that weren't the case, there wouldn't
be any computer makers. Perhaps others would want to run Word on a
Mac II ci, but I'm not one of them -- not even the version that was
available then. It would take me about 15 minutes to fill up that 40
MB drive. Oh, by the way, when's the last time you saw memory, hard
drives, or a monitor with the special video plug for these machines?
Technology moves forward. If you can't handle that, perhaps you're in
the wrong industry -- or are you still writing programs in 4D v3 to
run on the older machines?
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer.
We'll see -- but with $7 BILLION in the bank, I think they'll have
enough to get people going in the right direction. If not, I'll move
to a new platform. I started on a Commodore 64, moved to a TI, then
to an Amiga, then PC, and now Mac. I use computers as tools. If
Stanley were to stop making hammers tomorrow, I'll bet I could find
somebody else that made similar ones even if they weren't quite as
much to my liking.
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
I'm sure there are people who complain that they can't buy the latest
software for their Power Mac 6100s. We have a technical term for these
people: morons. Please don't join their ranks.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
I won't go that far... I've actually been in non-profits that couldn't
afford better than what could be donated. I got to play with a DEC
PDP 11/23 and all the associated hardware (RX02/RL02 -- now THAT'S a
hard drive -- 10 MB on 2 14"(?) platters, 2' x 2' x 3' and ONLY
weighed about 150 pounds EACH.
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-09 19:36:47 UTC
Permalink
This is 2 replies in one ---
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
So essentially you know better than the majority wisdom!
Good on you Chip! A+ for being determined.
you have not - do not read newsgroups or many other postings in other
forums -
this is NOT the majority wisdom - it is the same 'wisdom' that has for
years said "apple is dead", WSJ as an example. which BTW - I also
'bucked' as being wrong.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
I am pretty sure you are wrong though, but we will see.
As an aside, you repeatedly slag off the 680x0 -> PPC shift as an
example of how terrible Apple are being, while also saying they will
never survive a similar shift to intel - well, they did it then, they
have survived the shift to X, and they most probably will, despite how
much grinding noises a minority make.
the shift from 68K ->PPC was different, Apple had a lot of control -
1 - the chip manufacturer (motorola) was the same. While the PPC chip
is RISC and 68K CISC, the chip (PPC) was designed by a collaboration
which included Apple.

2 - The RISC command set of PPC was designed to easily 'map" through to
the command set of the 68K - and designed with the specific needs and
requirements of Apple in mind.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
1. Because the difference in creating a PPC and Intel application vs
an Intel only will be ONE CHECK BOX.
Take a look at the link I provided earlier under the title 'Rosetta'
this is NOT the case.

and *even* if it were every software vendor will have to increase
testing costs by 50%.
if current software is Mac only -testing is needed on Intel and PPC
if the software is Pc and Mac - testing will need to be PC, PPC, Intel
Mac

how much overhead do *YOU* spend in testing?
add 50% - are you going to do this for little or no additional revenue?
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2. Take a look at the number of macs sold LAST quarter. Would you
really want to leave out that many people? What about the number that
have purchased hardware since OS X was released and still runs OS X
just fine? If so, can you please point them in my direction.
if they are like me - they *will not* be buying an intel mac.

OSX runs on this hardware, and (existing versions) will continue to do
so -
BUT
new applications (as I have pointed out before) will likely NOT - why?
cost - see above testing cost increase
that assumes the check box idea actually works - it will not - see the
rosetta link at the end of this reply.

if the check idea fails costs will be higher still.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
this would be akin to developing a supercharger for an Edsel - sure you
*can* do it, yes there would be a market - amazingly tiny as it would
be - but there would be NO (or very limited) profit, and you can/could
not be sure to even get your dev costs back.
Well... Umm.... Perhaps you should have done a quick search. See
http://www.vs57.com/history.htm and look for edsel. One was made for
the 1958 with 361 cid engine.
the implication was to develop a supercharger for an edsel *NOW* not in
1958
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it.
yes and you can hear it - THUD - it occurred Monday.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is.
updates - maybe - new products no
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped--
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
again the costs will NOT be trivial
fat binaries will come *only* from the largest software companies and
only for a very short time (6months to a year)
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
I hate to tell you this, but it has happened for EVERY computer made
regardless of what happens If that weren't the case, there wouldn't
be any computer makers. Perhaps others would want to run Word on a
Mac II ci, but I'm not one of them -- not even the version that was
available then. It would take me about 15 minutes to fill up that 40
MB drive. Oh, by the way, when's the last time you saw memory, hard
drives, or a monitor with the special video plug for these machines?
Technology moves forward. If you can't handle that, perhaps you're in
the wrong industry -- or are you still writing programs in 4D v3 to
run on the older machines?
yes it has - but never before to a 2year old chip/platform.

And btw the last time a computer company made a pre-anouncement like
this -
it was bankrupt in 6 months.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer.
We'll see -- but with $7 BILLION in the bank, I think they'll have
enough to get people going in the right direction. If not, I'll move
to a new platform. I started on a Commodore 64, moved to a TI, then
to an Amiga, then PC, and now Mac. I use computers as tools. If
Stanley were to stop making hammers tomorrow, I'll bet I could find
somebody else that made similar ones even if they weren't quite as
much to my liking.
-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-09 20:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
This is 2 replies in one ---
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
So essentially you know better than the majority wisdom!
Good on you Chip! A+ for being determined.
you have not - do not read newsgroups or many other postings in other
forums -
Never make such a an opinion as fact - it makes you look a fool.
Yes I do read other forums etc. What an odd thing to say, how could
you possible know what I do or dont do?
Post by Chip
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
As an aside, you repeatedly slag off the 680x0 -> PPC shift as an
example of how terrible Apple are being, while also saying they will
never survive a similar shift to intel - well, they did it then, they
have survived the shift to X, and they most probably will, despite how
much grinding noises a minority make.
the shift from 68K ->PPC was different, Apple had a lot of control -
1 - the chip manufacturer (motorola) was the same. While the PPC chip
is RISC and 68K CISC, the chip (PPC) was designed by a collaboration
which included Apple.
2 - The RISC command set of PPC was designed to easily 'map" through to
the command set of the 68K - and designed with the specific needs and
requirements of Apple in mind.
What special mapping? The 68000 was a CISC chip, and the PPC RISC. To
replace the specialist commands of a CISC chip with those of a RISC
chip is actually quite hard, to go the other way is quite simple, and
can be over time improved as you replace the simple RISC like calls
with higher level CISC calls. At the end of the day, only a very small
minority of Applications are programmed using assembly language, the
majority are predominantly developed using a 3GL or higher (such as C)
and the compiler/assembler/linker do the work for you.

Do you actually know anything about chips Chip? What is your
qualification to talk about chips? Or to talk about any of this stuff?
I would like to know for the record.

The migration to the PPC was supported by a suite of development tools
that allowed recompilation of 3GL languages such as C for the PPC
chip. In addition Apple provided software libraries, and to allow
conformant 680x
Post by Chip
And btw the last time a computer company made a pre-anouncement like
this - it was bankrupt in 6 months.
Would you like to name that company?

MM
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Mehboob Alam
2005-06-10 00:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
Post by Chip
And btw the last time a computer company made a
pre-anouncement like
Post by Chip
this - it was bankrupt in 6 months.
Would you like to name that company?
HP? Just kidding.. :)


sincerely,
m|a

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Peter Bozek
2005-06-10 09:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
The migration to the PPC was supported by a suite of development tools
that allowed recompilation of 3GL languages such as C for the PPC
chip. In addition Apple provided software libraries, and to allow
conformant 680x
Well, it was not. It was very poorly managed, no tools were offered
to developers, system were not stable on new machines etc. But it is
irrelevant now - clearly Apple learned from previous mistakes and is
now much better prepared for processor switch than ten years ago.

This, however, does not mean that it may not go wrong. As new Macs
will be able to run Windows, and most user will install Windows,
companies may decide that they will not provide Mac version of they
applications - why to bother with different operating system when the
user has Windows installed? Many companies that develop for Windows
and port their application to Mac will cease to. If, say, Adobe start
to phase out support for Mac platform (like they already did with
FrameMaker), this may be a start of significant problems with
developer's support of Mac platform.

But let's hope everything will be fine and Windows will be the one
who will get into problems.

Peter Bozek
http://www.inforce.sk


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-10 10:04:06 UTC
Permalink
To clarify what I meant (glossed over? :-)
Apple provided the layers hard and soft (the coloured boxes) and
relied on Metrowerks to provide the tools (codewarrior) to port the
code.
I agree it could go totally wrong, but the 68k to PPC migration also
happened at a time when apple was rudderless and was pretty screwed
up.
Lessons will have been learned.
As I have said all along, we just dont know, its early days but the
press I am reading both informed and not, seems to be relatively
positive in the main.
If it does go badly wrong I will be disapointed but its just a small
fragment of life.
Opinion is not fact.
Fact is fact.
Post by Peter Bozek
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
The migration to the PPC was supported by a suite of development tools
that allowed recompilation of 3GL languages such as C for the PPC
chip. In addition Apple provided software libraries, and to allow
conformant 680x
Well, it was not. It was very poorly managed, no tools were offered
to developers, system were not stable on new machines etc. But it is
irrelevant now - clearly Apple learned from previous mistakes and is
now much better prepared for processor switch than ten years ago.
This, however, does not mean that it may not go wrong. As new Macs
will be able to run Windows, and most user will install Windows,
companies may decide that they will not provide Mac version of they
applications - why to bother with different operating system when the
user has Windows installed? Many companies that develop for Windows
and port their application to Mac will cease to. If, say, Adobe start
to phase out support for Mac platform (like they already did with
FrameMaker), this may be a start of significant problems with
developer's support of Mac platform.
But let's hope everything will be fine and Windows will be the one
who will get into problems.
Peter Bozek
http://www.inforce.sk
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Peter Bozek
2005-06-10 19:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
As I have said all along, we just dont know, its early days but the
press I am reading both informed and not, seems to be relatively
positive in the main.
What do you say to this:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
If it does go badly wrong I will be disapointed but its just a small
fragment of life.
That's true. Life goes on, but at least it is more interesting. ;-)

Peter Bozek
http://www.inforce.sk


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Peter Jakobsson
2005-06-11 11:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Bozek
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
This has been my first venture into the Intel-Apple thread (it seems
the time of year - a close second to last years discussion about holes
in component security) but this link gets my vote for sheer greatness.
Thanks to Peter Bozek for highlighting it.

I love the convergence of all the different strands in the web that it
offers and it also seems quite plausible since I think that getting
Apple's market share up in a radical way (rather than in an
incremental, steady climbing, rainbow chasing way) must be behind
everything that Jobs does in the long term. Doing the seemingly
'impossible' would seem to be the challenge at hand and only something
on a par with what happened when MS got the contract for writing DOS
from IBM would seem to do justice to this ambition, so I've decided to
go with his interpretation of events.

b.t.w. it occurred to me that the reason everyone posts off-topic
threads to the tech forum is because they think that if they post it to
the 'biz', nobody receives it since they don't subscribe. I think you
have to subscribe independently - is this correct ? - I'm not 100%
sure. Perhaps if 1 subscription did both forums, the biz would come
back to life and leave the tech threads more distilled.

Regards

Peter

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Colin Clements
2005-06-10 11:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Assuming all goes well and an Intel Powerbook appears next year I
will replace my G4 Powerbook and installing Windows on the new one is
an attractive option. Not because I love Windows but I have to work
with it as well and so carry two laptops around - my arms ache and my
back is killing me!
I suppose Adobe et al might think that they only need to develop for
Windows but if they are making money out of selling Mac software why
alienate a lot of people.
Microsoft makes money out of Mac software and it is in their interest
to go on doing so.
Having Apple around is a cheap insurance policy for Microsoft.
If Apple disappeared the US government would be down on Microsoft
like a ton of bricks because of their monopoly. Only having 95% of
the OS market is a good deal for Microsoft especially when you still
sell software to the other 5%. They would be mad to force Apple out
of business. Likewise for Adobe if they abandon the Mac it does not
mean that all those Photoshop users will just automatically buy the
Windows version instead. If Adobe pulls the plug on the Mac, strange
as it may seem you might even find Microsoft comes to the rescue!
Microsoft is already jealous of the success of the pdf format hence
Metro is on the horizon.
Stranger things have happened!
Colin
Post by Peter Bozek
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
The migration to the PPC was supported by a suite of development tools
that allowed recompilation of 3GL languages such as C for the PPC
chip. In addition Apple provided software libraries, and to allow
conformant 680x
Well, it was not. It was very poorly managed, no tools were offered
to developers, system were not stable on new machines etc. But it
is irrelevant now - clearly Apple learned from previous mistakes
and is now much better prepared for processor switch than ten years
ago.
This, however, does not mean that it may not go wrong. As new Macs
will be able to run Windows, and most user will install Windows,
companies may decide that they will not provide Mac version of they
applications - why to bother with different operating system when
the user has Windows installed? Many companies that develop for
Windows and port their application to Mac will cease to. If, say,
Adobe start to phase out support for Mac platform (like they
already did with FrameMaker), this may be a start of significant
problems with developer's support of Mac platform.
But let's hope everything will be fine and Windows will be the one
who will get into problems.
Peter Bozek
http://www.inforce.sk
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dave Pooser
2005-06-09 21:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
Post by Dennis Little
1. Because the difference in creating a PPC and Intel application vs
an Intel only will be ONE CHECK BOX.
Take a look at the link I provided earlier under the title 'Rosetta'
this is NOT the case.
You're completely misunderstanding the "Rosetta" purpose. Rosetta is the
dynamic emulator that allows you to run your old PPC binaries without any
changes-- sort of like Classic mode, but allowing un-Intel-ified
applications to run. Once the app is recompiled-- which is the "ONE CHECK
BOX" referenced above-- Rosetta doesn't come into play at all. Rosetta is a
transitional step. As such, I personally consider any apps that work with
Rosetta a bonus; the core stuff is going to be ported.
Post by Chip
every software vendor will have to increase
testing costs by 50%.
if current software is Mac only -testing is needed on Intel and PPC
if the software is Pc and Mac - testing will need to be PC, PPC, Intel
Mac
Anybody who is testing on some monolithic "PPC" today is an idiot. At the
VERY least, you're testing on G3, G4 and G5. If you're smart, you're testing
on multiple samples-- iMac G3, iMac G4, iMac G5, dual-processor G4,
dual-processor G5, PowerBook G4 would be my personal minimum for a
mass-market program, and then test each with at a minimum 10.3.x and 10.4.x.
I make that 12 hardware/software combinations. Add in what will probably be
four Intel packages-- pro desktop, pro laptop, consumer desktop, consumer
laptop, and I don't think that's a ridiculous burden. You have the right to
disagree, of course.
Post by Chip
how much overhead do *YOU* spend in testing?
add 50% - are you going to do this for little or no additional revenue?
Little or no additional revenue? You mean like the ENTIRE current installed
base? If that's too negligible to support you, then you're already out of
the Mac software business. As it is, you have a year to clean up your code
before the first Intel Mac ships. Then you have another year of transition.
THEN you have to be able to support two platforms, with a single checkbox
for most folks.

Some companies will face more of a struggle, of course: Micromat, Alsoft,
and anybody else who's trying to do low-level disk access. Probably BRU and
Retrospect will be a lot of work. VPN clients, almost certainly. But for 90%
of the software market, it's gonna be as simple as "compile, test and ship."
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA, CCNA
Manager of Information Services
Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin René
2005-06-09 19:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
Post by Dave Pooser
Post by Chip
Post by Basil Bourque
(b) This has been done before!
Granted Mac OS X is more complex than NeXTSTEP, but it's not
radically different.
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
Chip, you seem to be making an effort to be dense.
We already see all Old World machines-- up to and including G3/333MHz towers
and Wall Street PowerBooks-- with support dropped by Apple as of 10.3. With
the advent of 10.4 the original iMacs and Lombard PowerBooks also faded out
of the picture.
this is in it self not a problem -
these machines are 6 or 7 years old.
What Apple has done, with the intel switch, its to place the NEWEST
(Dual 2.7ghz towers for example)
into **THIS SAME CATEGORY**
these machines (all PPC based macs) are now no different then a 68k
IIci as far as new software, hardware, and possibly updates (this will
part will be true June 2006 also).
AS I have said elsewhere -
WHY would a vendor develop anything for the PPC machines?
this would be akin to developing a supercharger for an Edsel - sure you
*can* do it, yes there would be a market - amazingly tiny as it would
be - but there would be NO (or very limited) profit, and you can/could
not be sure to even get your dev costs back.
Post by Dave Pooser
No doubt at some point in the future people will drop
support for PPC Macs. It's the IT industry-- deal with it. Short-term people
will continue to support PPC Macs because that's where the installed base
is.
Medium term, Apple's "universal binaries" support should make supporting
PPC Macs a no-brainer. Long term, eventually the return won't be worth even
the trivial investment of time and support will be dropped--
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
Post by Dave Pooser
just like
support for Windows 95 and System 7.5. But by then we'll all be using
newer/faster/better computers anyway.
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer
Steve Jobs stated that support for PPC is not dead and will be supported
for many years ( I think it means more then 2 years).
One of the main goal, behind all that Intel buzz, is to drive developers
to XCode to develop Universal Binary apps. So, I think that, even in 2
years from now, you should still have a lot of apps that would be
compatible with both PPC and Intel. They will stop developing for both
only when the PPC install base will be too small to bother supporting it.

Martin René
Lynx Industries Inc.

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-09 19:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin René
Steve Jobs stated that support for PPC is not dead and will be
supported for many years ( I think it means more then 2 years).
One of the main goal, behind all that Intel buzz, is to drive
developers to XCode to develop Universal Binary apps. So, I think
that, even in 2 years from now, you should still have a lot of apps
that would be compatible with both PPC and Intel. They will stop
developing for both only when the PPC install base will be too small
to bother supporting it.
here is the crux of the biscuit -

why will developers who are not using xcode (and/or who's applications
fall outside of rosetta's abilities - that will be a lot) redevelop
their apps? - please read this again -
REDEVELOP not recompile. If you are not using xcode - you get to
rewrite your code in xcode, if your application has any one of a number
requirements - re write you application.


- if the app is Mac only - it will cost the same and reach a larger
market to develop to windows.
- if the app is cross platform - it is additional cost(s) for no gain
in revenue. drop the PPC, or even drop the Mac entirely and save the
extra overhead as profit.

during the last change, 68K -> PPC - the one the people think went so
well - Apple lost over 50% of the developers, and went from 8-10%
market share to 1-4% depending on exact time you ask(ed) the question
and who are listening too.

BTW - forgot the rosetta link -
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1826222&mode=thread

-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-09 22:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
why will developers who are not using xcode (and/or who's applications
fall outside of rosetta's abilities - that will be a lot) redevelop
their apps? - please read this again -
REDEVELOP not recompile. If you are not using xcode - you get to
rewrite your code in xcode, if your application has any one of a number
requirements - re write you application.
Good grief, more bullshit. It does not IN ANY WAY require redevelopment. It
requires creating a new project in XCode and tweaking limited portions of
C++ code, mostly for strict compliance with the ISO standard. (GCC 4.0 does
seem to be much more standards compliant; things that it didn't handle the
last time I looked it now does just fine.) I ought to know, I'm doing that
right now, here at WWDC, and with a bit of luck I'll have my server end
moved from CodeWarrior into XCode this afternoon. You have wandered so far
off into the weeds that it really is time to shut up.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-13 13:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Ribe
Post by Chip
why will developers who are not using xcode (and/or who's applications
fall outside of rosetta's abilities - that will be a lot) redevelop
their apps? - please read this again -
REDEVELOP not recompile. If you are not using xcode - you get to
rewrite your code in xcode, if your application has any one of a number
requirements - re write you application.
Good grief, more bullshit. It does not IN ANY WAY require redevelopment. It
requires creating a new project in XCode and tweaking limited portions of
C++ code, mostly for strict compliance with the ISO standard. (GCC 4.0 does
seem to be much more standards compliant; things that it didn't handle the
last time I looked it now does just fine.) I ought to know, I'm doing that
right now, here at WWDC, and with a bit of luck I'll have my server end
moved from CodeWarrior into XCode this afternoon. You have wandered so far
off into the weeds that it really is time to shut up.
go look at the limitation on Rosetta

-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-13 14:09:14 UTC
Permalink
And I hope you had finally realised the futility of your multi
directional (directionless?) arguments!

Again, I challenge you to outline your qualifications to comment so
absolutely on microprocessor chip design and fabrication.

On 6/13/05, Chip <Dromidary-zmjR+jEh8oHQQJekZlX8/ti2O/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

<some more meandering arguments deleted>
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jack Caviness
2005-06-09 21:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
newer faster wintel boxes - because Apple will not survive this - at
least not as Apple Computer, maybe as Applesoft, or ApplePod but not as
Apple Computer.
And I thought "Chicken Little" was just a children's fairy tale! For
over 20 years, we have heard confident predictions that Apple was now
dead. Come on, Chip.
--
Jack Caviness
Mac User Since 1984
And Still Loving It!
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Doug Hall
2005-06-09 21:43:40 UTC
Permalink
I don't know about all this technical stuff. I just hope they don't
stick an ugly "Intel Inside" label on the front of my next Mac. ;-)

Doug

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-09 21:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Why is it that those labels are allways on the wonk?
Same with Windoze labels - always not sqaure.
Yuk!
Post by Doug Hall
I don't know about all this technical stuff. I just hope they don't
stick an ugly "Intel Inside" label on the front of my next Mac. ;-)
Doug
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Kirk Brooks
2005-06-09 21:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Why is it that
Here is what the fools are saying:

http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05060925.htm

Kirk Brooks
650-430-3449
San Carlos, CA

==========================================
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-09 22:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
just like the 68K/PPC 'fat binaries' were, within roughly 6 months,
maybe a year, after the first 61/71/8100 were introduced.
Bullshit. It took years, just like it will this time.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Dan Babcock
2005-06-11 04:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Ya know what? On the RealBasic forum they are taking about technical
issues, coding and stuff. Wonder what that would be like on the 4D
NUG *-)

Dan
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Tito Ciuro
2005-06-09 14:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Chip,
Post by Chip
try to find new, anything, for my 512K.
it still operates, it still exists - just nothing new
PPC macs are now in the same 'boat'
I can't believe you're putting the new Macs on the same boat as our
old trusty 512K.

You crack me up :-)

Regards,

-- Tito**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Justin Leavens
2005-06-07 18:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
It seems interesting to me that no one has considered the idea that
Apple may not have had any other choice but to switch to Intel. There
are a number of people who believe that Apple was squeezed out of the
PowerPC platform by the gaming consoles. Whatever the case, it's very
dangerous to assume that you know it all. I'm hoping to read it all in
a book a couple years from now, most likely called "Hell Freezes Over".
Post by Chip
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit
Oooh, sue them simultaneously for not delivering the 3ghz G5s like they
promised. Get 'em from both ends! They owe you.
--
Justin Leavens, jleavens-***@public.gmane.org

Lizeric, Inc. - 4D and Macintosh Support Specialists
Certified Apple Consultants Network Member / 4D Partner
234 E. Foothill Blvd. Arcadia, CA 91006
(626) 357-3906 x203 / (626) 357-3956 (Fax)
http://www.lizeric.com http://www.webhomeserver.com


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
John Baughman
2005-06-07 19:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Justin Leavens
Just a differing opinion here. The only reason I'd wait until next year
to buy a Mac is if I didn't need a computer until next year. If I
needed one this year and postponed my purchase until next year on the
speculation of what's to come (and when it might be coming), I just
bought myself a lot of frustration and a loss of productivity between
now and then. Off with the nose, "so there!" to the face.
I have to agree with Justin. In fact I have been delaying upgrading my
15" 1ghz 1gb TI PowerBook in hopes of a G5 PowerBook. My general rule of
thumb has been to upgrade when the cpu speed doubles. In the past this has
resulted in a new computer every year and half or so. Now that there will
not be a G5 PowerBook, I have decided to purchase a new 17" 1.67ghz 2gb
PowerBook. Not double the speed but I need the additional Ram. I figure the
timing will be just right for a new MacTel PowerBook a year and a half from
now.

I am not sure if anyone thinks like I do, probably not, but if they did
I wouldn't be surprised to see a sudden bump in hardware sales at least in
the PowerBook arena.


John

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
David Rose
2005-06-07 22:56:57 UTC
Permalink
I know that ASG is working on an SRP upgrade that may address this issue,
but has anyone created a print preview screen that uses SR Print PICT and 4D
Draw to take the place of SRP's print preview screen? My users are
clamboring for improved magnification features, e.g. a higher default
magnification setting when the preview screen opens, and higher
magnification settings beyond a single level of magnification.

David Rose

* Senior Software Engineer
* Praesideo Technologies, LLC
* Email david-***@public.gmane.org
* Phone/Fax (303) 682-5673

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Marc Texier
2005-06-08 16:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Has this been announced? Will Apples with worms (intel) inside be able
to run MS Windows?
I don't know. Just a guess. Apple is an hardware saler so I'm quiet sure
that they will never sell OSX for any hardware, just their. But MS is a
software company, why should they loose money not selling Windows for an
Apple computer if it have the same processor?
If you need a PowerBook now, go and buy it.
It will take some time until Apple will release an Intel-based
Powerbook, probably something between 15 to 24 months.
I would love to be able to change my laptop every 2 years, but I can't. I'm
just a hobbyist, change it every 3 or 4 years, not less. If I buy a new G4
now, first it doesn't worth the price just to have almost the same but new;
then I will have to wait 2 years after the release of the Intel-Mac.

Also I can't believe that apple will wait 2 years before annoucing a new
intel-laptop as the swap between IBM and Intel have many reasons, but one,
and not the least, is to be able to offer a post-G4 laptop, their best
profit margin sells.
Maybe it's just a whish, but anyway I'll wait until the next Apple meeting.

Best,
___________
Marc Texier

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
2005-06-08 16:59:30 UTC
Permalink
True, but the reason that Windows runs on so many PC's is because MS
dictates the specification and the manufacturers conform, rather than
MS endevouring to make it work on different platforms.

It is very likely that it will run but probably through MS's ownership
of Virtual PC which will now have a much simpler task as machine code
translation/emulation will not be tricky.

Why has MS not blown Apple out of the water before now and withdrawn
support for Macs? One answer is that by doing so the anti monopoly
people would be over them like a rash.
Post by Marc Texier
Has this been announced? Will Apples with worms (intel) inside be able
to run MS Windows?
I don't know. Just a guess. Apple is an hardware saler so I'm quiet sure
that they will never sell OSX for any hardware, just their. But MS is a
software company, why should they loose money not selling Windows for an
Apple computer if it have the same processor?
If you need a PowerBook now, go and buy it.
It will take some time until Apple will release an Intel-based
Powerbook, probably something between 15 to 24 months.
I would love to be able to change my laptop every 2 years, but I can't. I'm
just a hobbyist, change it every 3 or 4 years, not less. If I buy a new G4
now, first it doesn't worth the price just to have almost the same but new;
then I will have to wait 2 years after the release of the Intel-Mac.
Also I can't believe that apple will wait 2 years before annoucing a new
intel-laptop as the swap between IBM and Intel have many reasons, but one,
and not the least, is to be able to offer a post-G4 laptop, their best
profit margin sells.
Maybe it's just a whish, but anyway I'll wait until the next Apple meeting.
Best,
___________
Marc Texier
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
--
Martin M.

___________________________________________________________________
AnotherSphere.net

communications - infrastructure - database - 4D - MacOS


One accurate measurement ...
... is worth a thousand expert opinions - Grace Hopper [1942]





[anotherspaamto-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.anothersphere.co.nz
http://www.anothersphere.co.uk
http://www.anothersphere.net
http://www.anothersphere.org
http://www.anothersphere.tv]
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Paul Lovejoy
2005-06-09 15:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Chip,

How much support is there for an IBM PC XT, AT... and machines with
80386, 80486, Pentium I... ? The entire computer hardware and operating
system business - as well as a great deal of the application software
business - depends on this programmed obsolescence.

For one rare time, Apple pre-announced the programmed obsolescence of
some of their hardware. This could hurt their bottom line, but I thing
they did it to try to keep as much customer loyalty as possible and get
developers working fast on the new hardware support.

They did it at a time when sales are going good and there's a lot of cash
on hand. They will take a short-term hit for it, I believe.

Paul
Post by Chip
right -
how much support is there for 68K machines (of any manufacturer), PPC
before G3 (601,603,604)
how much support for win 3.1, 95, 98?
by support - I mean new/updated equipment and/or software
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chris Gernon
2005-06-10 14:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
And btw the last time a computer company made a pre-anouncement like
this - it was bankrupt in 6 months.
Would you like to name that company?
Chip is referring to Osborne in the 1980s, and the "Osborne Effect":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/25/portable_computer_pioneer_adam_osborne/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/08/apple_osborne_effect/

Personally, I don't think it applies to the situation with Apple, mainly because Osborne was already in debt when they pre-announced their new models, while Apple, I believe, has enough cash reserves to stay afloat for a year or so even if Macintosh sales plunge drastically (not to mention their continuing income from iPod sales, which won't be affected). But it is a valid point.
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
moved from CodeWarrior into XCode this afternoon. You have wandered so far
off into the weeds that it really is time to shut up.
Hey hey hey now. I know I'm basically a newbie to this mailing list, so I may not be familiar with the accepted level of discourse here, but in my opinion, when it's time to tell someone to shut up, it's time to just take a deep breath and drop the subject. (And for the record, I do think Chip is way WAY out in the weeds - but at least his responses have remained civil ...)

- Chris
--
=================================================
Christopher Gernon Business Software Developer
Flower City Printing, Inc. Phone: (585)512-1233
1725 Mt. Read Blvd. (585)663-9000 x233
Rochester, NY 14606 Fax: (585)663-4908
chris_gernon-B+***@public.gmane.org
=================================================


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-10 15:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Gernon
Hey hey hey now. I know I'm basically a newbie to this mailing list, so I may
not be familiar with the accepted level of discourse here, but in my opinion,
when it's time to tell someone to shut up, it's time to just take a deep
breath and drop the subject. (And for the record, I do think Chip is way WAY
out in the weeds - but at least his responses have remained civil ...)
F
My post was harsh for this list. I'm an old-timer, I'm crabby, I know what
I'm talking about, and I hate it when people just make stuff up.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Geoff Perlman
2005-06-10 15:01:39 UTC
Permalink
In general, people purchase computers when they need them and NOT
based on what is coming down the road. Developers are the exception
because they are more tuned into the industry than the average
person. A few weeks from now, this won't be news anymore and people
will go back to their regularly scheduled programs. I wouldn't expect
this announcement to have a big impact on Apple's Mac sales. That
said, if it does, the iPod is selling quite well and Apple has plenty
of cash reserves to help them through this transition.

Vendors will continue to support the PowerPC because 100% of the Mac
user base is on PowerPC and it will be a long time before they have
sold enough Intel-based Macs for a vendor to drop PowerPC support.
I'm guessing that most vendors will support PowerPC for about 5 years
after the release of the Intel-based Macs.

Any software developer that would be pissed off by this move
shouldn't be developing software in the first place. This is a very
smart move on Apple's part. First, the fact that they have kept their
options open by keeping Mac OS X running on Intel and second, that
they took a good hard look at the future direction of PowerPC and
Intel and made the tough decision to switch. They believe they will
get significantly more performance per watt of power from Intel. This
is going to level the playing field when it comes to comparing Mac
performance to Windows. It means faster desktop machines and faster
Powerbooks. I put my hand behind a G5-based tower and then behind an
Intel-based Mac and the difference in the amount of heat coming out
the back was considerable.

Apple has put all the right pieces in place to make this transition
as smooth as can be imagined. This transition will be smoother than
the transition to PowerPC or to Mac OS X.

I doubt too many customers will be upset because Apple has decided to
make Macs that are faster and use less power.

And Apple never promised they would stay with the PowerPC
indefinitely. If they had, I would have questioned their judgement.
I've heard for years the rumors that Apple was keeping Mac OS X
running on Intel just in case they wanted to change processors. And
looking at Mac OS X, it's easy to believe it could be made to run on
Intel without too much trouble. After all, Mac OS X comes from NeXT
and NeXT ran on Intel.

Transitions often stir up emotions and that's understandable. But you
will be better served to not look at this emotionally and instead
look at it logically. Apple has made a very smart move and Mac users
(and Apple) are going to reap the benefits.
Post by Chip
- who is going to by an IBM powered Mac between now and next June?
- how many software vendors are NOT going to do any further
development
on OSX software for the IBM power machines - effective immediately?
- What will that do to Apple's bottom line (or lack there of)
- how many software vendors is this going to piss off enough NOT to
develop anything for OSX (regardless of hardware)?
- how many current Apple customers is this going to piss off that no
matter what they will NOT buy another apple product? All existing apple
hardware (computers - not iPods) is now immediately obsolete.
as an extension to this - how many developers currently make software
amiga, PS1, atari,
any 680xx hardware, Classic (OS9 or earlier),
Windows 3.1 or 98
The (your own) answers to these questions indicate where Apple is
(unfortunately) heading.
So.....
Any attorney's out there? I'm looking for one to start a class action
suit -
can anyone guess why? :p
--
Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Vote for REALbasic (twice!) in the LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Awards:
http://linux.sys-con.com/general/readerschoice.htm

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Doug Hall
2005-06-10 15:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Perlman
Transitions often stir up emotions and that's understandable. But you
will be better served to not look at this emotionally and instead look
at it logically. Apple has made a very smart move and Mac users (and
Apple) are going to reap the benefits.
Well said Geoff. Now, lets EOL this thread already.

Doug

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Tom Swenson
2005-06-11 16:37:01 UTC
Permalink
This is going to level the playing field when it comes to comparing
Mac performance to Windows.
The problem isn't the processor, it's the OS. For a good read see

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

You can blow through the first couple of pages, but pp. 6-8 get's to
the heart of the matter.

This is Tevanian's baby and it ain't gonna be easy for Apple to change
course on that.

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Geoff Perlman
2005-06-11 20:20:09 UTC
Permalink
None of this means much of anything until the operating systems can
be compared side by side on the same equipment. The link below is an
interesting read but it's pure speculation as to how Mac OS X will
compare to Windows and Linux on the same equipment.
Post by Tom Swenson
This is going to level the playing field when it comes to
comparing Mac performance to Windows.
The problem isn't the processor, it's the OS. For a good read see
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
You can blow through the first couple of pages, but pp. 6-8 get's
to the heart of the matter.
This is Tevanian's baby and it ain't gonna be easy for Apple to
change course on that.
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
--
Geoff Perlman
President and CEO
REAL Software, Inc.

Vote for REALbasic (twice!) in the LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Awards:
http://linux.sys-con.com/general/readerschoice.htm

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jeffrey Kain
2005-06-11 21:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Swenson
The problem isn't the processor, it's the OS. For a good read see
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
You can blow through the first couple of pages, but pp. 6-8 get's to the
heart of the matter.
Thanks for posting that link. It was very interesting.

The comment on its server performance following the (catastrophic)
benchmarks using MySQL and Apache was especially interesting:

"Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in creating
new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go through extra
layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the G5 might not be the
fastest integer CPU on earth - its database performance is completely
crippled by an asthmatic operating system that needs up to 5 times more
time to handle and create threads. "

Jeff



**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jody Bevan
2005-06-11 23:11:41 UTC
Permalink
I am certain the Apple knows of these comparisons. Someone posted a
link to a great, but technically detailed description of how MacOS X is
evolving, and how things like the granular resource locking feature, is
slowing the OS down. I suspect that by the time Apple releases the OS
on servers, that their next OS for servers and higher end workstations
will compare favorably to the Windows world.

If Apple does not get their OS comparing well with speed that will be
their problem. I gave up on the OS wars long ago. I provide a solution
that runs on Windows or MacOS. It is the customer's choice. The
customer rules! I have no passion either way.

Jody
Post by Jeffrey Kain
Thanks for posting that link. It was very interesting.
The comment on its server performance following the (catastrophic)
"Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in
creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go
through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the
G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database
performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system
that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads. "
Jeff
========================================================
A positive attitude is a person's passport to a better tomorrow. -
Anonymous

Jody Bevan Jonoke Software Dev. Inc.
President info-8HFOcr3QZf3QT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org
9945 - 50 St Suite 214 www.jonoke.com
Capilano Center
Edmonton, AB (800) 254-0739
Canada (780) 448-3647


- Jonoke is an ISO 9001:2000 Registered Firm -

This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in
error and that any use is expressly prohibited.

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Peter Bozek
2005-06-12 17:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jody Bevan
I am certain the Apple knows of these comparisons. Someone posted a
link to a great, but technically detailed description of how MacOS
X is evolving, and how things like the granular resource locking
feature, is slowing the OS down. I suspect that by the time Apple
releases the OS on servers, that their next OS for servers and
higher end workstations will compare favorably to the Windows world.
If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel , which is
mentioned in the article, that speed problem of MacOS X is a feature
of Mach kernel, and is price paid for other features - better
multiprocessor support, better security features etc.

Peter Bozek
http://www.inforce.sk


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jay Harper
2005-06-12 20:13:29 UTC
Permalink
The MySQL results were discussed on the REALbasic mailing list and the
conclusion was that there were problems with how the tests were
performed. The default install of MySQL on OS X favors data integrity by
flushing the buffers after every transaction. On Linux speed is favored
over data integrity and buffers are not flushed. Because the testing
methodology was flawed, the results are meaningless. And they say as
much about too many of their other tests (not using Intel compilers in
some cases and not optimizing for Altivec in other cases).
Post by Jeffrey Kain
Post by Tom Swenson
The problem isn't the processor, it's the OS. For a good read see
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
You can blow through the first couple of pages, but pp. 6-8 get's to
the heart of the matter.
Thanks for posting that link. It was very interesting.
The comment on its server performance following the (catastrophic)
"Mac OS X is incredibly slow, between 2 and 5(!) times slower, in
creating new threads, as it doesn't use kernel threads, and has to go
through extra layers (wrappers). No need to continue our search: the
G5 might not be the fastest integer CPU on earth - its database
performance is completely crippled by an asthmatic operating system
that needs up to 5 times more time to handle and create threads. "
Jeff
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jeffrey Kain
2005-06-12 20:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jay Harper
The MySQL results were discussed on the REALbasic mailing list and the
conclusion was that there were problems with how the tests were performed.
The default install of MySQL on OS X favors data integrity by flushing the
buffers after every transaction.
Maybe, maybe not (I never found a credible answer one way or another to
this point). It doesn't explain the similar Apache results, nor the tests
of raw thread creation times.
Post by Jay Harper
And they say as much about too many of their other tests (not using Intel
compilers in some cases and not optimizing for Altivec in other cases).
They did not use the Intel compiler for any of the tests. The gcc compiler
(apparently 3.3) was used for all, and Altivec optimizations wouldn't help
database or web serving performance. I don't believe that this is a good
way to benchmark anything other than compilers on the same platform -- if
you're doing cross-PLATFORM benchmarks then use the best possible compiler
available for each platform.

That said, I'm not sure it explains away a 5x or 10x performance gap in
server performance.

**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Scott Ribe
2005-06-12 20:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Kain
Maybe, maybe not (I never found a credible answer one way or another to
this point). It doesn't explain the similar Apache results, nor the tests
of raw thread creation times.
Thread creation on OS X is slower than Linux, different threading models.
But of course you can (and should) configure servers to not be spawning new
threads for every request! The BSD core does have some restrictions on
concurrency that Linux doesn't have, so I would expect OS X to not be as
good as Linux at many simultaneous operations of reading html files off disk
and sending them onto the network (given "comparable" hardware, whatever
that would mean). However, I suspect that the *huge* differences they found
indicate a problem with the tests.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe-***@public.gmane.org
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 665-7007 voice


**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Jay Harper
2005-06-12 21:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Here's the thread off the REALbasic mailing list regarding the Anandtech
tests... Might as well learn from their mistakes and insights...


Hi Guys,

This worried me so I did some internet research and the results are a
little more reassuring:

1. Anandtech screwed up by using a crippled compiler for the G5 test and
have misunderstandings of process / thread handling in OS X.
(see comments for anandtech article and
http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/?p=17)

2. Using Apache2 with it's better multiprocessor capabilities will help.

3. Some say that the performance problem may be related to the built-in
F_FULLFSYNC fcntl which will ask the drive to flush all of its buffered
data to disk.
This has been questioned and at the OS level it is always on. it is
possible to turn this off if the app allows it. However this is a
tradeoff between speed and data integrity.
(http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-dev/2005/Feb/msg00072.html)
Written by the dev who wrote BeOS and now works for Apple - excellent
thread.

4. On the Mac OS X Server list many people ran tests and got much better
results than the anandtech report - some on G4s! Dr Rolf Jansen pointed
out that setting:
/usr/sbin/sysctl -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
overcomes problems with cheap NICs with too small transfer buffers. He
suggests that Anandtech "simply had very low network performance from
their PC-Box (possibly with a noname NIC with a small transfer buffer)
to the Dual G5 Server."

5. The inimitable Dan Shoop (also on OS X server list) acidly points out
that MySql isn't enterprise level and that PostGreSQL is muuuuuch
better. He reminds us that MySql "strongly favours Linux as a platform"
and "performance on OS X is tempered with a far greater level of data
integrity than you get on Linux. For most ppl interested in databases
raw performance isn't as important as safe operations. Data is more
valuable than speed."

6. The results - OS X may be a slower, but not 10x as reported by
anandtech and your data integrity is better. Some test run a year ago by
PC magazine give an entirely different picture:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1637655,00.asp

7. I'd say the jury is out but I'm interested in Dr Rolf's sysctl
suggestion. Anyone who has experienced poor mysql performance tried this??

cheers
adam.
So if I understand your post and the link correctly, the choice is
between performance and data integrity. If I were in an environment
where I knew that my backup power would not fail me, I might consider
the speed option. On the other hand, regardless of the OS, I'm not
sure that I want my customer's db spending part of it's time in limbo
in a disk cache. I think that any OS other than MOSX that runs MySQL
should consider some sort of script that'll flush the disk cache on
some reasonable period.
Ken Whitcomb
People who actually know what's going on have placed the problem
right at
the feet of the fact that under OS X MySQL defaults to performing a full
flush of the hard disk cache to ensure that a transaction has been
written
to disk, whereas under Linux it doesn't.
http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-dev/2005/Feb/msg00072.html
Supposedly you can turn this off, but I've not bothered to look for how.
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Chip
2005-06-13 13:53:20 UTC
Permalink
having been out of the office on friday...
Post by Martin Miller - AnotherSphere
Post by Chip
And btw the last time a computer company made a pre-anouncement like
this - it was bankrupt in 6 months.
Would you like to name that company?
Apple goes Intel -- the Osborne effect?
Jack Schofield June 09 2005

"Why buy a Mac now? That's one of the many questions we're left with in
the wake of Monday's Apple-Intel announcement .." says a post at Good
Morning Silicon Valley.

[...]

Comment: The late Adam Osborne, a delightful chap, became famous for
pre-announcing a system he couldn't deliver, killing sales of the one
he could. Whether this will be a problem for Apple is, at this stage,
anyone's guess.

Either way, it's been very interesting watching the reactions of the
Mac fanboys, who appear to get their instructions directly from His
Holy Steveness. Last week, Macs were far better than PCs because (among
other things) the PowerPC chip was a far better processor than any of
that Intel rubbish. This week, the processor doesn't matter. Next year,
I expect they will be arguing that Intel chips really are vastly
superior. (Insert Joy of Tech cartoon here.)

"Think different" (sic) seems to mean "Think what Steve Jobs tells you
to think."

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/online/archives/2005/06/09/apple_goes_intel_the_osborne_effect.html
- unquote -


By this logic sales of PCs should also have stalled when Bill Gates
announced Longhorn. Why won't the PC faithful not also pass the next
year or so watching in dismay as their Windows 2000 towers and
notebooks depreciate. Or don't the same laws of commerce apply in
Windows land. But wait you are BGs biggest FanBoy after all.

It isn't the CPU that makes a Mac but the total system
hardware+software. It'll be interesting seeing how OS X runs on this
new Intel hardware. I would have thought that sales of Macs will
actually increase as now the buyers have a choice.


-------------
Chip Scheide
Systems Coordinator
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh


"A corrupt society has many laws."
- Tacitus, Roman Senator
**********************************************************************
4th Dimension Internet Users Group (4D iNUG)
FAQ: http://www.pdm-inc.com/iNUG/faq.htm
Admin: mailto:iNUG-***@public.gmane.org
Unsub: mailto:4D_Tech-off-d2/***@public.gmane.org
**********************************************************************
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...