New Apples Next Week 402
Vicissidude writes "CNN/Money reports: 'Apple may be gearing up to unveil a new slate of mini-Macs and may also release updated versions of its popular iBook laptop computers as early as next Tuesday, according to unconfirmed reports on a Web site that tracks Apple.' The Web site Think Secret reported three new Mac mini and two new iBook part numbers have appeared in Apple's retail database, indicating that new models are imminent. Apple would neither confirm nor deny the reports. The new mini models will be priced at $499, $599 and $699, with new iBooks priced at $999 and $1,299, according to the original story at Think Secret."
Check! (Score:5, Funny)
Slight CPU jump, check.
Updated graphics card, check.
Looking back at all the posts lamenting how everyone and their grandma would buy a Mini if only it had slightly higher specs, apple should be seeing a whole lot of purchases from the slashdot crowd.
I've got my money ready. Do you?
Re:Check! (Score:4, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, I do. I lost interest in Apple desktops since discontinuation of iMac G3's. All Mac-branded desktops since then were just too loud for my taste (that included both iMac G4 and G5, they just changed from loud to even louder). Mac Mini again runs just whisper quiet, just as my G3 iBook. However, there's a rule of thumb that you should never purchase equipment that will be later described as "revision A" - so I keep on waiting for the first "rev. B" Mac Mini with my purchase. I just hope it will meet minimum requirements for Doom 3 (the original minis were just a bit too weak).
Re:Check! (Score:2)
official Doom3 requirements (Score:5, Informative)
Minimum System Requirements
Doom 3 runs on any iMac G5, or any Mac that meets the requirements below
# Operating System: Mac OS X 10.3.8 or later
# CPU Processor: PowerPC G4/G5 or later
# CPU Speed: 1.5GHz or faster
# Memory: 512 MB or higher
# Hard Disk Space: 2.0GB free disk space
# Video Card (ATI): Radeon 9600 or better
# Video Card (NVidia): GeForce FX5200 or better
# Video Memory (VRam): 64 MB
# Media Required: DVD Drive
Recommended System Requirements
Doom 3 runs best on a Power Mac G5 2.0 GHz or faster
# CPU Processor:PowerPC G5
# CPU Speed:2.0GHz or faster
# Video RAM:128MB
Don't think a mini will be there anytime soon...
Re:official Doom3 requirements (Score:2)
Re:official Doom3 requirements (Score:2)
Well, it can meet the "minimum" requirements - not the "recommended" ones. GPU is the main bottleneck here - I hope in Rev. B it will get the long expected 64 MB VRAM. CPU speed bump will obviously go further than 1.5 GHz (since even right now it's 1.42 GHz). I play D3 right now on '2005 12" powerbook G4 with exactly the minimum requirements (probably they were written with this machine in mind) and it's more than playable.
Re:official Doom3 requirements (Score:3, Funny)
Depends what you mean by soon.
From idsoftware.com:
I joke, of course :-)
Re:Check! (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as I can network more storage to it, I'll be content with using it as a media center.
Re:Check! (Score:5, Insightful)
No. It's going to be a while before Intel-based Macs are available, and even longer before the glitches are worked out and fat binaries are available for most popular applications.
You can buy a PPC Mac today and enjoy the benefits of Mac OS X. It will be useful for a long time. I still know people who make productive use of 68K-based Macs, even though they are officially obsolete. It is going to take a long time for the PPC Macs to fade away.
If my Mac blew up today, I'd just buy a Mac mini to replace it. I'll worry about Intel-based Macs when they are available and I have a real need to replace my current Mac. If I want to run the latest games, I'll buy one of the new game consoles.
Re:Check! (Score:2)
Maybe I shouldn't answer for him, but I'm guessing it's because he doesn't -need- a PowerMac, or even an iMac. There are millions of people who don't need computers any more powerful than a Mac Mini, so why would they spend the extra money? Just for the sake of spending money? I don't think so.
Re:Check! (Score:2)
Re:Check! (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: Mac-Minis (Score:4, Informative)
They're called a "Mac mini" not a "mini-mac".
Great , Free, Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple updates it's retail databases, the news gets spread from one end of the web to the other.
Dell and MS marketing execs probably spend many a sleepless night trying to figure out how they can come up with something with nearly the same cost to value ratio.
Re:Great , Free, Marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is unlike any other tech company in the way news of it's new products gets spread.
Re:Great , Free, Marketing (Score:2)
What happened to my /.?
Re:Great , Free, Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great , Free, Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
Dell and MS marketing execs probably spend many a sleepless night trying to figure out how they can come up with something with nearly the same cost to value ratio.
How about they do something interesting? Apple's news is reported on /. because, rightly or wrongly, Apple is perceived as doing interesting new things, some of which fail and and some of which work. Dell doesn't do much new at all (and makes vast sums doing that, so I'm guessing they're happy in that position.)
eSATA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:eSATA (Score:2)
Now that Apple knows they won't be overthrown by angry mobs for putting slow HDs in the Mini, they could just tell you to use your iPod.
Re:eSATA (Score:2)
Of course, a lot of external Firewire to IDE devices also incorporate a Firewire hub. I assume the same is true for USB to IDE devices. I know there is a Mac Mini styled enclosure with both a Firewire Hub, USB2 Hub and space for a 3.5" hard drive (Firewire attached).
What I'd prefer was a connector underneath the Mac Mini with Firewire, USB2 and Power pins on it (and SATA too), then any Mac Mini peripheral can go under the Mac Mini, connect seamlessly with the Mini and not
CNN is quoting Think Secret?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:CNN is quoting Think Secret?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CNN is quoting Think Secret?? (Score:4, Insightful)
That "Fox-style journalism" has been spreading like wildfire lately. The CBS/Dan Rather fake National Guard documents and the Newsweek rumors of Korans going into the toilet were clearly brought on by a similar spate of discredited stories from Fox News that I can't seem to recall right now.
As Predicted! (Score:5, Informative)
Mac Mini not far behind [macpredict.com]
I wish they released a Mac Mini for Intel.. (Score:2, Informative)
Ball matching game for MacOS X: http://www.funpause.com/atlantis/ [funpause.com]
Re:I wish they released a Mac Mini for Intel.. (Score:3, Funny)
I got the game, my balls still don't match. Thanks for nothing.
what? they are called developers for a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people are writing (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, but the x86 Mac + Rosetta will be able to run PPC software smothly?
If no, the new Mac will have to wait a little to have their software base enlarged.
Obviously, if Rosetta works very well...
Re:Many people are writing (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel Macs coming out won't obsolete PowerPC Macs. They will still be supported, and the great majority of software will run on both platforms for at least a couple of years, just like the Motarola 68k to PowerPC switch years ago.
Rosetta is a temporary measure for the apps that aren't ported right away. This will probably mainly be large, commercial apps where the user doesn't want to pay for the new Intel version right away (maybe waiting until they can upgrade to a new version rather than just the new arch) and small freeware apps that have slow development.
Re:Will FAT apps run slow on PPC though? (Score:4, Informative)
Xcode provides the magic to do the compilation twice and package up both programs into the same bundle. This is really just to simplify the user experience. You could just as well offer separate "Photoshop - Mac PPC" and "Photoshop - Mac Intel" products, but that gets annoying to keep track of.
CNN reports????? (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing. (Score:2)
CNN quotes it and suddenly it's worth listening to?
Re:CNN reports????? (Score:2)
Re:CNN reports????? (Score:2)
You are evil if you think the war is a dead topic. 25,000 dead innocent, non-combatent Iraqis and 1700+ dead Americans who died for Bush's lies is a very important topic. Anyone who thinks differently is an immoral, evil monster.
Re:CNN reports????? (Score:2)
So, you admit that you don't care about dead women and children. According to you, if a bunch of Saudis kill innocent people in the US, we can go kill 8 times the number of innocent Iraqis. That's real moral.
So, you are so dumb that you confuse 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
So, you are so ignorant that you claim the Koran tells muslims go on murderous rampages.
You obviously don't care about the bad things the USA does. Iraq isn't a war against terror, it is
apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple should be pushing the minimal spec upwards, not stripping everything off so that it can get it's headlines saying *Mac's are now affordable*
The kind of people who are prepared to put down the cash for a Mac are prepared to pay that bit extra, but walking into a store thinking you're going to spend £350 to get a machine that does everything you've heard about and find out that it's actually closer to £500 or £600 (can't be arsed to check the exact prices atm), is disappointing. It makes me think of Dell and other company's tactics. If you know from the start you're looking at almost double that then you can budget for it easier.
I took a friend and their kids to the Apple store and they came out wanting a Mac mini because they thought that it was under £350. Once I'd factored in the SuperDrive (for making DVD's), Airport (for using it in the bedroom upstairs) - because you can't fit it yourself and bluetooth because if you're having the Airport installed you might as well and all kids these days have Bluetooth capable phones and some extra RAM as 256 Mb just isn't enough, it was a *LOT* more. I opted for a good 3rd party TFT display from elsewhere (19" TFT for £179), as Apple seem to think that plonking down £550 for their entry level display is fine for everyone. I'm glad that they reduced the price of the keyboards after the mini came out. I had to buy one for my Powerbook for nearly £50, now they're about £20 i think.
So, to wrap up my rant, up the minimum spec and put the price up *a bit* to make up for it. removing the need for build to order for simple and very popular options should have some benefits of scale to reduce the need to gouge everyone for a bit a ram, a modern optical drive and some wireless comms, or at least make it easier for people to actally install or swap out these components like most PC vendors do.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:5, Insightful)
I chose the standard configuration; no extra RAM, no wifi, and the combo drive. The machine runs just fine with 256MB, I have no wireless network, and I have no need to burn DVDs.
What's the point of my post? That what's best for you isn't necessarily what's best for the rest of us. Apple is doing the right thing by having bare-bone entry level computers for people like me and options for people like you.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:2)
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:3, Insightful)
Most upgrades can be achieved by USB/Firewire expansion today. Video capture, sound upgrades, optical drives, more HDD space... these can all be added to the Mac Mini on a plug-and-play basis.
RAM?
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:4, Informative)
You do not void the warranty [macworld.com] when you upgrade a mini's RAM.:
RAM is really the crucial thing. (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing is more detrimental to the health of my machine than suddenly going from running at RAM speed to crawling at disk speed.
Seriously, Macs have always been under chipped in this respect.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:3, Informative)
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:2)
Why? To make the world a better place? To make you happy? Their current strategy *does* get them those headlines -- and apparently the correlating sales. Sure, it'd be, I dunno, nice if they had more real-world bottom-line prices, but I don't see any practical reason that they *should*.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to offer a descenting opinion. I feel that Apple does a great job of specing out systems with standard features that make them relevant years from now. Making a 512MB RAM standard across the line, except the mini, is one example. Standard USB 2, Firewire, Bluetooth, etc are others.
But if every Mac came optioned up with Superdrives and the like, there would be no 'entry level' model. My iMac G5 has Bluetooth and Airport Express standard. I don't use those at all. but I paid for them. It also has a Superdrive I didn't need but have used twice for fun so I'm glad I have it. Still, it would have been nice to save $200, or nearly 15%, and not gotten those options.
Just like people think Apple is the BMW of computers, BMW still has options for their luxury cars.
Where Apple does falter in my opinion is in the video cards. If they are going to make eMacs, iMacs, and Mac minis (as well as iBooks and PBs) without upgradable video chipsets, then they need to put in something that is above par for he rest of the system. How sad to have otherwise snappy system performance slowed down by a poor graphics card. I would gladly trade the forementioned wireless access innards for a better graphics chipset.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:2)
Do they ever. Up until very recently, even the stereo was an optional extra. Not an upgraded stereo with a CD changer. Any stereo at all. How many people are going to buy a BWM and not want a stereo? It's improved now, but there are still some options that almost everyone is going to buy.
Re:apple need to bump up the entry level spec (Score:3, Interesting)
I decided not to go the DVD writer route, I have other computers with a DVD writer and I don't use that feature very often.
I do agree that Apple should
Ram, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
I got an external DVD burner that was DL-capable for less than the superdrive upgrade. Wifi and Bluetooth are available USB, and you're still better off drilling a hole i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trumania (Score:2)
That's funny. The newly potent Apple "gears up". What was the term for Apple when it took them ten years to adopt a true demand-page VM and non-cooperative multitasking, which they were "geared up" to promise the whole while? And all those years they "geared up" to tell us that the first truly compelling Apple computer system would be Unix on Intel? The most powerful gears at Apple are the ones that power their reality-distortion fog machine. There's a scene in the Truman Show where Truman finally clue
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sub-notebook? (Score:2)
Re:Sub-notebook? (Score:2)
The Powerbook is smaller, and that's nice. But it tends to sustain more damage despite being more expensive.
Re:Sub-notebook? (Score:2)
I've carried a 12" iBook around with me every day since the dual USB models were introduced in 2001, and I wouldn't trade the bu
Dual Layer Drive? It would be nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dual Layer Drive? It would be nice (Score:3, Informative)
Apple seem to have that a bit nailed down, as another poster has pointed out. That's kind of annoying.
(I mean, if you think about it, having DVD authoring software that refuses to work unless you're using a particular model of DVD drive is a bit 1999, really, isn't it? I'm still not sure why they do this - do they subsidise iDVD development from the money they make selling SuperDrives?)
Re:Dual Layer Drive? It would be nice (Score:3, Informative)
Patch Burn is a tiny, simple app that will allow OS X to work with almost any non-supported DVD-R drive. It's free, just download it, run it once, and you're done.
Assuming you don't want to go with patch burn, the new version of iDVD supports outputting an
The only reason Apple really does this with iDVD is co
Dupe (Score:2)
Making it come from CNN doesn't make it new (it references ThinkSecret).
Zonk gets the title of most dupes. He should work for world of warcraft or something.
Tell me again now, why buy a PowerBook? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple doesn't need to upgrade the iBook line half as much as they need more powerful PowerBooks.
Re:Tell me again now, why buy a PowerBook? (Score:3, Interesting)
While things like wireless and DVD burning are options that will bring the price up for the ibooks, there still are distinct differences between the lines. It doesn't seem as obvious looking at the quick run-downs on Apple.com, but a good look at the tech specs for the individual lines does revea
American journalism is dead (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2, Interesting)
The PPC platform isn't dying.
There are still some new PPC products in the pipeline, and when the intel based macs come out, there won't be a noticible difference for the end user, as all apps will include both X86 and PPC binary code.
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2, Interesting)
as all apps will include both X86 and PPC binary code.
The future will tell, but my bet is that it won't be true. PCC will be dropped
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2, Interesting)
Will be?
All serious PPC development has ground to a complete halt. Anyone who says differently is either delusional or trying to keep people from leaving the platform.
Any work done on PPC code right now is throwing very expensive development money out the door. No one but the biggest developers are going to bother keeping two different types of Macs around just for testing.
If you are an Apple developer, you are looking at the earliest possible time to dump your PP
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Informative)
You don't want to alienate your customers... You want your app to run on both for a long while until PPC becomes obsolete. That's like, 8 years from now considering the higher resale value of macs
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Informative)
I can absolutely confirm this (dammit, I leave Slashdot one day & folks are already posting the answer *I* wanted to give).
As a Mac developer writing software that's in the hands of a not inconsequential number of people, I have on my desk one of the Intel-based Developer Transition Kits. The reason I have this is not because I'm now going to be building Intel-only applications from now on, but because in a year's time, when a client buys a new Mac an it's running on an Intel processor, they will still want to use my software.
As a result, I compile everything as a 'Universal Binary' -- which, to the uninitiated, is a new name for the 'Fat Binary' of yore; in other words, it's got the Intel and the PowerPC binary files concatenated together, with a little table of contents up front.
When I first fired it up, it took me one day to get a quite a few programs (components of one software product) to build & perform perfectly on Intel (one little problem - ntohl() modifying the source operand on Intel processors - caused 80% of the delay, due to it being a bitch to track down) and PowerPC. They even generate various files which can be passed between one another with nary a glitch.
And before people start whinging about applications doubling in size, take a look at the size of the actual program binary itself. Delicious Library is 908Kb. Final Cut Pro is 4.7Mb. Things like Photoshop will undoubtedly be larger, and will therefore be candidates for seperate Intel/PowerPC binaries (i.e. the installer detects what system is running, and installs the appropriate binary). It's worth noting, though, that applications which make heavy use of the OS X frameworks will be smaller, and much more palatable as universal binaries.
In short, as an Apple developer, whose software is installed on hundreds of thousands of Macs, it's actually more work for me to make my software work on intel only - after all, for that I would need to:
-Q
Re:Oh please... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
Face it - Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable, and the developers have generally gone along with this. Your imagined examples of non-support notwithstanding, there's just no evidence to suggest that either Apple or its developers would just suddenly drop PPC support the moment the first Intel Mac rolls off the production line. As has been stated before, there's going to be a majority of PPC Macs in users' hands for at least the next five to six years. No software company in their right mind would just abandon that market for convenience sake.
Calm down. A PPC iBook purchased this year will suit you perfectly well for the next five years. That being said, you can always wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest...
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Interesting)
No they don't.
Apple has abandoned SCSI and the floppy without any advance notice. Regardless of the merits of this decision, it wasn't very pleasant for those with an investment in SCSI hardware or floppies.
Prior to that was the clones/CHRP experiment. Apple pulled the plug on that one. Also not a lot of fun if you happened to have been following Apple on that.
Very recently, the iPod battery.
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't video game companies do this every day?
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2, Funny)
You must surely mean:
There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once..."
[pause]
"... shame on...".
[pause]
"Shame on you..."
[pause]
"If fooled, you can't get fooled again."
- your friend, George W. Bush
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2)
Actually, it is...but it is far from dead. Seems to Mac users have grown accustomed to slower (hardware) upgrade treadmills than Wintel users, so I think a lot of new and recent Mac buyers will very much expect their PPC Macs to still be useful for at least 3 more years. Probably more like 4. And for the most part I think they will be...sure, some of your small-time software producers might start getting lazy and just putting out Mactel software...but I'd bet money* that s
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
it only matters what actually happens. and in the same situation before. Mac 68k to mac PPC the dual binaries stayed in place for years. even until 2001 seven years after ppc first started to come in there were still many 68k ppc FAT apps made for 68k macs.
when next was multiple cpu too the binaries across many platforms stayed in place for years.
what, is a developer going to go "oh there are 7% of mac users using intel macs now it's a year after they were introduced, let us drop PPC support even though it is 93% of our market. yeeeeeeah thats smart.
intel macs wont even contain a majority of macs until maybe 4 years after the changeover.
Not-so-hypothetical dialogue (Score:2)
Developer 2: Really? Wow, maybe our programs will be easy enough to port now. We never bothered before.
Developer 1: Yeah. Even though we use window APIs there are some solutions that make porting much easier. All you really have to do is make the interface mac-like, and it turns out apple has a tool called Interface Builder that makes that a cinch.
Developer 2: Of course we make games, so all that involves is a full screen and keyboard
Re:Not-so-hypothetical dialogue (Score:2)
Not going to happen. Al least, not until Intel Macs actually begin to outnumber PPC M
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's assume they won't stay Intel/PowerPC for more than 5 years. So what? Your 2005 machine will have hard time running 2010 software anyway - Intel/PowerPC switch has nothing to do with it. You won't room "Doom III" or even MacOS 10.4 with all features on a '2000 iBook.
Why do I assume 5 years period? I estimate it from similar situation with 68k/PowerPC switch. The first PowerPC Macs were introduced in spring 1994. The last 68k Macs were discontinued in spring 1996. So it was two years of dual CPU hardware - and further two years when software ran on both CPUs (Apple dropped 68k support in MacOS in 1998). Mactels are not to be expected before 2006. This gives me this 1+2+2 formula. Of course, it's just a guess but the bottom line is that every platform is a dying platform - no matter what you buy now, it will be obsolete in 5 years, anyway...
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2)
Good for you - but please do consider the part of my comment saying, quote "with all features", end quote. Your 2000 iBook was not able to run Quartz Extreme - essential to launch many cool features of 10.3.
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2)
Unless these are Intel machines, I won't buy
Would you buy an Intel that wasn't a quad-core? After all, those single-core chips are a dying platform as well.
Whatever Steve says, I don't believe that binaries will stay Intel/PowerPC for very long.
I expect universal binaries to be around for at least 5 years (if not longer) after the transition is complete (for a total of 7+ years).
Look at how long it took for developers to let go of OS 9. Apple had to declare OS 9 DEAD and even then, it's taken a w
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, yes: for my next desktop I'm waiting for AMD64 dual-core.
Well, most people won't hold off a purchase of a computer because of what is coming down the path 12 months from now. If that were the case, nobody would ever buy a computer.
Most people I know that need to replace their notebook today are not keen on the idea of waiting a year to get a replacement.
If I NEED a replacement today, I'm not going to lose 12 months of productivity because of what might come down the road a year (or even
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:5, Informative)
Try thinking about it in the most practical terms possible.
1. PPC Macs are going to dominate the market for years . The Mac market is going to be 100% PPC-based for another year. After that, PPC Macs will greatly outnumber Intel Macs for 4 or 5 years; possibly longer. Mac owners tend to hold onto their machines for a long time. The hundreds of millions of existing PPC Macs aren't going anywhere.
2. Creating "fat" dual Intel/PPC binaries is easy. With XCode it's only a mouse click away in most scenarios. In fact, I think the latest version of XCode creates dual binaries by default. So it would actually require effort to not create dual binaries, if I'm not mistaken. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
So. What is your reasoning again? Why would Mac developers ignore the majority of their market when supporting them takes no effort? I'm no Apple loyalist; I haven't owned an Apple computer since my IIgs, so if anybody is wary about being burned by a lack of Apple support it's me. But I would have no problem buying a PPC Mac today... in fact, as soon as I have some money I hope to pick up a Mini for testing purposes.
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2)
I see a long period of status-quo coming, hardware-w
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't have a copy of XCode in front of me,but... (Score:3, Insightful)
PowerPC systems will work for a long, long time. At least as long as the usable life of anything you can buy in the next year.
Cheers.
Build native my default, but PPC will last (Score:4, Insightful)
Not quite. The default for builds in Xcode is to build for the architecture of the machine you're running on. So on PowerPC-based Macs, it defaults to PPC on and x86 off. On an Intel Mac, it would default to x86 on and PPC off.
Still, it's braindead simple to make most apps universal. Check the box and you're done, whether you're building on an Intel Mac or a PPC Mac.
I completely agree with you -- PowerPC systems will be actively supported for a long, long time. As a developer, it's incredibly trivial for me to support both platforms. And given the lifespan of the typical Mac, you have to support both platforms because a huge chunk of the potential customer base will on PPC for several years to come.
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:2)
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3)
In fact, it is the platform, not the hardware, that defines how future proof a bit of hardware is. In this case, Apple and Mac OS X and a lot of supported good software that will be PowerPC enabled for at least 5 years, and even if it ever went Intel-only (for Mac OS X, Applications, etc) the platform is still there.
Sounds pretty future proof to me. If you need a laptop running Mac OS X, then next week's iBooks are a great option regardless of the hardware.
It's the reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
The first intel mac won't be out until next year. That means I wouldn't buy an intel mac until three years from now.... which is of course when I'd feel like buying a new computer anyway.
The last PPC machines Apple makes are going to be classics. Completely perfected machines, all the bugs worked out, run today's software for the next five to ten years.
But then, I'm a mac user. We actually use our computers to get work done. The theoretical value of the total market availability isn't as important to me as whether I turn out my work today. If it were, I wouldn't be on a Mac in the first place.
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
I fully expect in 5-10 years time that applications will still be coming in fat binaries with PowerPC and Intel support.
Because Apple's libraries abstract things like SIMD and so on, the PowerPC part will probably still be reasonably optimised.
One thing that will drop quickly is extreme PowerPC optimisation though.
As far as I am concerned, buying one of these new iBooks or Mac Minis will be buying an extremely tried and tested pl
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ellen Feiss (Score:3, Funny)
Did you lose a paper that you were working on for school? Was it a really good paper, too?
Re:My iBook died two months ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:With Intel processor? (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, there was much speculation that the mini would be the first to change, and the ibook would also be a good candidate.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:2)
Most people seem to junk their PC after 2 or 3 years, or pass them on to relatives. Part of this is the issue with 'Windows Slowdown'.
Considering that Mac OS X has been getting faster with each revision, and more optimised and efficient too, I reckon that a Mac is a good investment. I know that 10.5 and 1
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess all those people who get five years or more out of their Macs must be hallucinating, then?
I bought a Power Mac 7600 in 1996, and it was my primary machine until 2002. Over the years I added RAM and a USB card and threw a G3 upgrade into it, but it was still a viable machine when I replaced it, except from the standpoint of being able to run OS X-- I needed a more recent model to do that. I'm a consultant, so I wanted a machine that would run it as my clients would see it, not with some third-party hack to get it working.
The 7600 was replaced with a used G4/733 from 2001, and that one was just fine until I bought the G5 I'm using now (yes, I only got 2 years out of the G4 as my primary Mac, but it was only ever intended to tide me over until the G5s came out). The G4 is now in my office running Tiger like a champ, and I expect this G5 to last me until nearly 2010.
Apple already successfully managed a CPU transition back in the 90s, and they did it without instantly obsoleting anyone's computer. I have no doubt that this one will go just as well. Mac applications that are written for the Intel processors can be compiled for the PPC by clicking a checkbox, so there's no additional effort or expense required for developers to support both architectures-- and with 5 years worth of PPC-based Macs out in the world (not counting the PPC Macs that can't run the current incarnation of OS X), they'd be crazy to not do so for at least the next five years.
~Philly
Re:Big deal.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a machine I purchased in early 2002. It replaced a machine I bought in 1997. That machine from 1997 continued to run until I sold it 3rd party in 2004, and I am sure it is still running today. If you wanted to you could run OS X on it, however it requires a 3rd party hack. But OS 9 for someone who hasn't had need to upgrade their software (much like you haven't had need of upgrading your OS) still works just fine. In fact I often wished that I still had that machine for a certain software that I still haven't found a real replacement for yet (and will not work in classic).
As a matter of fact I purchased one of the first PPC machines back in 1995, and it is still in use by the person I sold it to. That is definitely 10 years old, but no it does not run OS X, but the tools that person uses were not upgraded enough for X for it to make sense for him to upgrade.
The only reason I dream of upgrading today is simply for portability. I would love to have a laptop, and while newer machines can do tasks with a bit more spunk than my current machine, it certainly does handle what I need it to do.