# Who's gonna buy a Mac now that the Power PC nearing the end of the line?



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

*Who's gonna buy a Mac now that the Power PC's nearing the end of the line?*

In view of Apple's big announcement today about making the transition to Intel chips over the next two years, with the first Intel-powered Macs becoming available by June 2006, I'm curious...are you more inclined or less inclined to buy a new Mac over the next 12-24 months?


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

I would buy an iBook if I could find a cheap G4, maybe the prices will be low enough for me now . I'm going to have a bit of a dilemma when I buying a lappy for University next year (I am going to bring some kind of mac with me, even if its only to supplement a Wintel machine I'll HAVE to use...argh). By this time next year, the "conversion" will have started, and I will have to decide whether I want the newer Intel or a PPC. I guess I will just go on how well supported the Intel chips are (3rd party). My biggest worry would be not being able to find the right version of some software I really needed, hopefully it won't come to that though.

I wish Apple could stay with IBM, it would be a whole lot simpler...but perhaps the future is brighter with Intel (never thought I'd be saying that)...


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Excuse the typo. That last entry in the poll ought to have read: "Won't affect my decision at all."


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Whew... thought we were getting into more Star Wars discussions.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I was going to buy a iMac but now I think I will be able to wait and see what will be possible with the Intel chips, the only thing I'm hoping that they leave alone is the processor upgrades if a new Intel CPU comes out I want to be able to use it now not in 3 months when Apple decides to upgrade there Macs again.

Laterz


----------



## picxpert (May 19, 2005)

My sister's buying an iBook as soon as they rev 'em, and I'm buying a Mac Mini as a household server (currently a Cyrix PR233 Debian box) as soon as certain forces allow.

Oh, and I'm trying to see if I can get one of those dev. boxes with my ADC student membership (and am not holding out much hope)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

If I wanted to buy a new Mac now, I don't see how today's announcement would matter. My understanding is that OSX and new apps will run on both PPC *and* Intel just fine. The only consideration is whether next year's hardware will be better, but that has always been a consideration. I don't think today's announcement means that a new PPC Mac will be orphaned in any way.

I think Apple is saying they are now adding the Intel architecture, not dropping PPC. It's possible Jobs didn't do enough to reassure the Mac faithful of this point.

BTW, the announcement isn't on apple.com yet. Anyone got a clue on when the keynote will be available for download?


----------



## crispyking (Jun 4, 2005)

*I want the last PowerPC Mac produced...*

Think of the cachet value of the last PowePC Mac produced!

It'll still be running the latest OSX software wonderfully for a long time after it's discontinued.

It'd be like the original NeXT 68040 cube (discontinued in 1993 when NeXT discontinued it's Motorola hardware). In 1997 when Apple bought NeXT, it was still running the latest OPENSTEP 4.2, and all the latest apps (OmniWeb 2.0!). (It's still running them, for that matter


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

I'm nto sure about 12-24 months. The first machines should be out in January right? 

I was planning to replace my powerbook in the summer but was already backpedalling b/c I wnated to wait for a G5 book. 

Now I'll probably just be waiting for teh first Intel book (GAH! I can't believe I just said that!). 

Hopefully it will be one of those dual core Pentiums (GAH! I can't believe I just said that!)

AAACKKCKK! PHPHPTPTPPPTTTTTT! (Just a little channeled Bloom County for those of you who recognize my avatar)


----------



## Ohenri (Nov 7, 2002)

great poll.

As much as i want to say that it WILL NOT affect me, I am way too curious - almost like a switcher in fact. As much as SJ makes it seem like the transition will smooth, I need to see this. But essentially, my m ind keeps clouding me, and I keep thinking of a Dell lap running OSX - which this is not. But man, the wintel branding has been such that, it's all I can imagine.

H!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

GA said: "I think Apple is saying they are now adding the Intel architecture, not dropping PPC. It's possible Jobs didn't do enough to reassure the Mac faithful of this point."

Jobs said the transition to Intel processors will be complete by 2007. He also said that they (Apple) could not see a roadmap for PPC. They will release PPC Macs over the next year or two but beyond that, it'll likely be all Intel. The pressure to drop PPC will increase over time since IBM is hardly likely to be investing in improving chips to a diminishing market. These transitions are best when they are absolute. The machines released with PPC processors will be stop-gaps to keep Apple revenues flowing because they need ramp time for the Intel based Macs. I do think we'll see the first Intel powered Macs for consumers a lot sooner than many think (by MacWorld Jan 2006). The tough time will be the next 6-12 months.

I am certainly not going to buy a new powerbook until the new architecture is released although I'll probably buy replacement machines for the lab since PPC Macs will still be competitive for some time to come.

Ohenri, its not Wintel, its Mintel - mmm, minty good.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Let me clarify UTBJW. Apple is not dropping *support* for the PPC. With the new "FAT" versions all new OSX systems and apps will continue to run on older PPC hardware without a hitch. So your investment in PPC hardware now or tomorrow is protected.

The only thing that might make your new PPC Mac less valuable than next years Intel Mac, is the ability to install Windows on it.


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

[QUOTE
The only thing that might make your new PPC Mac less valuable than next years Intel Mac, is the ability to install Windows on it.[/QUOTE]


wow do some of you actually want to run windows on your mac??? <shivers runing down spine>


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I don't, that's fer dang sure. But gamers might. Or someone who has that one app that their business requires that doesn't have an OSX version.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

GA, how long do you think publishers will dual compile? That answer will govern the length of time a PPC Mac is viable. Apple may support PPC Macs, but that does not mean developers will - especially once they start optimizing code for Intel silicon. The dual compile mode of XCode represents the first generation of software. But the second generation will very likely be optimized for Intel processors. In the first phase, the publishers will want to sell to the whole base and so will be incentivised to dual compile. That incentive will diminish over time. Perhaps 4 years, perhaps less. 4 years would not be a big problem, less would.

Jobs needs to continue to sell PPC Macs cos that's all he has on the production lines. But people can wait and a significant fraction probably will. However, the longer term should be more secure. And I think Apple will pull out some incentives to maintain sales. Afterall, they have a ton of cash in the bank and supporting marketshare right now is probably a good use of those funds. Could be some bargains. I also wonder whether Transitive will release an Intel emulation mode (to allow current PPCs to run Intel compiled code - the inverse of Rosetta)? That would not necessarily be in Apple's best long term interest (they want us to migrate and buy new machines) but it may keep PPC machines, esp. G5s, viable for quite some time (>5 years?).


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

Personally I want a tablet to run X on and Intel has done most of the work already in that area.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Interesting results so far: with the exception of a few who say that the announcement has made it more likely that they'll buy a new Mac within the next 12-24 months, the rest are pretty much evenly split between "no change" and those who are "less likely" to buy a new machine. 

I haven't made up my mind about this. On the surface of it, this sure seems like G4s and G5s are going to be obsolete in an awful hurry. But then maybe I'm being too hasty. As Jobs pointed out in his keynote, the important apps like Photoshop are loading slower on the Mintel (great name, U2BJW!) so it's possible that a G5 system might still have lots of cachet in two years. 

Just as troublesome, of course, is this: what will happen to all the $1000s of dollars of software that Mac users have invested in their systems. Will they have to buy new versions when they upgrade in 12-24 months? I sure hope not. 

One thing is clear from the reaction I've read so far. The keynote helped get people talking but has done little to reassure the faithful about this undertaking. There are just oodles of unanswered questions stemming from what will likely be regarded as one of the most profound shifts Apple has ever undertaken.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW said:


> GA, how long do you think publishers will dual compile?


Well, if it's as easy using Xcode as Jobs says it is, simply checking a box, why would they not continue to release universal binaries as long as there are even a few PPC users left out there?

I think Apple might need to do a bit of damage control now and reassure Mac users that their investments in hardware and software will be protected.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

(( p g )) said:


> ... what will happen to all the $1000s of dollars of software that Mac users have invested in their systems. Will they have to buy new versions when they upgrade in 12-24 months?...


In 12-24 months? It will be Adobe CS 3 or 4, Final Cut 6 or 7, Office 2006, etc. Likely upgrades/new version pricing as usual, but optimised for the new architecture. Office 98, Photoshop 5 didn't run on 040 either...and 8.1 was last Mac OS that was 040/PPC compatible. Remember those days?


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

hmm, i feel a bit like i just invested a week too late in the Mini Mac 8-track, the Mac cassette walkman, the Mac betamax, the Mac widows millenium edition...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Rosetta is designed to translate currently shipping applications that run on a PowerPC with a G3 processor and that are built for Mac OS X. Rosetta does not run the following:

Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
Code written specifically for AltiVec
Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
Kernel extensions
Bundled Java application
(source: MacIntouch)

Simple as pressing a button...


----------



## Call me 'Sherman' (Nov 21, 2004)

I don't buy the hardware, I buy the software. I buy a mac because I LOVE the UI and I adore the layout and the user-freindliness. Along with the OSes smooth operation and beautifal design. If I can run an identical OS X on a Pentium 4 with out anything missing (speed, compatability, design) then, I ask, what's the difference? If the computer does what you want it to do, it shouldn't matter HOW it does it.

However, I would probably still buy a mac for the hardware design, so.... sexy, as a peer once commented 




HJS said:


> ...and 8.1 was last Mac OS that was 040/PPC compatible. Remember those days?


I may be wrong but wasnt 8.1 also 030 compatable... i remember running it on my IIci way back, unless thats a 040 machine which i don't think it is...


cheers


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

No more or less inclined.

With my original G4 iMac getting a little long in the tooth I'll need a new Mac before 2007, and if it's PPC, fine, if it's Intel-based, fine again.

After watching the WWDC Keynote I have no concerns about problems with application support if I purchased a new PPC-based Mac.


----------



## Jordan (Jul 20, 2002)

*History!?*

I guess I just bought a piece of history with my Rev.B iMac G5 eh?
Lets hope the developers continue with the "Universal" applications for the PPC.

Whether it's PPC or Intel, as long as it's OS X, it's fine by me.


----------



## Cmonster (Aug 24, 2004)

I had just bought a G5 tower a couple of weeks ago, man I am very pissed off because of this. I hope Apple have something to compensate for those who bought iMac G5,towers, eMacs or mini's - like a logic board upgrade to be installed by a certified Mac technician including board and labour at a decent price or third party Accelerator for G4 or G5 towers with Intel processor instead of wasting more money and dumping our obsolete computers in the nearest landfill. Companies like Sonnet, Gigadesigns or Powerlogix would benefit from this because they know alot of the Mac designs and reverse engineering it. Putting out new Intel accelerators cards would keep our machines going until the next major technology comes around the corner. We should pressure or petition Apple to have a Intel logicboard replacement at a decent price if they decided to keep the case designs the same as they are. If not, lets try to convince the third parity companies to develope intel accelertor cards that would be less expensive that the G4 or the developement of G5 accelerator cards which is impossible to develope.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Cmonster - Why are you mad over something that won't actually even be in the public's hands until next year?

Who says your computer is obsolete? If they had kept with the PowerPC architecture, your computer would become obsolete in the same amount of time.


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

Chealion said:


> Cmonster - Why are you mad over something that won't actually even be in the public's hands until next year?
> 
> Who says your computer is obsolete? If they had kept with the PowerPC architecture, your computer would become obsolete in the same amount of time.


Bingo, Chealion. The hand wringing is a little surprising, as far as I'm concerned. I think that everyone on this board, and others, is forgetting a key consideration: 90% of computer users can't spell Intel and think that G4 is a gardening zone or drill bit size. I don't think that resell value will be affected in any significant way, as as many people will be clamouring for the old architecture as new for the new.

My plan is to purchase a new ibook the instant they rev the line. And I mean the instant.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm typing this on a 6yr old G4 sawtooth with an upgrade card and I too hope that if I buy a G5 tower tomorrow or a year from now, I'll have the option of a motherboard swap 2-3 yrs down the road. I do think Apple needs to consider this option to complete the transition and to keep the Mac faithful happy. 

My other concern is the investment I made (and still making) in OS X software. I have no faith in Rosetta for high end apps like video editing. There's also the issue of legacy hardware and drivers needed to run them. Will my recently purchased HP 3030 'all-in-one' have OS X drivers for Intel which give me full functionality? HP's track record is not that good when it comes to this. How about other software upgrades, will 'fat' applications be offered at upgrade prices or will we be forced to pay 'full' price?

I've spent a small fortune on all things OS X, now it appears that no matter how you slice and dice it, more money will need to be spent on this transition.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

(( p g )) said:


> Just as troublesome, of course, is this: what will happen to all the $1000s of dollars of software that Mac users have invested in their systems. Will they have to buy new versions when they upgrade in 12-24 months?


The answer to that is -- no. The Rosetta technology to be included in Leopard will run PPC-compiled code on Intel-powered Macs.

Steve even demo'ed Photoshop CS2 running through Rosetta on the Intel-based Mac he was using at the WWDC keynote.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

kps said:


> I've spent a small fortune on all things OS X, now it appears that no matter how you slice and dice it, more money will need to be spent on this transition.


Same here - 
In response to the transition, we have started to cancel some of our Apple licenses for certain applications and are moving to PC with them. Nothing like being prepared.
OS9 -> OS X was not a smooth transition, I don't see how this can be either.

From all accounts, the demo of PS on Rosetta was very slow.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

kps said:


> My other concern is the investment I made (and still making) in OS X software. I have no faith in Rosetta for high end apps like video editing.


We'll just have to wait and see about things like this.

I have faith that Apple knows there are a lot of customers like you. Very valued customers who have invested a ton of money in high-end hardware and software. Apple is going to make sure Rosetta doesn't leave users like yourself twisting in the wind.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

ct77 said:


> We'll just have to wait and see about things like this.
> 
> I have faith that Apple knows there are a lot of customers like you. Very valued customers who have invested a ton of money in high-end hardware and software. Apple is going to make sure Rosetta doesn't leave users like yourself twisting in the wind.


I appreciate your optimism, but I can't subscribe to your assessment. Apple has let their customers down in the past...there is a track record to consider.

Emulation is emulation, no matter what form it takes. It may be fine for MS Office, but I doubt most will want FCP or PS CS to run in emulation on a $4000 tower. You don't spend that kind of money on hardware so it can be crippled by the software you run. The only option is to go "native", which results in more $$$$$.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> FCP or PS CS to run in emulation on a $4000 tower.


Where do you ever think that will happen??? That's just plain nonsense - you didn't see PS running in emulation on the 3.6 it ran native fully compiled.

Emulation is only for minor apps where the developer thinks it unnecessary so it will all run.
Just as certain legacy apps in OS 9. That's what classic is for.

Spreading this kind of disinformation is very wrong and harmful. Adobe was on stage for goodness sakes and FCP is Apples own application

-* Major apps will run fully native on either chipset.*


----------



## vectra (Jan 23, 2003)

The reality is that Apple is changes its OS systems and hardware in response to the demands of the marketplace and the need to stay competitive to provide shareholder value. The downside is that as Apple consumers we pay the price with obsolete software/hardware. The upside is that the software is the best in the world and the hardware is the best designed in the world. That's the price you pay for progress. We could be on the dark side (Windows) and wait years for system updates, be overwhelmed with spy-ware and viruses. Hopefully, in 3-5 years-the discussion will be "Why did Apple wait this long?"


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> In response to the transition, we have started to cancel some of our Apple licenses for certain applications and are moving to PC with them. Nothing like being prepared.
> OS9 -> OS X was not a smooth transition, I don't see how this can be either.
> 
> From all accounts, the demo of PS on Rosetta was very slow.


First of all, don't compare a software API transition with a hardware transition. The transition to OS X has already paid for your transition to x86, because OS X abstracts the hardware. Developers write most of the software for the OS, not the hardware.

Second, the demo was done on a Pentium 4 (single, correct me if I'm wrong), not fully optimized. Of course it will be slower than a Dual G5. No one's saying the G5s are under powered right now, it's the roadmap that caused Apple to switch.



kps said:


> Emulation is emulation, no matter what form it takes. It may be fine for MS Office, but I doubt most will want FCP or PS CS to run in emulation on a $4000 tower.


You're worried about FCP and PS?????? These are exactly the programs that the emulator will be designed for and tested with! Of course they'll want you to upgrade the apps eventually, so why would they upset you in the meantime? I've been looking at Transitive for some time in the news, and was thrilled to see Apple take the lead in leveraging their talents.

In summary I think this is going to be a smooth transition. If Apple loses customers it will be the ones that were already unhappy. And I can already imagine new ones are signing up based on newfound belief that Apple will survive and stay competitive.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Where do you ever think that will happen??? That's just plain nonsense - you didn't see PS running in emulation on the 3.6 it ran native fully compiled.
> 
> Emulation is only for minor apps where the developer thinks it unnecessary so it will all run.
> Just as certain legacy apps in OS 9. That's what classic is for.
> ...


MacDoc where do you get your information? I know you have to be a fan of Apple because of your line of work. 
Have you read the universal_binary.pdf? Porting is not as simple as Apple would like us to believe.
What make you think Apple or even Adobe will to a good job to optimize the code?
How many pieced of software that made the transition from OS 9 to OS X are fully optimized? Most took years...
That PhotoShop demo ran awfully slow.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ALL the major apps will ship dual binary in their next major round of upgrades - Apple's included. The Rosetta is a red herring in discussing this.

It's not the high end affected by this move it's the entry level - why do you think Steve showed the power per watt.....for desktops!!!!! no......for portable and minis.

The "move to it entirely" is just a carrot for which ever chip designer does best in the high end. Apple will keep it's options open ..........just as it's already done with the x86 OS X developoment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

elmer said:


> In summary I think this is going to be a smooth transition. If Apple loses customers it will be the ones that were already unhappy. And I can already imagine new ones are signing up based on newfound belief that Apple will survive and stay competitive.


In think Macintouch sums it up nicely:

The switch is another major upheaval for the Macintosh platform, like the PowerPC and Mac OS X migrations. It will certainly be more disruptive than the transitions through Jaguar, Panther and Tiger, as well as hardware transitions from G3 to G4 and G5 processors.

This sounds the death knell for 680x0 "Classic" Mac applications. We see zero support for them in future Macs. 

The switch will add to complexity that grew by orders of magnitude in the transition from "Classic" Mac OS to Mac OS X, and it will undoubtably impact reliability. Bear in mind that Steve Jobs's history is all about bleeding-edge technology and not at all about stability.... 

The switch will cost us money - for new Mac hardware and new Mac software - not to mention the inevitable and substantial investment of migration and troubleshooting time.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macdoc, put your reading glasses on and try to comprehend what I have writen before you jump all over me.

I'm refering to applications I currently own, not universal binary applications.

The ones I own now *WILL* have to run in emulation/translation...whatever.

Got it? Good.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Horsepucky - the OS is the OS - what runs now will run then in Classic. Classic is not dependent on the chip.

The entire concept is an chip independent OS.
OS9 to X was a much more difficult transition than this.
*They've had five years of full parallel development *and that includes Classic as a part of the OS.

The OS has been freed up from chip dependency....that's a good thing as it allows choice.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> MacDoc where do you get your information? I know you have to be a fan of Apple because of your line of work.
> Have you read the universal_binary.pdf? Porting is not as simple as Apple would like us to believe.
> What make you think Apple or even Adobe will to a good job to optimize the code?
> How many pieced of software that made the transition from OS 9 to OS X are fully optimized? Most took years...
> That PhotoShop demo ran awfully slow.


I misread you, I thought you were being cynical... you're actually pessimistic to the worst degree. An OS is much more complicated than an application, not to mention Adobe (nor Apple) doesn't want to piss off their bread and butter customers... how frickin' stupid would it be for them to pull a bonehead move and not make sure their software works well under Mac OS X Intel?

It's one thing to be wary of market-speak, but being a complete downer over the whole thing is utterly ridiculous... especially considering your assuming the worst.

Lighten up, man! 

__________________


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The OS has been freed up from chip dependency....that's a good thing as it allows choice.


OS yes, but not applications (Optimized for Altivec anyone?)

Manny this move can represent a considerable sum of money to a studio.
This change is good for the lowend, I'm not so certain that it is for the high end.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I personally would think, since it's not going to be as hard as moving from 9 to X, that maybe upgrade costs would reflect this as well? I think Apple made a this point in the keynote to developers so that possibly, they will make cheaper upgrades?

Here's a good article 

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73540/apples-intelbased-macs-to-include-rosetta-technology.html


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> OS yes, but not applications (Optimized for Altivec anyone?)


Altivec is just one type of SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) instruction set. Most users of it would access it through the OS or through libraries, which could be ported to new architectures. Apple's own apps all use Altivec, and they will work fine on Intel, so other apps should too.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

elmer said:


> Most users of it would access it through the OS or through libraries, which could be ported to new architectures. Apple's own apps all use Altivec, and they will work fine on Intel, so other apps should too.


Intel has SSE2, I would think Apple would try to use that.
There are differences between the two due to the Chip differences (load/store on PowerPC RISC)
You have 32 128-bit registers for the 8 on SSE2 - 
High-end apps such as Photoshop on the Mac use AltiVec and most multimedia apps.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Classic? Macdoc?. Classic is dead, like dualboot towers.  

It's clear isn't it? Two years and no more PPC CPUs or do you still believe that Apple will continue to sell PPC for the highend? Both, is not the roadmap for Apple, that was made painfully clear by Jobs himself.

I could stretch a G5 purchase for 3 yrs without an upgrade path, but I'd prefer an option to upgrade the MoBo. Will that happen? Don't know. Look into your crystal ball for me...please.

In the meantime I have PPC software that runs only on PPC...natively...comprende? How much money will it cost me to upgrade it all to universal binary? Will it be the same at regular incremental upgrades or am I going to get hosed? Will my new HP printer work like it does now? Can you answer any of that...one day after the announcement? Doubt it.

I don't give a rat's a$$ about what CPU Apple decides to use, except when it's going to cost me major dollars to upgrade everything I have....once again. I've committed to OS X, I was an early adopter, starting with the Beta. But thinking of the financial burden, I can't see me being an early adopter to MacIntel unless I have definitive answers to some of my concerns.

What would you recommend I do? Stay with PPC and buy a new G5 tower, do nothing and continue to use my 6yr old G4, wait for the first batch of Intel powered CPUs, switch to a PC and Wintel....?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Manny asked: <i>"how frickin' stupid would it be for them to pull a bonehead move and not make sure their software works well under Mac OS X Intel?"</i>

It would be <i>very</i> stupid. While I'm confident that Apple's going to address this, it's seems clear that a lot of people found yesterday's announcement was lacking on the details about how they're going to manage the transition. There were too many unanswered questions yesterday, and when that happens, FUD fills the vacuum...every time.


ArtistSeries said: <i>"This sounds the death knell for 680x0 "Classic" Mac applications. We see zero support for them in future Macs."</i>

If by Classic, you mean applications that were designed to run on OS 9, I think it's reasonable of Apple to say that after almost a decade, it's time to stop supporting older apps like that. Maybe they'll still run in emulation mode, but frankly I doubt that this is going to be an issue for many people.


MacDoc noted: <i>"OS9 to X was a much more difficult transition than this."</i>

Agreed. That was a huge jump and it most definitely expected users to shell out for new software suites. I didn't start using a Mac until OS X was first released, so never had to deal with the hassle of replacing older apps, but it struck me that the OS 9 to OS X transition was well managed. Everyone seemed to have a good understanding that it was a positive step forward. 

And maybe that's what has me and others a little skittish about the Intel thing. The best they could do was to demo a Mintel running at a speed that was sub-par to a G5. Until they're able to demonstrate that there's a significant performance benefit to this new marriage, people are going to wonder and worry. And roadmaps to promised performance in the future just doesn't cut it.


Vecra asked: <i>"Hopefully, in 3-5 years-the discussion will be "Why did Apple wait this long?"</i>

I don't think we need to wait five years to ask that question. Why <i>did</i> they wait this long? Apple made a huge mistake by selecting IBM to manufacture [edit: I meant to say "as the manufacturer who *supplies* the G5."] They knew they had pretty much reached the end of the line with the G4 as far as raw performance was concerned and when they looked at their options, the IBM route meant that they wouldn't have to deal with emulation issues. But it meant having to risk that the chipmaker could and would deliver on a steady upgrade path. From a business perspective, the whole thing just never made sense: Apple's market share was too small, so IBM could never afford to deliver faster <b>and</b> cheaper processors. 

With the benefit of hindsight, we know now that by selecting IBM, all Apple did was delay the inevitable. Now it's faced with what will likely be years of catching up to get Intel equipped Macs to achieve what has eluded Apple for quite a while: consumer-grade computers that run measurably faster than their competitors.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

Back to the poll: the results so far suggest that Apple might be facing a rather difficult year as far as desktop sales are concerned. It'll be interesting to see if the markets arrive at the same conclusion.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

(( p g )) said:


> Back to the poll: the results so far suggest that Apple might be facing a rather difficult year as far as desktop sales are concerned. It'll be interesting to see if the markets arrive at the same conclusion.


I've gotta say that as a more recent Macophyte - where I've been wooed to the Mac side by the simplicity of the iPod - the switch to Intel will make me delay another purchase of Mac hardware.

The long term coolness of my new G5 iMac just lost a bit of its shine, as I suspect that the great new apps released 3 years from now likely won't run on my machine all that well. I know redundancy is normal in high-tech toys, but it still creates a feeling of resentment in me today.

I was really thinking about buying a Powerbook for home use... but I'm definately holding off until they release a Centrino-book.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

Oh.. and before I get jumped on about wanting a Powerbook versus an iBook, when all I want it for is home use.. here's my answer:

I'm vain, and I like aluminum more than white plastic.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

My head is spinning there is so much WRONG or misleading information here.

a) Apple doesn't CHOOSE IBM to manufacture ( implying Apple owns and developed the G5 chip )- IBM manufactures G5s for it's own use and others. Apple is a partner in the PowerPC consortium - that's all. It's got input - it doesn't control IBMs chip fabrication.
Apple is a customer tho it owns some intellectual property regarding PowerPC.

b) If it works with X now it work with whatever processor X is on. Uses will have digital binary installers depending on which chip architecture the particular machine is. X is X as far as the user is concerned,
The tools are all there for the digital binary production.....THERE HAS BEEN PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT FOR 5 YEARS. 
It's not a question of IF it will work - it does and has been working.
It took Mathematica all of two hours and the alternation of 20 lines of code amongst many millions for it to be native on Intel and there is a full year before a single Intel Mac arrives ( tho I suspect that may not be the case in the lower end ).

Applications you own now will be FAR outdated a year from now and you'll choose to update them for the same reasons you do any update and updating specifically for Intel alone means you'll also have bought an Intel Mac as well and as I've said before Apple is after the low power consumption chips.

Being fully optimized versus running on a chip are two different issues entirely.

Mountain out a molehill at this point in time.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I think that the idea of Macs as losing a little of their luster has a lot to do with us as users and not with the machines. They're just as fast as when we decided to get them, and most, I would argue, have served us very, very, well. 

So why the long faces? Because we're thinking we're not as special as we were yesterday. We're not as different as we were or at least thought we were. 

You know what? We're still different. Macs still have the best personal operating system out there (and it's getting better every year). PC's are not going to have Mac OS X. Bottom friggin line. It's the OS, stupid. 

We always fear the unknown, but if there was ever a time for Mac users to think different, this is it. Let's break the old mold of us versus "them". Let's get beyond having the same processor as "the great unwashed" (and some wonder where the animosity towards Mac users comes from). 

I've already gone through one switch in the last two years, and I have no regrets. The new generation of Mac users are all going to have to get used to changes and to switching. We'll go from whatever platform best suites our needs. Why? Because the Mac experience is the user experience. 

We're the techno-nomads, the innovators, the experiments. And we're still pretty damn special. 

I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Perfect summary


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You haven't answered one of my concerns...

re: (a) I know this, big deal. They own the intellectual rights to OS 9 and Newton too...and where is that. LOL! I'm not convinced that PPC will coexist in their announced roadmap.

re: (b) I understand all that...I did watch the keynote. Pay attention to my concerns which I'm sure are shared by many. You haven't answered one, all I get is rhetoric, years old information and Steve's RDF from yesterday. 

Of course Apple will make it work, that is not the issue. Of course it'll make it easy for developers. Of course it's about the OS, and of course it'll all be insanely great...

...but the bottom line is...

*Will this transition cost me: (a) more, (b) the same, or (c)'quit yer bitch'n and go with the flow and a diminished bank account'.*

Except for (c), no one here can answer that, but I'd be willing to bet it'll be more...much more.  

I don't fear or loathe this transition, I'm concerned with the cost, disruptions and certain level of frustration it's going to cause. 

Once again, my concerns:

1. If I buy a G5 tower in the next 3-12 months, will there be an (authorised) upgrade path to Intel?

2. Will 'fat' application upgrades be priced same as current PPC upgrades? Or will this be seen as an opportunity for a profit grab?

3. Will intel coded OS X drivers be available for older legacy hardware, such as printers, disk drives, etc.?

Can anyone, with any certainty, answer those questions?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krp, just look at what happened during the last transition phases to get an idea.
no one can answer with certainty.



Don't be too hard on MacDoc, I think I may have pissed him off...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm not trying to be hard on him...I can't help being sarcastic at times. I respect his opinion and his years in the mac business...maybe I didn't express those concerns well enough or he didn't understand them. In any case, they're listed and as you say...no one can answer them with certainty.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

kps said:


> 1. If I buy a G5 tower in the next 3-12 months, will there be an (authorised) upgrade path to Intel?
> 
> 2. Will 'fat' application upgrades be priced same as current PPC upgrades? Or will this be seen as an opportunity for a profit grab?
> 
> ...


Good summary. No, I don't think Apple has addressed these well enough yet, so no one can satisfy these concerns with any certainty. My *guess* is:

there'll be no motherboard upgrades to upgrade G5s to MacIntel, 
there won't be many free upgrades of software, so on MacIntel you'll be paying for upgrades to your current software or running it on emulation, and on PPC you'll be out of luck if your developer's next upgrade doesn't include PPC support.
new drivers for legacy peripherals will come out in some cases but not others.
That said, keep in mind the following. It would be _foolish_ to judge upcoming emulation by what you have seen in the past, and your G5 should last a good long time and perform as well as it does now. Remember that even the first MacIntels will also become obsolete sooner or later as well, simply because of speed.

Mac users upgrade according to Apple's schedule. Windows users upgrade according to the virus writer's schedule  There's no perfect world.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

MacDoc said: <i>Apple doesn't CHOOSE IBM to manufacture ( implying Apple owns and developed the G5 chip )- IBM manufactures G5s for it's own use and others."</i> 

A poor choice of words on my part. Indeed, IBM is the chip maker. But Apple *did* choose them as the supplier. And that's my point: in 2002 (or whenever it was *exactly* that the decision was made), Apple had three choices: Motorola, IBM or Intel. They were unhappy with Motorola's pokey upgrade path for the G4, so they opted for IBM. As an investor and Mac user, I maintain that was Apple's big mistake. They should have gone with Intel earlier (but as I said, I say this with the luxury of hindsight). 

[Addendum: Of course, it's entirely possible that in 2002, Apple realized that most of its user base had just finished upgrading to OS X, had bought newer machines and had plunked down money on updated software...and decided that two transitions within two years was just too risky. From that angle, perhaps the IBM path was simply to buy some time and avoid angering users.] 


MacDoc also said: <i>"It's not a question of IF it will work - it does and has been working."</i>

I, too, have seen a couple of references to that effect in this thread. To be clear: there's no doubt that everything will work and that apps can be ported with relative ease. How *well* the apps will work is another matter. I'm bothered by that fact that the demo that wasn't able to show even at-par performance. I'm trusting that they'll get the bugs out, but as you and others have pointed out, they've been at this for five years. 

My main concern here is that Apple recognizes that they have a lot of work to do to communicate to their userbase (and investors!) what to expect over yet another transition period. The keynote was a start, but judging from the FUD effect that seems in full tilt right now (and over the top), Apple has to get a handle on this. Fast.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mac_geek said:


> Oh.. and before I get jumped on about wanting a Powerbook versus an iBook, when all I want it for is home use.. here's my answer:
> 
> I'm vain, and I like aluminum more than white plastic.


me too. 

It's also a nice 'wow' factor when I see clients. Works very well...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

If anybody thinks that the flagship Apple pro apps -- FCP, Logic, ALL OF THEM -- will not be fully universal by the time the first x86 Mac rolls off the line, they're ODing on Chicken Little pills. As for crucial apps from Adobe/Macromedia/MS Office, I'll lay money on them being ready to go, too.

Where we might find problems in the transition are in the area of 3rd party plugins and peripheral drivers. My audio card's drivers were behind for too long. Hopefully, Xcode will convert Audio unit plugins over well. VST plugs running on Steinberg's Cubase, for example, might not respond as quickly, though (especially if they were written in Codewarrior!). Digidesign Pro Tools might be behind the curve. Audio apps experienced a lag in OS X migration -- partially because Apple was late in getting the audio/midi issues established in the first place. As OS X has led this "double life" with x86 parity FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, the transition might be better than assumed. But I'll bet the graphics wares will be in better shape (as they were with X when compared to audio)... except for those losers over at Quark, of course.

As for OS 9 apps? This is just me, and I haven't sought out info on this since the announcement, but they're already irrelevant to Apple regardless of how many people are still using it in 2005 (and totally irrelevant to my needs). By 2006, it'll be less relevant both in Apple's eyes and in the userbase. I wouldn't hold out much hope for Classic compatibility (anybody have actual info on Classic on OS X/x86? Chime in).

And remember, people; it's ONLY the developers who have to turn in their x86 powermacs in a year! Your PPC Macs and ALL your software WILL NOT BLOW UP the minute the first x86 Mac hits the streets! You've got a few years before that'll happen (probably via Software Update  )

EDIT: Also, we can surely expect PPC support to continue for a few years AT LEAST, due to the HUGE installed base of PPC systems. We're talking the status quo for the platform -- millions of PPC CPUs sold every year -- for the past what? Ten years or so? The 'legacy" PPC base will surely have nothing to worry about until somewhere around 2009 or 10. Doncha y'all think?? Like, pro level x86 Macs don't hit the streets until mid-late 2007, for Pete's sake -- if Apple's plans work! Everybody CHILL.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

My inkling is that developers will offer Mac software. Period. The option as to what type of Mac OS (PPC vs. Intel) you can install it on will be up to you as it'll be on one CD -- much like the way it was back in the 90's with 68k/PPC processors. There were fat binaries galore and nobody could tell the difference when they used them. It just worked™. 

My thoughts were the developers may wait until the next major release before offering Mac OS X Intel enabled software, but they just might do it for today's software -- write to them and find out. If enough people make enough noise, they just might give it away to paid customers.

In either case... your software today (save Classic, obviously) _will_ work on the Intel platform if/when you decide to make the leap.

__________________


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> there is a full year before a single Intel Mac arrives ( tho I suspect that may not be the case in the lower end ).


Actually, Apple has stated that the low end machines will get Intel processors first, IIRC.



kps said:


> 1. If I buy a G5 tower in the next 3-12 months, will there be an (authorised) upgrade path to Intel?


If you buy a G5 within the next year you won't need an authorized upgrade path to Intel. You're G5 will contine to function jim dandy until you buy a new machine, which will likely be Intel powered.



kps said:


> 2. Will 'fat' application upgrades be priced same as current PPC upgrades? Or will this be seen as an opportunity for a profit grab?


I don't think any developer will be dumb enough to try and convince their users that porting their apps to x86 requied so much extra work that they need to charge more for it.

I wouldn't be surprisd if some companies (namely shareware type companies) just made the fat versions of their apps free updates.



kps said:


> 3. Will intel coded OS X drivers be available for older legacy hardware, such as printers, disk drives, etc.?


AFAIK, an OS X driver is an OS X driver (with the exception of a KEXT). Basically, if it works now it should work on an x86 based machine, too. Those drivers tha are KEXTs will need to be recompiled (just like apps) but then should work with both.


Those should be the answers, if I am reading all this right.




Macaholic said:


> As for OS 9 apps? This is just me, and I haven't sought out info on this since the announcement, but they're already irrelevant to Apple regardless of how many people are still using it in 2005 (and totally irrelevant to my needs).


It reads in the developer guide to porting PPC apps to x86 that Rosetta will not allow Classic to run. That means that the day the first Intel based Mac ships classic effectively dies for good for users. But in case you guys hadn't noticed, Apple has been saying "we don't support OS 9 anymore" for quite some time. I think it's time to let go of whatever Classic apps you're still running as there is undoubtedly a solution that will run in OS X by now.

Unless of course you're like me and still play Master of Orion every once in a while


----------



## interact (Mar 11, 2004)

> Actually, Apple has stated that the low end machines will get Intel processors first, IIRC.


Thank god some information is flowing. PosterBoy, do you have a link on this?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Actually, I thought I did but now I cant find it. I was <em>sure</em> I read it, but can't remember where.

Either way, it makes sense that low end machines would get Intel CPUs first, considering that a) the G5 still holds it's own and b) the G4 is, er, "antiquated."


----------



## lynchb (Feb 13, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> My head is spinning there is so much WRONG or misleading information here.
> 
> Applications you own now will be FAR outdated a year from now and you'll choose to update them for the same reasons you do any update and updating specifically for Intel alone means you'll also have bought an Intel Mac as well and as I've said before Apple is after the low power consumption chips.
> 
> ...


I guess we should be renting all our software on a subscription, if you assume that everyone will choose to upgrade their "outdated" software on a yearly basis.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

(( p g )) said:


> A poor choice of words on my part. Indeed, IBM is the chip maker. But Apple *did* choose them as the supplier. And that's my point: in 2002 (or whenever it was *exactly* that the decision was made), Apple had three choices: Motorola, IBM or Intel. They were unhappy with Motorola's pokey upgrade path for the G4, so they opted for IBM. As an investor and Mac user, I maintain that was Apple's big mistake. They should have gone with Intel earlier (but as I said, I say this with the luxury of hindsight).


Actually, I think Steve Jobs discussed this decision once or twice. The reason they went with IBM at the time was that they didn't want to do 2 transitions at the same time. I believe they were already working on the OS 9 to OS X transition and they didn't want to do a PowerPC to Intel transition at the same time. The developers would jump ship, if they did. Either it was that or he prioritized the OS transition first as he saw that as a priority. It's been awhile so I can't remember the full discussion. It was around that time when he said Apple would have CPU options in the future and this fueled rumors that Apple was looking at Intel... and looking back now, they probably were loooking at Intel.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

To keep on topic to this thread -- I've been considering getting a new PowerMac for quite some time... something along the lines of a dual G5. Has the Intel altered my purchase decision? Not really, no. Primarily, I'm waiting to clear up some debt before commiting myself to more. 

Will I get an Intel Mac, EOL G5, or 2nd-hand Mac? It depends on the timing and/or what Apple releases in the interim. It's mostly timing for me.


----------



## interact (Mar 11, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Actually, I thought I did but now I cant find it. I was <em>sure</em> I read it, but can't remember where.
> 
> Either way, it makes sense that low end machines would get Intel CPUs first, considering that a) the G5 still holds it's own and b) the G4 is, er, "antiquated."


No worries. I'm just trying to sort threw if I should keep my Dual 2.0 PCI-X PM or not. *sigh*

If you do find that url, please post. Thanks.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Actually, I thought I did but now I cant find it. I was <em>sure</em> I read it, but can't remember where.
> 
> Either way, it makes sense that low end machines would get Intel CPUs first, considering that a) the G5 still holds it's own and b) the G4 is, er, "antiquated."


I thought I read that too, but like Posterboy can't find it. Then again, yesterday I was searching for any info I could find and was going through a half dozen sites.

If I do find it, I'll post it.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Here's one. Not sure if it's news or rumor though as it was published the day before the announcement: http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/05/intel/index.php

3rd paragraph in the article.


----------



## M. Warren (Jan 4, 2002)

Macaholic said:


> Digidesign Pro Tools might be behind the curve. Audio apps experienced a lag in OS X migration -- partially because Apple was late in getting the audio/midi issues established in the first place. As OS X has led this "double life" with x86 parity FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, the transition might be better than assumed.


ProTools will definitely be late to get on this. They've only gotten things right on OS X within the past year, and its still not as stable as it was in OS 9.

*Sigh*....so my primary ProTools rig continues to be a B&W G3 450, OS 9.2 and ProTools 5.2, much as it was four years ago.... 

Anyone else find that the ability to install Windows on a Mac is one of the most interesting offsprings of this transition?


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

M. Warren said:


> ProTools will definitely be late to get on this. They've only gotten things right on OS X within the past year


Could be worse. You cold have been a Quark user!



> Anyone else find that the ability to install Windows on a Mac is one of the most interesting offsprings of this transition?



Um.... NOPE!


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

picxpert said:


> My sister's buying an iBook as soon as they rev 'em


WHEN????!!!!!


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

And Posterboy's right abot the transition: low end starts June '06. Pro stuff DONE by June '07.

And definitely Classic is HISTORY.


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

And... will Mactels' programs be able to run on a PPC. I hope so. I was told they were in some binairies??


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I think the low-end first rumour was based on the fact that some Intel chips (the M classes) run a lot cooler than PPC chips and so will likely be incorporated into laptops and the mini where power consumption and heat dissipation respectively are limiting. Indeed, at the higher end, there is really not much of a performance lag (if any) between the current Intel offerings and the G5 duals. That will change as IBM basically cans all further development on Altivec enabled G5s and focuses efforts on embedded and game-controller chips.

It is possible that a company will release an Intel emulator for PPC machines but it'll have all of the limitations of Virtual PC except for the need to run Windows. That company won't be Apple. I also think its possible one of the processor upgrade companies will release a PCI or PCI-X card with an Intel processor on it. It's even possible that Apple will do this to provide some reassurance. I doubt it would run as well as an integrated processor but it might offer a bridge for the many capable G5's in the market.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with PPC Mac pricing over the next few months. I think we'll see discounts as incentives to move gear if demand drops.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Could be it'll be time for me to get that G5 PowerMac that I've been lusting after. I don't believe that there's any reason to think that PPC Macs will be orphaned, but if someone thinks their PPC G5 has become almost worthless, I'll take it off their hands - cheap.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I don't think I've spoken directly to the poll question: yes, I'd definitely buy a PPC Mac if finances permit, but that's only because my needs are relatively lightweight and I know it, so a new machine can last me three years, minimum, without any real worries about software obsolescence, etc. I realize others have different requirements and potentially much bigger transition issues...

My next Mac may well wind up being Intel-based, but if so it'll just be a byproduct of my own personal upgrade cycle...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

If you look at my signature, you'll understand why I'am in the market for a new machine. This Intel business has caused me to re-evaluate my options and many of the opinions here have helped me in formulating a decision.

The option I'm most comfortable with is to hold off for a few months and see what develops. I like jwoodget's idea of some incentive on Apple's part to get me to buy...and buy I will. In the next 3-4 months.

Two years is a long time and I'm not waiting that long for the high end Intel machines. A 2g dual G5 should do nicely. I'll have the peace of mind that all my peripherals will work, all my software is still 100% usable, and no matter what happens I have a great machine to use for as long as I decide to keep it.

Another of my concerns was an intel upgrade strategy. If such is not possible with the current crop of G5s, so be it. I'm assured the enjoyment of the G5 for the next 2 years atleast and undoubtedly more if I choose to.

My other concern was the software upgrades. I've decided that after buying the G5, I'll make no software purchases until the new fat binary apps start appearing. That should be a good year from now (to coincide with the release of the new Intel Macs) and I'll upgrade only those which are absolutely necessary.

My concern with peripherals will be a non issue with a new G5 and something that will remain so for the next few years. At the end of which, it may be time to replace some or all of the peripherals. Since they're USB and platform independent, they'll sell on the PC market or the Mac market.


----------



## Cmonster (Aug 24, 2004)

PowerPC will still be supported, because there are companies, developers and consumers like us who still have machines. I would give it time that the PowerPC support would end sometimes in the next decade. 
You got advertising and media firms still rely on Powerpc processors, because they can handle the work that is required from them. The amount of assests they accumulated and just to write it off immediately would hurt them. Virgina Tech or other institutions, high tech business and especially the military (namely the U.S.) who uses x-serve for research and development; and defense. The amount of computing power and fast results at a lower cost per performance minute than on a custom or off the shelf cluster system that expends high cost and time.
Look at the home gaming industry, Microsoft went to a custom PowerPC 64bit processor, Nintendo the same thing and Sony with the cell. Microsoft especially needs custom G5 machines in order to get game developers to develop terrific games for their system. I'm not sure about the other two, but they might. Apple must keep supporting and building G5 Developer's kit for other sectors. Even though we won't see no new PowerPC machines after the transition is done, but they might build custom PowerPC machines or x-serves for developers which the public doesn't use or see for a short time after it is offically done.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

kps said:


> ... I'm assured the enjoyment of the G5 for the next 2 years atleast and undoubtedly more if I choose to.
> 
> My other concern was the software upgrades. I've decided that after buying the G5, I'll make no software purchases until the new fat binary apps start appearing. That should be a good year from now (to coincide with the release of the new Intel Macs) and I'll upgrade only those which are absolutely necessary.



That's an angle that I hadn't fully considered, kps. Users might be more concerned about investing in software suites right now, as opposed to my earlier handwringing over hardware. 

I'll confess that when I started this thread, I was less inclined to buy over the next year or two. But the more I look at this and consider the excellent points that so many have made in this thread, what seems clear to me is this: 

G5s might be headed for the end of the line, but they'll still (likely) be offering at-par performance as the first line of Mintels. And that, in my estimation, suggests that they'll still be a good buy. 

Having said that, the results of this informal and unscientific poll should give pause to the folks at Apple. There's a lot of goodwill toward Apple, but there are a lot of people who feel they have more questions than answers. That's what Apple's marketing people are going to be up against for the next 24 months.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

*I voted with my wallet*

After a flurry of hesitancy and hand-wringing, I ordered a G5 dual 2.3 (PCIX) this morning.
I was sitting on my new FCP suite software, thinking, "Gee, should I wait for Mactel?. Should a get a processor upgrade card for my G4?"
And then I realised whether a new generation of Macs comes out or not, I'd likely upgrade my hardware in a couple of years anyway. And then I figured that I'll be upgrading the FCP suite in a few years, it will then be Intel-ified, and I could then get a (hopefully) lower priced Intel Apple to go with the software.

At least I _think_ that was my line of reasoning before I clicked "send". I may be heavily self-medicated at the moment.
(*joking about the the medication! Well, except for the alcohol and chocolate)


----------



## Chris Knight (Mar 12, 2005)

Voted "Won't affect" since I just bought a new Dual 2.0. I figured if I can make my Sawtooth last 5 years (and counting!) and still be useful, this G5 will be fine for at least 2. Heck, I don't even have to update the software on it if I don't want, and it'll work just fine.


----------

