User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt!


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt!
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-07, 23:07

And hopefully its elimination, eh?

I actually joined this forum because of Apple's announcement. As mentioned in another thread I took heat for being ignorant in, I just bought a dual 2.3 G5. I'm sure other people have concerns, so I figured I'd make a quick list and thread.

G5's Future
Unless Apple jumps back on IBM's side, G5s seem a dead-end. They certainly are for the near-future, and even if they were revisited 4 years down the line, the PPC architecture would probably have evolved quite a bit.

So, that raises a number of concerns in my mind that hopefully you experts can dash:
  • 1) Upgradability
    • a) Memory. G5s are quite picky, and while I was reprimanded for implying the memory they take are G5-specific, I don't think there are any on the PC side nearly so picky. Anyone think prices for G5-compatible PC 3200 won't get a hike? Explanations?
    • b) CPU. There won't be many new G5 chips to upgrade to, correct (what, another uninspired round or two tops)? I compared it to the offers by OWC on G4 upgrades, which I just checked and they're still a few hundred, that might not have been out-of-the-question for juicing up an old G5 in 3 or 4 years.
    • c) Video cards. There's different chipsets for macs vs pcs, correct? Which means video card makers have to create two versions of new cards, and the G5 will only face a dwindling market share. Not very good prospects.
  • 2) Compatibility
    • a) Software optimizations. UT 2004 was amazingly well-optimized for the G5. Runs very sweetly (I'm a gamer at heart... but also a programmer and mac-enthusiast, to a decent extent); however, what incentive do programmers have to optimize for the G5 now? Big name developers for professionals like Adobe might bother with another update or two, but that's quite a hassle for a dying chip.
    • b) "Drivers." This may seem odd -- OS X should run the same on both architectures (albeit with speed differences), and though I claimed to be a programmer I'm still very much a student, so I could be completely off. Here's what I'm wondering: could there be any applications or drivers for peripherals that are not just optimized for x86, but actually _require_ it? I know going the opposite way a lot of mac stuff is optimized for the velocity engine and whatever it's called in the G5 -- could there be any similar problems on the pc side? No need for flames, just answers.
Apple's Future
I've often heard it said that Apple is a hardware company, deriving most of its profits from computer sales (and/or more recently ipod sales). I don't have the numbers so I don't really know, but going to the world of pc hardware seems like a threat to that. Possibly a business paradigm shift.
  • 1) Hacked OS X
    Even assuming Apple steps up with software protection to require cd keys and the like, I doubt they can keep dedicated hackers from creating a crack to make the system think it's on an Apple computer. I know plenty of PC users who would love to have a copy of Tiger running on their computer.

    I've read in these forums different opinions on this, including that such hackers aren't Apple's target audience anyway (being more likely to hack something than buy something, particularly an expensive new Mac); however, all it would take is for someone to make that hack easy to implement for the OS X to come head-to-head with XP/Longhorn. Linux can be prohibitively complicated to install and maintain, even the simpler versions (I mean for your average has-troubles-printing Joe), but OS X is built to be user-friendly. Definitely desirable, for PC makers anxious to get away from reliance on M$ and users who want more stability/security.
  • 2) Fewer macs sold/aiming to replace windows
    That's why I guessed that Apple would just give up (or plan on) licensing OS X for sale on 3rd party hardware sometime in the next few years (guessed two, *shrugs*). Lose the OS dominance and you lose the biggest reason to buy an Apple computer -- unless there were serious stability issues, I'd go with a cheaper 3rd party vendor and buy whatever's-out-then off-the-shelf.

    Which means, not many Apple computer sales, and a shift to more software sales. A la trying to replace Windows.
  • 3) Popularity
    So, assuming it does very well and starts taking over the market, would that lead to problems like what Microsoft has encountered with meha security loopholes being discovered? How much more secure is OS X -- how large of a factor is its small base size in deterring hackers? (who wants to aim to capture at most 5% of the world's comps for an attack...)

    EDIT ADDED: Off course there's that far-off fear of Apple becoming a Microsoft (a la muscle-man stuff, getting serious about suing ThinkSecret, worse quality, whatnot). I don't really buy that, but figured I could toss it out to mull over. I actually hope a bigger market share will do the opposite, energizing them with more revenue, without putting them in too dominating a situation as to create monopolistic evilness, since such a position is pretty far-fetched.

    Again, no flames necessary. I much prefer OS X, and am just projecting fears in accordance with the title.
  • 4) Relationships
    From Macsoft to IBM, won't most Apple-related companies take a hit from this? Small mac repair shops and consultants? I mention IBM because I wonder if they will take Apple's rebuff as a challenge to get cracking and lure them back in a few years, or just go off and give Apple the finger when their 65nm stuff comes out.

    I also wonder how professional developers take this. I was a bit disheartened by the upgrade, but assumed that meant they were waiting on the next big jump from IBM. There have been plenty of posts about feeling a bit deceived, after years of RISC supremacy. It seems odd/sad that Motorola then IBM both failed on Apple... after the big architecture jump to RISC in the first place...

Regardless, I'm not claiming to be all doom-and-gloom, or very knowledgable. Just a bit concerned, and a bit excited -- the idea of pitting IBM against Intel for Apple's blessing does seem cool, and in the meantime Intel may have better chips in the works. I wasn't in secret meetings with them.


Feel free to defend Intel to the death now (I kid, I kid... assuage my fears if you like).

Last edited by directedchaos : 2005-06-07 at 23:29.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-07, 23:26

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
    • c) Video cards. There's different chipsets for macs vs pcs, correct? Which means video card makers have to create two versions of new cards, and the G5 will only face a dwindling market share. Not very good prospects.
darshu responded on the card issue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darshu
Video cards are mac specific in two primary ways. One is the drivers: if ATI and nVidia don't feel like writing OS X drivers for (random video card) well that'll be a problem regardless. Hopefully their drivers are portable enough to rely on OS provided services rather than specifics of the architecture. The second problem is the video BIOS. Quite possibly they will be able to use the same video BIOS as on an x86 card but we don't know yet for sure (it depends on if Apple uses a PC style BIOS or EFI or whatever). So basically what it comes down to is that we will probably still have just as limited a selection of video cards available as before, but we will probably be able to use the same physical hardware (i.e. the same video BIOS). As for the PPC macs, well they could continue to provide cards with a PPC compatible video BIOS... or they could make a dual BIOS card of sorts. For how long is of course anyone's guess, but as long as there are a substantial installed base they will continue.

Actually there is a third issue, in that ATI and nVidia wish to stop manufacturing AGP cards in the near future, so those cards will not be usable on old Macs anyways. I guess to make this short --- you're either screwed or perfectly fine, regardless of the x86 transition :P
AGP is still common on the PC side though, correct? (Maybe this should be another fear, unrelated to the Intel switch?)
  quote
MCQ
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NY
Send a message via MSN to MCQ  
2005-06-07, 23:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
And hopefully its elimination, eh?

I actually joined this forum because of Apple's announcement. As mentioned in another thread I took heat for being ignorant in, I just bought a dual 2.3 G5. I'm sure other people have concerns, so I figured I'd make a quick list and thread.

G5's Future
Unless Apple jumps back on IBM's side, G5s seem a dead-end. They certainly are for the near-future, and even if they were revisited 4 years down the line, the PPC architecture would probably have evolved quite a bit.

So, that raises a number of concerns in my mind that hopefully you experts can dash:

1) Upgradability
  • a) Memory. G5s are quite picky, and while I was reprimanded for implying the memory they take are G5-specific, I don't think there are any on the PC side nearly so picky. Anyone think prices for G5-compatible PC 3200 won't get a hike? Explanations?
That's like a trick question. There's no reason for it to get a hike, and standard memory from the big-name manufacturers will continue to work - so as long as PC manufacturers use PC3200 memory in desktops, the demand will be there and prices will remain somewhat low. We are near a low as far as memory prices in general, so memory prices in general may move upwards once the supply-demand balance corrects itself. Also, a slow but gradual shift to DDR2 may change the supply-demand balance as well.

Pricing trends have nothing to do with G5-compatible memory (read: JEDEC-compliant PC3200), but rather with general industry movement and supply-demand issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
2) Compatibility
  • a) Software optimizations. UT 2004 was amazingly well-optimized for the G5. Runs very sweetly (I'm a gamer at heart... but also a programmer and mac-enthusiast, to a decent extent); however, what incentive do programmers have to optimize for the G5 now? Big name developers for professionals like Adobe might bother with another update or two, but that's quite a hassle for a dying chip.
There will still likely be close to 1.5 or 2 years of G5 PowerMacs in the pipeline, in addition to 2 years of current PM's on the market as well as all the iMac G5 computers. That's a decent sized userbase that wouldn't be ignored by the larger developers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[/list][*]b) "Drivers." This may seem odd -- OS X should run the same on both architectures (albeit with speed differences), and though I claimed to be a programmer I'm still very much a student, so I could be completely off. Here's what I'm wondering: could there be any applications or drivers for peripherals that are not just optimized for x86, but actually _require_ it? I know going the opposite way a lot of mac stuff is optimized for the velocity engine and whatever it's called in the G5 -- could there be any similar problems on the pc side? No need for flames, just answers.[/list]
I'll leave a proper answer to Kickaha/Brad and the other developers. Sure, some applications may need some optimizations for x86. GCC 4.0 includes auto-vectorization, which I think should help in code optimization for x86 during program compilation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
Apple's Future
I've often heard it said that Apple is a hardware company, deriving most of its profits from computer sales (and/or more recently ipod sales). I don't have the numbers so I don't really know, but going to the world of pc hardware seems like a threat to that. Possibly a business paradigm shift.
Apple is primarily a hardware company. With the continued shift towards notebook computers, the move to Intel should help them continue to make well-designed laptops that sell well... in addition to whatever "one other thing" products they have in their sleeve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
  • 1) Hacked OS X

    Even assuming Apple steps up with software protection to require cd keys and the like, I doubt they can keep dedicated hackers from creating a crack to make the system think it's on an Apple computer. I know plenty of PC users who would love to have a copy of Tiger running on their computer.

    I've read in these forums different opinions on this, including that such hackers aren't Apple's target audience anyway (being more likely to hack something than buy something, particularly an expensive new Mac); however, all it would take is for someone to make that hack easy to implement for the OS X to come head-to-head with XP/Longhorn. Linux can be prohibitively complicated to install and maintain, even the simpler versions (I mean for your average has-troubles-printing Joe), but OS X is built to be user-friendly. Definitely desirable, for PC makers anxious to get away from reliance on M$ and users who want more stability/security.
The number of people who will be hacking to get OS X on current x86 boxes will be relatively small, and not worth Apple's efforts to hinder greatly. Apple will *not* be licensing OS X to other PC makers for usage on their end, so that last part is a non-issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[*]2) Fewer macs sold/aiming to replace windows

That's why I guessed that Apple would just give up (or plan on) licensing OS X for sale on 3rd party hardware sometime in the next few years (guessed two, *shrugs*). Lose the OS dominance and you lose the biggest reason to buy an Apple computer -- unless there were serious stability issues, I'd go with a cheaper 3rd party vendor and buy whatever's-out-then off-the-shelf.

Which means, not many Apple computer sales, and a shift to more software sales. A la trying to replace Windows.
See above response. The majority of potential users will not be hacking to get it to work - and Apple will not be supporting people who attempt to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[*]3) Popularity
So, assuming it does very well and starts taking over the market, would that lead to problems like what Microsoft has encountered with meha security loopholes being discovered? How much more secure is OS X -- how large of a factor is its small base size in deterring hackers? (who wants to aim to capture at most 5% of the world's comps for an attack...)
I believe most of the developers here would agree that the foundation/design of OS X is a greater contributor to its security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
  • 4) Relationships
    From Macsoft to IBM, won't most Apple-related companies take a hit from this? Small mac repair shops and consultants? I mention IBM because I wonder if they will take Apple's rebuff as a challenge to get cracking and lure them back in a few years, or just go off and give Apple the finger when their 65nm stuff comes out.
IBM will be making a lot of money producing Cell processors, so it's not in their best financial interest to agressively go after production of a processor that is less than 2-3% of their chip revenues. I don't see how Apple related companies will take a large hit right now as a result - the absolute number of the installed user base will continue to go up.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-08, 02:23

Thanks for the response MCQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MCQ
That's like a trick question. There's no reason for it to get a hike, and standard memory from the big-name manufacturers will continue to work - so as long as PC manufacturers use PC3200 memory in desktops, the demand will be there and prices will remain somewhat low. We are near a low as far as memory prices in general, so memory prices in general may move upwards once the supply-demand balance corrects itself. Also, a slow but gradual shift to DDR2 may change the supply-demand balance as well.

Pricing trends have nothing to do with G5-compatible memory (read: JEDEC-compliant PC3200), but rather with general industry movement and supply-demand issues.
I suppose then I just don't know enough about the subtle but vital differences in specs that make some PC3200 work in G5s and others not -- something to do with the JEDEC-compliance? Memory's at an all-time low now, and in general should lower, but will G5-compliant memory (the current PC3200 memory that _does_ work -- JEDEC-compliant and whatnot... I was warned all over to be very careful who I bought from) continue to be produced in reasonable quantities? Your answer is yes?


Quote:
There will still likely be close to 1.5 or 2 years of G5 PowerMacs in the pipeline, in addition to 2 years of current PM's on the market as well as all the iMac G5 computers. That's a decent sized userbase that wouldn't be ignored by the larger developers.
But will they really be updated? IBM's got even less incentive than ever before to provide better chips to Apple, and why should users buy not just a dead-end system, but an increasingly outdated dead-end system? (or do you think two years from now they'll release a last generation dual 3.5 ghz G5.. maybe a dual-core on 65nm tech or something?)

There are a plenty of developers who haven't really bothered to optimize for the G5s yet, and given their imminent demise probably won't. I guess we'll see how G5 sales go over the next couple years.

I'm kinda curious what'll happen to Virtual PC. Kinda negates the point, eh? Although it'd be neat if they could just remove the hardware emulation layer and just have it run natively as a sub-OS to prevent the need for dual boot (if Apple would even allow XP/Longhorn to work on their systems, that is).



Quote:
I'll leave a proper answer to Kickaha/Brad and the other developers. Sure, some applications may need some optimizations for x86. GCC 4.0 includes auto-vectorization, which I think should help in code optimization for x86 during program compilation.
My concern is less about optimization for x86 than the opposite -- programs built and optimized for x86 that aren't optimized for G5s, since Intel is now Apple's future. Namely a couple years down the line.

Quote:
Apple is primarily a hardware company. With the continued shift towards notebook computers, the move to Intel should help them continue to make well-designed laptops that sell well... in addition to whatever "one other thing" products they have in their sleeve.


The number of people who will be hacking to get OS X on current x86 boxes will be relatively small, and not worth Apple's efforts to hinder greatly. Apple will *not* be licensing OS X to other PC makers for usage on their end, so that last part is a non-issue.
So you think a hack will be too complicated for a simple user to implement? Are you basing your statement that Apple won't license based on what Steve said, or think it would be a bad strategy in general to compete head-to-head with Microsoft like that a couple years down the road?

Quote:
I believe most of the developers here would agree that the foundation/design of OS X is a greater contributor to its security.
That's what my limited knowledge had me feeling, but I thought I'd toss out the "smaller target" theory for people to jump on regardless.

Quote:
IBM will be making a lot of money producing Cell processors, so it's not in their best financial interest to agressively go after production of a processor that is less than 2-3% of their chip revenues. I don't see how Apple related companies will take a large hit right now as a result - the absolute number of the installed user base will continue to go up.
If Apple continues to do business roughly the same, just switching from IBM's chips to Intel's... then most Mac companies probably could adjust just fine. Software companies can cope like they did with the jump to PPC; you nulled my main concern of Apple going software and rendering a situation with floods of hodge-podge PCs running OS X (which would moot the long-term point of small Apple-specific hardware companies -- major company shifts).

G5s still don't seem that old... I was looking forward to apps being optimized for my 64-bit dual processor (because I know they aren't now).

Ah well, sleep washes away pessimism... maybe in a couple years I'll get my first Intel machine...
  quote
BenRoethig
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dubuque, IA
 
2005-06-08, 08:14

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
G5's Future
Unless Apple jumps back on IBM's side, G5s seem a dead-end. They certainly are for the near-future, and even if they were revisited 4 years down the line, the PPC architecture would probably have evolved quite a bit.
At this point I'm inclined to think that IBM bailed on Apple, not the other other way around. The move to intel is less an active choice than it is Apple had no where to go.

From Macworld

Apple wants a Pentium M, IBM wants an Xbox
By Tom Krazit, IDG News Service

"IBM’s PowerPC 970FX chip, which Apple called the G5, simply doesn’t lend itself to PC designs that require low power consumption, such as notebooks and small form factor desktops, Jobs said. Apple was also frustrated by IBM’s inability to supply it with sufficient processors last year as the chip maker struggled with yield problems while getting its new manufacturing facility in East Fishkill, New York, up and running.

But Apple accounted for just around 2 percent of IBM’s chip wafer production in East Fishkill, according to industry sources, and IBM is moving away from making chips for the PC market in favor of gaming consoles and high-end servers. An IBM spokesman declined to comment on the nature of his company’s relationship with Apple, but the company put out a statement indicating it probably won’t miss Apple’s business.

“IBM is aggressively moving the Power Architecture beyond the PC, as shown by our recent successes with the next-generation gaming systems announced by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. … IBM is focused on the highest value opportunities in each marketplace, and our direction with the Power Architecture is consistent with that strategy,” the company said in a written statement.

Console makers like Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Nintendo Co. Ltd. will sell tens of millions of units combined over the next couple of years, and it’s likely that IBM would rather focus its attention on the deals it has struck with all three companies, as opposed to taking on the engineering challenge of making a low-power G5 processor to suit Apple’s small market share."
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-08, 17:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
At this point I'm inclined to think that IBM bailed on Apple, not the other other way around. The move to intel is less an active choice than it is Apple had no where to go.
If so, that's rather sad (2-3% sounds small, but that's still millions of dollars in sales for a huge company like IBM -- could they really not devote the resources required to keep PC-chips up to par?); although, I have to wonder with other people about the choice of Intel. When you enter the PC arena, wouldn't that allow you many more options? Pentium M's in laptops, AMDs in iMacs.. I don't know... I know a heckuva lot less than many here about hardware particularly, but I'll echo the sentiment: did they really have NOWHERE to go but INTEL? Excuse me while I exercise some doublethink to retarget my Apple's Eternal Enemy ray again...

-----

I've been calmed on the memory situation by learning that many PC users prefer [memory following] the rigid JEDEC(?) compliance that the G5 requires, and if dual bios/driver solutions keep new graphics cards working on G5s for several years to come then they'll be adequately upgradable. (correct me if I've misinterpreted anything)

Thanks to everyone for their input so far!

Last edited by directedchaos : 2005-06-08 at 17:39.
  quote
morningstarrising
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
 
2005-06-08, 17:41

If Apple only made Desktops, I'm sure they would of picked AMD.

But since a great portion of Apple's income comes from the iBook and Powerbook, they can't play around with that already wall hitting lines.

And the Desktops will reach there apex with the G5 chips(3Ghz) and I don't see going with either Intel or AMD changing that for a long time.
  quote
darshu
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-06-08, 21:30

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
darshu responded on the card issue:


AGP is still common on the PC side though, correct? (Maybe this should be another fear, unrelated to the Intel switch?)
Oh, it certainly is. However, that doesn't mean that ATI and nVidia won't push to get rid of it on the high-end side at least. I can't recall if the current designs involve PCI-E to AGP bridge chips or vice versa, but they will want to get rid of them as soon as possible. The fastest PCI card ATI made I believe was a Radeon 7500 (actually I think they eventually made a 9200) But basically the point is that if you like the top of the line high-end cards, they will eventually expect you to have the top of the line, high-end machine --- which will hopefully have PCI Express at the point that occurs. So while there will definitely be new cards for AGP for some time come (and "old" cards for much longer), I'd imagine in a couple of years the high-end cards will be PCI Express only (and hopefully fast enough to actually make use of that bandwidth).
  quote
darshu
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-06-08, 21:36

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
I've been calmed on the memory situation by learning that many PC users prefer [memory following] the rigid JEDEC(?) compliance that the G5 requires, and if dual bios/driver solutions keep new graphics cards working on G5s for several years to come then they'll be adequately upgradable. (correct me if I've misinterpreted anything)

Thanks to everyone for their input so far!
Memory timings and such can be finicky on PC platforms as well, although the symptoms can manifest themselves in less obvious ways. (In some ways you should be glad if the system refuses to boot because it doesn't like the RAM --- rather than, tries to use it and slowly, randomly corrupts data/crashes the machine/etc.) You get what you pay for, and cheap memory will always be cheap -- and less reliable. Overclockers, gamers and people who build their own PCs (and know what they are doing) look out for this sort of thing. Companies like Dell, HP and of course Apple, hopefully do too. Random whitebox PC vendor may not. So there's really nothing to fear for on this front (unless you dislike the Macs forcefully rejecting poor quality memory)

Oh, and JEDEC is an industry standards body that designs the specifications for most memory standards (SDRAM, DDR, etc). Using non-standards compliant components always has the risk of non-standard compliant errors
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-09, 01:52

Quote:
Originally Posted by darshu
So while there will definitely be new cards for AGP for some time come (and "old" cards for much longer), I'd imagine in a couple of years the high-end cards will be PCI Express only (and hopefully fast enough to actually make use of that bandwidth).
Just a couple of years? Maybe my experience with my last awesome purchase will explain what I'm getting at:

Back in like '99 (I don't remember the exact year now... but the speeds had stagnated a bit, and the model I got had the most updates in the last round of upgrades) I got a 400 mhz G4. It was either middle of the line or an entry-level machine... regardless, it chirped along astonishingly well. Every once in a while I enchanced it a bit: more memory as I collected it from here and there (I ended up with what, 1.5 gigs at the end? There was lots of swapping with a friend who had a similar model), a new harddrive (120 gigs for 120 bucks yay! IDE at the time, but ATAs shouldn't go anywhere so I'm not worried about that on my G5 -- I shouldn't be, correct?), and, here's the crux of the story, a new pimp 64 MB radeon a year and a half ago or so (time is a funny thing). With all these upgrades I managed to keep a 5 year old mac running new games -- Warcraft III, WoW, even a bit of UT but I really wanted the frames on that fast-paced of an fps so I didn't get it after trying the demo. None of them ran spectacularly, but I bet it'd be a hard feat to get a 5-6 year old PC to run modern stuff so well...

(the last month before I bought a G5 I even borrowed a friend's old 500 mhz G4, which gave a very noticable boost to overall performance )

but anyway, the point is I was able to buy almost top-of-the-line upgrades for my very old computer (I'm kind of flip-flopping on whether a processor upgrade would ever have been worth it). If AGP cards disappear two years from now, that'd be much more concerning than a few optimization issues.

I thought the latest and greatest now didn't approach the speeds allowed by AGP 8x?

Hmm, more to mull.
  quote
P4rm
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
 
2005-06-09, 03:59

Do you know, I hate this cycle of buying hardware, using it till it's superceded, and then dumping it for new.

If Apple could adopt a recycling policy, so that customers could get some money off when upgrading. I for one would feel a lot more at ease about buying something with as much inbuilt obsolescence as a compuer.
  quote
darshu
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2005-06-09, 12:23

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
Just a couple of years? Maybe my experience with my last awesome purchase will explain what I'm getting at:

Back in like '99 (I don't remember the exact year now... but the speeds had stagnated a bit, and the model I got had the most updates in the last round of upgrades) I got a 400 mhz G4. It was either middle of the line or an entry-level machine... regardless, it chirped along astonishingly well. Every once in a while I enchanced it a bit: more memory as I collected it from here and there (I ended up with what, 1.5 gigs at the end? There was lots of swapping with a friend who had a similar model), a new harddrive (120 gigs for 120 bucks yay! IDE at the time, but ATAs shouldn't go anywhere so I'm not worried about that on my G5 -- I shouldn't be, correct?), and, here's the crux of the story, a new pimp 64 MB radeon a year and a half ago or so (time is a funny thing). With all these upgrades I managed to keep a 5 year old mac running new games -- Warcraft III, WoW, even a bit of UT but I really wanted the frames on that fast-paced of an fps so I didn't get it after trying the demo. None of them ran spectacularly, but I bet it'd be a hard feat to get a 5-6 year old PC to run modern stuff so well...

(the last month before I bought a G5 I even borrowed a friend's old 500 mhz G4, which gave a very noticable boost to overall performance )

but anyway, the point is I was able to buy almost top-of-the-line upgrades for my very old computer (I'm kind of flip-flopping on whether a processor upgrade would ever have been worth it). If AGP cards disappear two years from now, that'd be much more concerning than a few optimization issues.

I thought the latest and greatest now didn't approach the speeds allowed by AGP 8x?

Hmm, more to mull.
You're right, current graphics card speeds don't even saturate AGP 8x, however if the pace of progress continues hopefully they soon will. But PCI Express has other advantages, namely having fast graphics card to CPU transfer rates (AGP is only fast going TO the graphics card, it's horribly slow the other direction, I know, I unknowingly wrote some code that tried to read from the video memory often and it was terrible :P) Also it's a serial architecture and should be cheaper to manufacture and design in the long run.

Generally the highest Radeon of GeForce is a prestige product for the company. That is, they're just trying to show off how advanced their technology is to beat each other in the media war --- they don't really expect (many) people to buy it. Hence the high price, high margins, low production runs and the cards essentially get gobbled up by enthusiasts. The cards below that level such as the X700, or the 9600, etc. are what are targeted for "high-end" PC desktops, so those will likely retain AGP versions for a longer period of time.

Then there are other hardware transitions --- from IDE to Serial-ATA. Of course the PowerMac already made this one. Of course IDE hard drives are likely to last a lot longer since a big harddrive targets most of the market, and the current installed base want to upgrade, etc. Again most HDs can't really perform significantly different on SATA-150 than they could on IDE UltraDMA/133, however Serial ATA should be cheaper to manufacturer in the long run --- and gets rid of those damned ribbon cables you see flying all over the place in a PC :P UltraATA/133 requires ribbon cables with 40 ground wires to complement the 40 wires which actually do something, as well as requiring the cables to be no longer than 18 inches. I believe an SATA cable has 4 wires. Just a matter of trying to kill a technology which has been extended for too long. (Of course I could say the same about x86 but I digress)
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-06-09, 12:38

Another benefit to PCI Express is SLI. You can have multiple video cards in a system, either driving separate displays or working together to give you tremendous power. With AGP, you were limited to one slot so any extra graphics cards were necessarily crippled by the slow PCI bus.

A lot of these new technologies are great not because they're just faster, but because of the extra features they enable. A cool thing about SATA is that it supports hot-plugging, so you can connect and disconnect external SATA drives without having to convert it to Firewire. There are several SATA hard drive cases that just use standard-issue SATA cables to connect to the computer, so essentially you get 3x the bandwidth of Firewire for a lot less money (SATA-Firewire enclosures are really expensive, but straight SATA cases are cheap). And of course you don't have to mess with jumper settings or cable locations either.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-09, 19:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by darshu
The cards below that level such as the X700, or the 9600, etc. are what are targeted for "high-end" PC desktops, so those will likely retain AGP versions for a longer period of time.
That's the target I'm hoping for 2-4 years from now when I want to give this G5 some more juice. If AGP lasts in that category until then, all should be well.

Although, SLI does sound pretty cool...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca
Another benefit to PCI Express is SLI.
...particularly with physics cards I've heard clips about. Sticking one of those in a slower PCI-X slot would probably negate a lot of the benefits, eh?

Thanks for the thoughts!
  quote
LudwigVan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-06-09, 21:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by P4rm
Do you know, I hate this cycle of buying hardware, using it till it's superceded, and then dumping it for new.

If Apple could adopt a recycling policy, so that customers could get some money off when upgrading. I for one would feel a lot more at ease about buying something with as much inbuilt obsolescence as a compuer.
If the iPod recycling program works out, maybe Apple will seriously consider this.

An equal-time rebuttal to the effectiveness of the iPod recycling program alone, which frustratingly includes the statement: "The 'iPods become obsolete in a year, because the battery runs out after 12 months, and it's actually cheaper to buy a new one than to get a new battery,' al-Hajj explained."
  quote
oldmacfan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mile 1
 
2005-06-09, 22:17

I just hope they don't solder the CPU to the motherboard...
  quote
Luca
ಠ_ರೃ
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Minnesota
 
2005-06-09, 22:29

In the PowerMacs? No way. Nearly every PowerMac ever made has had an upgradable processor - the only exceptions were the original x100 series, the 7200, the 4400, and the 5000- and 6000-series models. Besides, the 5000-6000 models weren't even really PowerMacs anyway... they were usually sold as Performas and filled the consumer market before the introduction of the iMac as the de facto consumer Mac.
  quote
oldmacfan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mile 1
 
2005-06-10, 16:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca
In the PowerMacs? No way. Nearly every PowerMac ever made has had an upgradable processor - the only exceptions were the original x100 series, the 7200, the 4400, and the 5000- and 6000-series models. Besides, the 5000-6000 models weren't even really PowerMacs anyway... they were usually sold as Performas and filled the consumer market before the introduction of the iMac as the de facto consumer Mac.
I was under the impression that Apple started doing this with the G5 PM's?

Yes, I want to be able to buy low and replace high when I finally give in and buy a MacIntel 3-5 years from now. I am just doing it now with my Socket 478 PC.

In other news, my insurance company will pay for the repairs to my TiBook.

Mile 1
  quote
liam
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Maidenhead - UK
Send a message via AIM to liam  
2005-06-10, 16:28

I just bought a dual 2ghz. I did worry initially. Now I hardly care I love my ppc and as the song goes "they can't take that away from me". I will leave the crystal ball gazing to others. In the end all computers become obsolete.

I'll drink to your leg
  quote
4 Chord Max
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
 
2005-06-12, 09:48

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[*]b) CPU. There won't be many new G5 chips to upgrade to, correct (what, another uninspired round or two tops)?
I wouldn't expect any G5-related upgrades (processor or video cards) unless Apple and IBM kiss and make up very soon. My question: How technically feasible would it be to create an Intel-based upgrade for a dual G5? While I'm pipe dreaming, turn a dual G5 into a G5/Intel hybrid (meaning lose the dual processing but be able to boot in one or the other)? I definitely wouldn't buy any upgrade -- just wondering if it were possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos

What incentive do programmers have to optimize for the G5 now?
None IMO. Why spend money on it? However, the ability to "fat code" apps should keep G4s and G5s afloat for awhile unless Rosetta isn't as good as currently advertised. Then I'd worry. My question is will developers support dual processing, whether in a Gchip or Intel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos

I've often heard it said that Apple is a hardware company, deriving most of its profits from computer sales (and/or more recently ipod sales). I don't have the numbers so I don't really know, but going to the world of pc hardware seems like a threat to that. Possibly a business paradigm shift.
There's no threat. There'll always be a market for people who want uniquely "different" computers with superior GUIs. It won't matter what's inside the computer if the experience remains the same -- and I'm sure Apple won't do anything to jeopardize that (i.e. permit ugly clones).

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[*]1) Hacked OS X
Even assuming Apple steps up with software protection to require cd keys and the like, I doubt they can keep dedicated hackers from creating a crack to make the system think it's on an Apple computer.
I get the impression reading the news stories that Apple will use some sort of hardware-based solution (i.e. Digital Rights Management or Chip ID) to prevent OS X hacks. Of course, you could always hack to circumvent the hardware checks, but I get the impression based on recent history that Apple would aggressively protect (i.e. bring out the lawyers) where its OS can "live."

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos

Which means ... (for Apple) ... a shift to more software sales. A la trying to replace Windows.
Of course, Apple would love OS X to replace Windows -- but they're not going to do it by licensing to third parties willy-nilly (if at all) to boost software sales. Again, Apple is all about the total user experience -- hardware and software -- and they're not going to jeopardize that by licensing UNLESS Apple gets to make the rules. That's why an iPod "made" by HP looks like an iPod "made" by Apple. An iMac "made" by HP (if that should ever occur) will most certainly look like an iMac "made" by Apple.

Caveat: If Jobs resigns and is replaced by a CEO with a "let's make money and sell out" philosophy, Apple is screwed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[*]3) Popularity
So, assuming it does very well and starts taking over the market, would that lead to problems like what Microsoft has encountered with meha security loopholes being discovered?
Surely. But given the relatively more stable (UNIX-driven) and secure platform that OS X is built on, any security loopholes should be easier to close -- unlike Windows, which by design will never be as secure.

The security problem I forsee with OS X is when users give the OK for apps and widgets to install even when the box comes up "Are you sure you want to install this program on your computer?" Of course, common sense tells you to never install any program unless you know what it does -- but that doesn't seem to stop people whether its for Windows or OS X... =(

But at least OS X lets you know that something is being installed on your computer first. =)

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
[*]4) Relationships
From Macsoft to IBM, won't most Apple-related companies take a hit from this? Small mac repair shops and consultants?
Macsoft? No. Developers will follow if it'll make $$$ for them, and Apple's development tools seem to make it Xtremely easy to port apps (at least on paper). IBM? Maybe. More in terms of reputation and image than lost sales -- Apple was a relatively small-volume customer in its eyes. Repair shops and consultants? The good ones will adapt, the bad ones won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos

I mention IBM because I wonder if they will take Apple's rebuff as a challenge to get cracking and lure them back in a few years, or just go off and give Apple the finger when their 65nm stuff comes out.
I think IBM will be happy to lose Apple right now. They can stop spending money trying to make the G5 portable, and focus on gaming platforms for the PPC chips. And if/when the 65nm stuff comes out, IBM won't give Apple the finger. Just the opposite: I'm sure IBM would relish stealing Apple back from Intel. (That's the beauty of OS X -- it's not necessarily chip-dependent).

But what you probably won't see ever again from IBM is R&D money being spent on Apple-exclusive processors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos

There have been plenty of posts about feeling a bit deceived, after years of RISC supremacy.
In theory, this is the only thing that disappoints me about the move to Intel. I thought RISC made sense and I'm sure in some alternate universe it's the de facto standard. But RISC doesn't make sense, I suppose, if you can't fit the chip in an Apple laptop. =)

To wrap up, I'm sure I'm in the minority but my fear about the Intel move has been replaced by total excitement. My dad and I have been Mac fans for decades because Apple's GUI has always focused on innovation rather than duplication. The ease of programming and slick exterior computer designs in recent years are just the icing on the cake. We could care less what processors are "inside". You shouldn't either.

I wanted to finish up with one more question for those who may have just bought a pricey Dual like I did recently or plan to do so this year: If you have extended Applecare (which lasts until 2008), and your G5 processor overheats or starts leaking cooling fluid exactly 2.9 years from the purchase date, will Apple still fix it -- or will they replace it with an Intel equivalent model assuming that the last of the G-series Macs rolls out in 2007?

Just something to think about, because I love my dual G5 and would never want it replaced until 2008 or so. =)
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-06-12, 16:58

Ugh. I don't know why I bother. There really needs to be some checks in place on people who register during Apple events and then start posting drivel all over the place. Well in the spirit of cooperation and enlightenment, allow me to answer the original queries. Maybe we'll get lucky and the thread will be put out of its misery since it really doesn't have anything to do with FUD reduction, but rather is likely to create it (for the uninitiated).

1a) G5 RAM isn't "picky". Picky?! Do you have even the slightest understanding of computer architecture and where RAM comes from or that it's standardized? There is nothing special about G5 RAM. It's PC3200 and it has been used by multiple platform vendors for about three years now. It's almost dropped to $100 / GB (!) so WTF are you talking about, exactly?

1b) Again, WTF are you talking about? Do you have first-hand knowledge of the G5 parts that are taping out at IBM right now, so that you know what's coming over the next 18 months (remember, Desktops will move to Intel last) and what isn't coming? As for upgrade cards, it's not even a relevant topic because the G5 was designed in such a way as to basically prevent their use.

1c) No, video card manufacturers do not have to develop two different versions of every card for Macs. While they are not always identical in their specs, the biggest difference is the driver. The cards themselves are virtually identical in most respects. I wouldn't be so harsh if you could manage to post even one on-topic point, that is backed up by a demonstrable fact.


2a) I don't believe for one second that you are a programmer or anything close to it. You are talking out of your ass.

2b) See 2a.

Big Hint: there is a difference between the G5 going away and the entirte PowerMac product line going away. Even if there was no Intel deal, the G5 would find its way to pasture in a couple years most likely, as IBM moved on to new desktop architectures. G5 is the CPU, not the product line. It's a name. The point of a PowerMac is that they are highly expandable and normally use the best technologies available to Apple, in terms of speed and bandwidth and all the rest. That won't ever change, because it's not dependent upon any one company or product.

BTW, have you read anything about some of Intel's more advanced chipsets for desktop workstations? They already have designed into them, basically everything PowerMac users have been asking for over the last year or so. Just so you know. Faster RAM, better PCI, overall bandwidth comparable to what we have now, etc.



Re: Apple

1) The small minority of Windows users who have the time and inclination to get a copy of OS X for Intel to work on their beige box, are not Apple's concern. They're not supported, their hacks will not work that well in many cases, and in general it's not relevant. There will always be people hacking this system or that hardware to get it to do things it wasn't designed to do... so what? Do you think Dell or some other legitimate PC company is going to use a non-licensed technology to get Apple software running on their machines? If you do, you're not very familiar with the wonderful world of litigation.


2) Lose the OS dominance? If you're talking about marketshare, Apple is not now nor did it ever operate from a position of dominance. If you're talking about the quality of the OS, the hardware OS X runs on will have little or no bearing on its quality. Either it's going to have the interface, applications and features that make it better than the competing Windows product, or it won't. The CPU makes no difference in this regard unless one runs the OS much slower than another (unlikely in this scenario).

3)This is the only point or question you posit that makes any sense. Yes, if Apple started garnering much larger share of the market, there would likely be a larger number of attempts (and successes) at creating virii or other malware for OS X. That said, because of the technologies it's built on and because of the ease with which Apple can deliver security updates, I don't believe it will nearly be the shit-storm it is today on a PC. Every PC I've seen in recent months has to run virus scanning, spyware scanning, ad-blockers, 3rd party firewalls and all kinds of crap... just to get it into a semi-safe environment.

OS X is unlikely to ever have that problem because of its built-in Firewall and other security features inherent to UNIX.

4) No.

...into the light of a dark black night.

Last edited by Moogs : 2005-06-12 at 17:06.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-12, 18:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
Ugh. I don't know why I bother. There really needs to be some checks in place on people who register during Apple events and then start posting drivel all over the place. Well in the spirit of cooperation and enlightenment, allow me to answer the original queries. Maybe we'll get lucky and the thread will be put out of its misery since it really doesn't have anything to do with FUD reduction, but rather is likely to create it (for the uninitiated).
I'm very tempted to slam you, so tempted I couldn't hold off from pointing out some of your hypocrisy in the following response.

Quote:
1a) G5 RAM isn't "picky". Picky?! Do you have even the slightest understanding of computer architecture and where RAM comes from or that it's standardized? There is nothing special about G5 RAM. It's PC3200 and it has been used by multiple platform vendors for about three years now. It's almost dropped to $100 / GB (!) so WTF are you talking about, exactly?
I was calmed on the ram issue, as mentioned above in this very thread . The special thing about G5 ram, as I now understand it, is that it actually follows the standards, unlike (apparently) some cheaper PC ram that have willy-nilly compliance. Good custom-pc builders buy the better ram anyway.

Quote:
1b) Again, WTF are you talking about? Do you have first-hand knowledge of the G5 parts that are taping out at IBM right now, so that you know what's coming over the next 18 months (remember, Desktops will move to Intel last) and what isn't coming? As for upgrade cards, it's not even a relevant topic because the G5 was designed in such a way as to basically prevent their use.
Your second point (G5's design inhibiting upgrading) is valid, thank you; however, I'm not alone in thinking that IBM has no reason to pump out good new PowerPCs. *resists temptation to further slam you*

If you still care to elaborate on how G5s differ from G4s in this upgradability manner, feel free. If there really would be no way for some third-party company like OWC to figure out how to make an upgrade -- or, just a straight swap like I've seen done on old G4s, then that would moot my concern on this issue (well, show that I was a stupid buyer who didn't do much research)

Quote:
1c) No, video card manufacturers do not have to develop two different versions of every card for Macs. While they are not always identical in their specs, the biggest difference is the driver. The cards themselves are virtually identical in most respects. I wouldn't be so harsh if you could manage to post even one on-topic point, that is backed up by a demonstrable fact.
So why do ours cost 50% more? It's not just a software issue, I'm almost certain. If you disagree, feel free to repost (leaving out the derogatory language) with a more evidence. Considering how you came on, your word just doesn't suffice for me (at the moment -- however, I'll change my impression of you if you even care about it).

<skip personal opinion, which is a shame because 2a is a very serious issue in my mind -- software optimization -- particularly because of recent Rosetta tests... the emulation doesn't seem so great. 2b (about drivers) I readily admitted ignorance on, though I wouldn't toss it away as crudely as you did>


Quote:
Big Hint: there is a difference between the G5 going away and the entirte PowerMac product line going away. Even if there was no Intel deal, the G5 would find its way to pasture in a couple years most likely, as IBM moved on to new desktop architectures. G5 is the CPU, not the product line. It's a name. The point of a PowerMac is that they are highly expandable and normally use the best technologies available to Apple, in terms of speed and bandwidth and all the rest. That won't ever change, because it's not dependent upon any one company or product.
Uhm... this is a much bigger change than a G5->G6 (or whatever) would have been. Completely different architecture means low-level code has to be rewritten. Rosetta DOESN'T EVEN SUPPORT ALTIVEC. (I'm sure you know all this but you didn't address it so I brought it up). IMHO, this is the biggest "transition" to date. PPC might have been trickier, and OS X might have been handier, but Intel is bigger. Again, IMHO.

I'd like to draw your attention back to one comment you said:
"The point of a PowerMac is that they are highly expandable"

That's exactly WHY I'm posting. I'm concerned about their expandability/upgradability. It's expandability WAS dependent largely on TWO companies: Apple and IBM. IBM is out of the picture, and Apple wants people to switch to Intel. A year ago it was all about 64 bit dual proc optimization. Now it's make fat binaries.

(because the third party companies who actually make the upgrades will follow the market, which is guided by those two companies. if there aren't future G5 users to shoulder the cost of upgrades, there won't be many upgrades. blah this is way too much repeat.)

Quote:
BTW, have you read anything about some of Intel's more advanced chipsets for desktop workstations? They already have designed into them, basically everything PowerMac users have been asking for over the last year or so. Just so you know. Faster RAM, better PCI, overall bandwidth comparable to what we have now, etc.
I'll be blunt: no, I haven't read much. I never claimed Intels were slow, or that their future was terrible -- at worst I merely referred to others' claims to that effect. As an aside, do you have any idea how bashed you would have been if you had brought up a comment like this a week ago...

Regardless, on the FUTURE hardware side I'm actually a bit excited. On MY CURRENT 2.5k PLOPPED DOWN hardware side I'm a bit worried, though significantly less so than when I started posting. That's the point of communication, to learn, right?

Quote:
Re: Apple

1) The small minority of Windows users who have the time and inclination to get a copy of OS X for Intel to work on their beige box, are not Apple's concern. They're not supported, their hacks will not work that well in many cases, and in general it's not relevant. There will always be people hacking this system or that hardware to get it to do things it wasn't designed to do... so what? Do you think Dell or some other legitimate PC company is going to use a non-licensed technology to get Apple software running on their machines? If you do, you're not very familiar with the wonderful world of litigation.
Of course no COMPANIES would do it. I was referring to the linux geeks who would love to hack it just for the challenge, and then if that hack was easy enough (or packaged into an easy-to-install form) I conjectured that more average-joe users would start doing it. Cheap linux geeks may not be Apple's target audience (I even opened my post acknowledging that), but if average-has-trouble-printing-joe could implement said hack then it would eat into Apple's potential switch-base.

Now, from what I've heard and read about the hardware security features, I'm more and more thinking that hack will be too complicated for them to mess with and thus not as large a concern. My apologies to other board readers for so much repeat; I hope you understand why I felt this response necessary.


Quote:
2) Lose the OS dominance? If you're talking about marketshare, Apple is not now nor did it ever operate from a position of dominance. If you're talking about the quality of the OS, the hardware OS X runs on will have little or no bearing on its quality. Either it's going to have the interface, applications and features that make it better than the competing Windows product, or it won't. The CPU makes no difference in this regard unless one runs the OS much slower than another (unlikely in this scenario).
This was in context of hacked OS X copies getting loose. Apple computers are more cohesive, but also more expensive -- there would be plenty of potential switch users who would rather buy a cheapola PC from a different vendor (even a reputable one, or custom build theirs in particular, would be cheaper) and get the hack because Apple would have lost control of their own OS. Now, as mentioned, this was IN CONTEXT of the above -- if you consider that scenario unlikely, this point is moot.

Another possibility would be that Apple systems actually become price-comparable with other systems (and thus an even more obvious choice). If a crapola Dell and an Intel Mac cost about the same for similar configurations (processor speed, memory, HD, PCIe ports, whatnot), then I bet Apple would see a lot more switchers. We'll see.

Quote:
3)This is the only point or question you posit that makes any sense. Yes, if Apple started garnering much larger share of the market, there would likely be a larger number of attempts (and successes) at creating virii or other malware for OS X. That said, because of the technologies it's built on and because of the ease with which Apple can deliver security updates, I don't believe it will nearly be the shit-storm it is today on a PC. Every PC I've seen in recent months has to run virus scanning, spyware scanning, ad-blockers, 3rd party firewalls and all kinds of crap... just to get it into a semi-safe environment.

OS X is unlikely to ever have that problem because of its built-in Firewall and other security features inherent to UNIX.
And yet I considered it one of my least valid questions -- interesting how people prioritize, eh? Regardless, I think we're on the same page here.

Quote:
4) No.
Once upon a time the noob crossed the road, eh? /golfclap

Last edited by directedchaos : 2005-06-12 at 19:02.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-12, 19:38

Thanks for your civil response Max.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4 Chord Max
I wouldn't expect any G5-related upgrades (processor or video cards) unless Apple and IBM kiss and make up very soon. My question: How technically feasible would it be to create an Intel-based upgrade for a dual G5? While I'm pipe dreaming, turn a dual G5 into a G5/Intel hybrid (meaning lose the dual processing but be able to boot in one or the other)? I definitely wouldn't buy any upgrade -- just wondering if it were possible.
Well I have to be a bit more optimistic -- Apple committed to having PowerPCs in the pipeline for two years, correct? Or do you think that just means they'll continue selling current PowerPCs without any significant upgrades? Two years is a LONG time to go without any upgrades. I just worry that the upgrades they do implement will be insignificant -- maybe hit that 3Ghz mark -- I hadn't worried that video card upgrades would be dropped so quickly (I was more fearing for 2-4 years from now). Any specific reasons for these fears, or like me are you just casting off worries to be analyzed?

My guess is a hybrid wouldn't be financially feasible. Wouldn't you practically have to start from scratch? New motherboard, some kind of video card converter (because I don't believe it's just a software issue, as mentioned in my last post)... really impractical IMHO, any other thoughts?


Quote:
None IMO. Why spend money on it? However, the ability to "fat code" apps should keep G4s and G5s afloat for awhile unless Rosetta isn't as good as currently advertised. Then I'd worry. My question is will developers support dual processing, whether in a Gchip or Intel?
Well the fat binaries should be after Rosetta if I understand things correctly -- Rosetta is for immediate emulation of (now old) PPC code. And, according to leaked benchmark tests, it's slow (thinksecret's main page). We'll see -- as mentioned by many here, I'm no expert.

Which is more concerning to me. When you jump on with fat binaries, there's practically zilcho incentive to optimize for G5s, right? Whatever it spits out will _work_ on the G5, a dying PC chip, so why bother digging into the source code and optimizing for Altivec and 64 bit dual processing...
You're the first person to really, in my opinion, address this concern I raised and you seem to agree with me. Someone else mentioned that the big-labels will probably upgrade another time or two (Adobe and whatnot), but that's rather specialized and soon enough those professionals will upgrade to the Intel Mac.

Any other comments on this point?


Quote:
There's no threat. There'll always be a market for people who want uniquely "different" computers with superior GUIs. It won't matter what's inside the computer if the experience remains the same -- and I'm sure Apple won't do anything to jeopardize that (i.e. permit ugly clones).
Well, I agree they won't lose any ground, and will probably gain some, particularly if they stick to their business plan. My concerns of them being forced into licensing OS X for third parties have been quieted some from knowledge of the hardware checks... (thank you) though people who know much more than I have alluded to this being a good time for Apple to strike at M$, possibly just preventing licensing now to keep from going head-to-head with microsoft just yet (during the transition period).

Quote:
Of course, Apple would love OS X to replace Windows -- but they're not going to do it by licensing to third parties willy-nilly (if at all) to boost software sales. Again, Apple is all about the total user experience -- hardware and software -- and they're not going to jeopardize that by licensing UNLESS Apple gets to make the rules. That's why an iPod "made" by HP looks like an iPod "made" by Apple. An iMac "made" by HP (if that should ever occur) will most certainly look like an iMac "made" by Apple.
That might be an idea: forcing hardware standards on the companies they license to. One line from Job's speech still stands out.. something to the effect of "OS X is the soul of the Mac..." which can be interpretted as alluding to its processor independence, or extrapolated to mean it could clean up even the dingy PC clone world. I'm sure most people would interpret it the first way (or something similar).

Quote:
Caveat: If Jobs resigns and is replaced by a CEO with a "let's make money and sell out" philosophy, Apple is screwed.
I won't get that pessimistic on you

Quote:
But at least OS X lets you know that something is being installed on your computer first. =)
I really like this feature. Even when downloading apps in Safari it double-checks with me to authorize it... and it seems simpler than the Windows world of a billion complicated permissions options. Mainly complicated because I don't use Windows very much... and when I do it's usually on a friend's meha-jimmied computer that's a file server with a googleplex minor tasks running... but that's a side issue

Quote:
Macsoft? No. Developers will follow if it'll make $$$ for them, and Apple's development tools seem to make it Xtremely easy to port apps (at least on paper). IBM? Maybe. More in terms of reputation and image than lost sales -- Apple was a relatively small-volume customer in its eyes. Repair shops and consultants? The good ones will adapt, the bad ones won't.
This was a kind of weak concern on my part. Your response more highlights our (shared?) concern of optimization -- "developers will follow if it'll make $$$", and being left behind in the G5 world certainly won't. And to think VirtualPC pushed so hard to get G5 optimization...

Quote:
I think IBM will be happy to lose Apple right now. They can stop spending money trying to make the G5 portable, and focus on gaming platforms for the PPC chips. And if/when the 65nm stuff comes out, IBM won't give Apple the finger. Just the opposite: I'm sure IBM would relish stealing Apple back from Intel. (That's the beauty of OS X -- it's not necessarily chip-dependent).
I suppose I did put a bit too personal a face on business. Another question might be, without IBM pumping out PC chips and R&D for them (as you mentioned, we won't see that again), would the 65nm tech be easily enough applicable in PCs? IBM chip stuff for the next few years will be focused on gaming consoles, correct?


Quote:
In theory, this is the only thing that disappoints me about the move to Intel. I thought RISC made sense and I'm sure in some alternate universe it's the de facto standard. But RISC doesn't make sense, I suppose, if you can't fit the chip in an Apple laptop. =)
It did seem to go backwards. REDUCED instructure set turned out to be slower but could haul more than the COMPLEX instruction set? And now that extra haulage won't make up for the speed, and takes MORE power?

The world can do funny things at small scales. Maybe quantum computers will set things upright

Quote:
To wrap up, I'm sure I'm in the minority but my fear about the Intel move has been replaced by total excitement. My dad and I have been Mac fans for decades because Apple's GUI has always focused on innovation rather than duplication. The ease of programming and slick exterior computer designs in recent years are just the icing on the cake. We could care less what processors are "inside". You shouldn't either.
For the future, I'm agreeing more and more. If the type of G5s going into the XBox really are conceptually different than what a PC demands, the jump to x86 is practical. As I mentioned earlier, Apple's been the one in secret meetings with Intel, so who knows what they have up their sleeve over AMD...

Quote:
I wanted to finish up with one more question for those who may have just bought a pricey Dual like I did recently or plan to do so this year: If you have extended Applecare (which lasts until 2008), and your G5 processor overheats or starts leaking cooling fluid exactly 2.9 years from the purchase date, will Apple still fix it -- or will they replace it with an Intel equivalent model assuming that the last of the G-series Macs rolls out in 2007?
I don't have to worry about the cooling issue (which others have said is a non-issue -- I don't know enough about the materials they use and tests that have been run to say); however, I can't see them shipping a new system to you unless it's an apology for lost data (in which case that's hardly equivalent). 3 years and a free upgrade to the latest system would be nice otherwise.

Quote:
Just something to think about, because I love my dual G5 and would never want it replaced until 2008 or so. =)
Ok, I'll take care of your free 6 Ghz Intel mac upgrade three years from now then
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2005-06-12, 19:41

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
So why do ours cost 50% more? It's not just a software issue, I'm almost certain. If you disagree, feel free to repost (leaving out the derogatory language) with a more evidence. Considering how you came on, your word just doesn't suffice for me (at the moment -- however, I'll change my impression of you if you even care about it).
Because they can. Simple economics. There are fewer users and fewer manufacturers offering products; so, they can jack up the price as high as they want as long as people are willing to pay for it.

As for technological evidence? I guess you've never seen any of the flashable "PC video cards" that can be used in Macs. Here's just one listing of available options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by directedchaos
Once upon a time the noob crossed the road, eh? /golfclap
Care to elaborate? Is is a reference to yourself or what?

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-12, 19:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Because they can. Simple economics. There are fewer users and fewer manufacturers offering products; so, they can jack up the price as high as they want as long as people are willing to pay for it.

As for technological evidence? I guess you've never seen any of the flashable "PC video cards" that can be used in Macs. Here's just one listing of available options.
Is this how you buy Mac video cards? Ebay and flash? Are only certain cards able to do this -- milage-may-vary scenarios?

Why do PC cards come out faster than Mac cards? I'm looking through the link and searching elsewhere online atm, so I can't get back to you yet about my opinion of their viability. It seems like a perfect place for a small start-up tech company to rush in: buy cheap flashable PC video cards, set the BIOS and whatnot to work on a Mac, then resell them. Inflated prices for easy conversions should never last long in a robust market.

As mentioned, though, I'm still researching and will get back to you. Thanks for the information.


Quote:
Care to expand on this? Is is a reference to yourself or what?
Yes; my apologies for being unable to contain a bit of disdain for Moogs attitude. At you least provided more content when you bashed me.
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-12, 20:15

Half an hour of googling has me thinking that only a limited number of cards are identical in pc and mac flavors, allowing the flash solution. And you'd have to be absolutely sure they're identical... and then you'd have to constantly muck with it as new OSes come out. And some chip makers actually prevent the rom from being flashed, or change details like the size, trying to make that gap stronger to validate their higher prices. (and you need a PC for the first few steps)

Do I have anything incorrect thus far?
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-06-12, 20:16

directedchaos,

I get the distinct impression you are not very well read on any of these issues / that maybe you're relatively new to Macs in general? I'm no engineer but I've been around Macs long enough (well over a decade) and read up on the engineering /geekoid issues enough times to know you're out of your element.

Just tell us up front that you have limited knowledge about this stuff, but you'd like to ask some questions so you understand it better (or whatever). We all have stuff to learn. That goes over a lot better than you asserting something, being proven wrong and then back-tracking and trying to re-state your assertion in a different way to save face.

Either way, there was never any problem with G5 RAM. Apple has been using standards-compliant RAM in all of its machines for *years*. I'm not sure where you got this as a point of concern. Regardless of computer manufacturer, RAM is always a commodity part manufactured by third parties like Micron or Kingston.

Regarding the G5 and upgrade processors: I'm even sure why you brought it up. Even if IBM kept making G5s for other reasons besides Apple (thereby making them available to upgrade manufacturers), it wouldn't have an impact on Mac users because G5 PM was designed not to allow such devices because they cut into Apple's profits (traditionally). It's a moot point.


I think you're missing the larger point and that is that PowerMac "expandability" / "upgradability" deals with the *amount* of RAM you can add (much more than other Apple models), the number of hard drives, the number of Firewire and USB ports via PCI expansion, the type of optical drive, the type of audio cards etc etc etc. NONE of those things are affected by which CPU Apple uses or doesn't use. That will always be the advantage of any PowerMac (or whatever new name Apple gives their next gen towers).

Regarding the video cards: it's simple economics. There is no way in hell ATi or Nvidia would develop separate video cards (by that I mean significantly different in design and pcb layout) just for Mac customers. It costs a lot of money to develop new cards, test them and market them.

Think about the size of the Mac market. Now subtract all laptops, iMacs and eMacs because those never get upgraded. You're telling me video card manufacturers are going to spend all the time and money required to do that - for every card they make - just to cater to a couple generations of PowerMac owners? If you owned those companies, would you authorize that kind of expenditure every year?

The drivers and the ROM are the primary differences between the Mac and PC versions. Hence the reason you can buy a PC card, flash the ROM and get it to work inside a Mac (as Brad mentioned). Go look at some specs if you don't believe us. Same chipsets, same ports, same dimensions... ad infinitum.

Slam me all you want bud, won't make you any less incorrect.

...into the light of a dark black night.

Last edited by Moogs : 2005-06-12 at 20:25. Reason: Clarification on expandability
  quote
directedchaos
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-12, 20:37

Thank you for a much more civil response Moogs!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moogs
directedchaos,

I get the distinct impression you are not very well read on any of these issues / that maybe you're relatively new to Macs in general? I'm no engineer but I've been around Macs long enough (well over a decade) and read up on the engineering /geekoid issues enough times to know you're out of your element.
Not very well read: yes. New to macs: no. As mentioned previously I had a wonderful experience with a 400 G4, keeping it up until a few weeks ago when I finally upgraded to a G5. If you've gotten the wrong impression of my stance...

Quote:
Just tell us up front that you have limited knowledge about this stuff, but you'd like to ask some questions so you understand it better (or whatever). We all have stuff to learn. That goes over a lot better than you asserting something, being proven wrong and then back-tracking and trying to re-state your assertion in a different way to save face.
I'll reiterate: I'm no expert. I may have been wording my thoughts misleadingly -- perhaps I should preface everything with "I humbly think." I can understand you calling me on back-tracking to save face -- I prefer to call it my learning process. Just in case the message hasn't gotten across, I was wrong on my memory concerns -- I chose the word calmed because I didn't really think I was making a factual declaration, rather I tried to ask for explanations. Regardless, hopefully you're satisfied with my stances now and we can move beyond personality critiques? If I have other quirks you're still free to point them out.

Quote:
Either way, there was never any problem with G5 RAM. Apple has been using standards-compliant RAM in all of its machines for *years*. I'm not even sure where you got this as a point of concern.
I got it as a concern back when I first was researching the G5. Everywhere told me to be very careful about what memory I bought for it -- this was before someone informed me about JEDEC compliance and its prevalent use in the PC world (which Apple hardware is now officially entering). Because of that, it was the first thing that popped into my mind when I joined this forum. I'm okay with laying it to rest unless someone else has more to add -- I'm confident memory prices for my G5 2-4 years from now won't suffer from this transition, based on input from people like you.

Quote:
Regarding the G5 and upgrade processors: I'm not even sure why you brought it up. Even if IBM kept making G5s for other reasons besides Apple (thereby making them available to upgrade manufacturers), it wouldn't have an impact on Mac users because G5 PM was designed not to allow such devices because they cut into Apple's profits (traditionally). It's a moot point.
I wouldn't say it was out-of-left-field without some more technical details (that I'm clueless about). In your opinion (and this goes for anyone), would processor upgrades have been impossible? Did Apple do that good a job of eliminating the future upgrade market?

EDIT: My bad, it looks like your original response was the first time this point came up. Sorry, I get a bit flustered under heat.

Quote:
Regarding the video cards: it's simple economics. There is no way in hell ATi or Nvidia would develop separate video cards (by that I mean significantly different in design and pcb layout) just for Mac customers. It costs a lot of money to develop new cards, test them and market them.
Completely fair and rational; however, I still don't understand why a third party company can't come up and offer to flash the ram or do other tech wizardry to make a PC video card into a Mac video card if they're truly identical. It seems like there have to be some physical differences in several of the cards. As mentioned in my last post, I'm fairly ignorant about the flashing procedure.


Quote:
Slam me all you want bud, won't make you any less incorrect.
At least I goaded you into making a good response or was that your intent of me?

Last edited by directedchaos : 2005-06-12 at 21:01.
  quote
sstensla
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
 
2005-06-12, 20:41

Moogs' attitude reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit with Jimmy Fallon, "Nick Burns, The Computer Guy." Demonstrating such frustration that it comes across as cocky and somewhat hostile.
  quote
Moogs
Hates the Infotainment
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
 
2005-06-12, 22:52

Apologies if I seem hostile. The medium sucks when it comes to conveying emphasis and intent. I do not harbor ill will against chaos or other new members who come in and sort of stir up a debate when there's no basis for one, but it does frustrate me.

Believe me I am no computer Melvin, but I do have a concern about misinformation being spread (even if unintentionally which I believe is the case here). I also am bothered when these otherwise well-balanced forums get overloaded with [random and often baseless threads], every time there is an Apple event. Stick around for a year and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I try to welcome new members whenever I notice them in the threads I read, but it's hard to do that in cases like this. My first reaction is always to correct the misinformation, basically. Anyway, welcome both of you and enjoy the forums. Just do me and the other (more tactful) veterans [a favor] and make sure you've got some grounding behind your posts, should you want to debate something.

chaos: Apple has been using JDEC-compliant RAM for a long time. As far as your question about why a third party hasn't offered some type of ROM-flashing product for PC video cards, most likely it's to avoid legal trouble.

...into the light of a dark black night.

Last edited by Moogs : 2005-06-12 at 22:58. Reason: corrected embarrasing omission (gah!)
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to live without fear in America Wrao AppleOutsider 9 2004-11-02 00:25
Advice need for the 100km hike (aka FEAR TEH TRAILWALKER!) stoo AppleOutsider 3 2004-06-30 02:52


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova