Why in the world didn't Steve have something ready to go at the time of this announcement?
If the application developers already knew about this ahead of time to port their applications, then the rest of the world would have already known.
My guess is that it's a big announcement to kick-start the application conversion process so that they will be ready in a years time (or so). It sounds like the Operating System itself is good-to-go, and there are developmental Intel based systems waiting to be shipped off.
I had been thinking about getting a G5 for video editing. I'll probably wait on that now. I forsee the price of PowerMac hardware falling faster than normal in the next year.
Maybe this will finally allow Final Cut Pro to run under XP. Seriously, depending on the final architecture, this could mean less work/more money for software developers.
You guys are exhibiting exactly the issue I was interested in. But, you know it had to be done. Better to do it now while all the iPod and other IStuff is hot. If there's still growth there it can cover flatness (or worse) in the computer biz.
Watch ebay for good deals on power gear. People who just bough might want to ditch. And Apple will have to clear the shelves sooner or later.
What do you think the new stuff will be called: InsideBook, InsideMac?
I just hope the commercials don't use that Intel noise. :puke
I hope they can deliver it on time. I am definitely in a wait and see mode.
BTW: the guy who wrote that little 5 note intel jingle thing is a composer I work with quite a lot. Weird to know the guy that wrote that of all things.
I'll tell you, if I were Intel there's no way in hell that I would let that kind of PR slip through my fingers. This is the single most significant migration any single computer platform has ever made. What a friggin' coup.
The fee for not having an Intel jingle or case badge is probably one of those things Apple will add to the price of a Mac just to maintain its aesthetic purity.
All I know is that Apple is batting 3 for 3 on platform migrations. The survived Apple II to Macintosh, 680x0 to PowerPC, and Classic to OS X. Now they are facing another must-win game...
It would behoove us to remember that Steve Jobs is a careful speaker when on stage (second hand stories tell us his demeanor is markedly different the rest of the time). An excellent example of his careful attention to subject matter came when Steve was discussing worldwide attendance at the conference. Steve noted that there were a plethora of developers at the conference (3800) but pointedly remarked that there were 38 from China and 11 from India. Why would he mention China and India instead of say, the Isle of Man and Peru? Well it turns out that China and India are huge burgeoning computer markets so it is a prescient idea to motivate the developers representing those countries. Now consider what he said when talking about the Intel chip. Steve noted that while the PowerPC would produce 15 units of performance per watt Intel is promising 70 units of performance down the road. This utterance is notable more what it doesn’t say rather than what it does say. It doesn’t say the Intel chip will be more powerful. It doesn’t indicate that the Intel chip will be faster. What Steve is saying is: given like inputs of energy the Intel will out perform the IBM offering. Which is great for laptops and environmentally friendly but, and this is important, most people won’t care. Many people will happily spend extra money for a chip that consumes 10 times the energy while performing ten percent better. Additionally the metric employed by Steve is also vague. What, exactly, is a unit of performance? So there is no indication that by waiting you’re going to get any performance boost. It is, in fact, plausible that the first generation of Intel powered PowerMacs will (be) outperformed by the machines they replace.
David, sorry to be blunt, but you have to look pretty hard right now for a benchmark where the fastest x86 doesn't already beat the fastest PPC. And, as to power not mattering to most people, if those people are the people who wanted but didn't get a G5 Powerbook, those are the ones who don't care about power.
This really isn't subjective. When I was in the processor design business, we paid a lot of attention to the SPEC benchmarks. The people who can perform respectably on this still do. Go look at spec.org. Here's the page I looked at: http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html. Keep in mind that bigger numbers are better. Apple doesn't play this game, but IBM does. Look at the IBM pServer line. Keep in mind that these are PowerX chips, the big brothers of what Apple uses and quite a bit faster for some things that matter.
David, sorry to be blunt, but you have to look pretty hard right now for a benchmark where the fastest x86 doesn't already beat the fastest PPC.
Recently that is true. For the early days of G4 and G5 that was not true. Early G4's tromped the best Intel had. Ditto for early G5's. Not so anymore. Intel caught up while Motorola and IBM were busy paying attention to their embedded market customers. And until Pentium-M came along Intel had a well-deserved reputation for building processors that doubled as frying pans. You think G5's have heat issues?
This really isn't subjective. When I was in the processor design business, we paid a lot of attention to the SPEC benchmarks. The people who can perform respectably on this still do.
Opinions differ. SPEC benchmarks aren't always all that indicative of real-world performance. You can also design and tweak specifically for SPEC. Makes your numbers look good, but won't always make Photoshop run faster.
Power PC and Intel always took rather different approaches to processor design. Intel looked for high clock rates, mostly because it was an easy number to market to customers. But that high frequency means longer and longer pipelines. And x86 code is notorious for frequent branching, which is murder to a long pipeline. Power PC took the approach of shorter pipelines at slower clock rates gets more real work done, with fewer transistors and less power, than the Intel approach. This is the basis for the megahertz myth, and that myth is truth.
David, sorry to be blunt, but you have to look pretty hard right now for a benchmark where the fastest x86 doesn't already beat the fastest PPC. And, as to power not mattering to most people, if those people are the people who wanted but didn't get a G5 Powerbook, those are the ones who don't care about power.
This really isn't subjective. When I was in the processor design business, we paid a lot of attention to the SPEC benchmarks. The people who can perform respectably on this still do. Go look at spec.org. Here's the page I looked at: http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html. Keep in mind that bigger numbers are better. Apple doesn't play this game, but IBM does. Look at the IBM pServer line. Keep in mind that these are PowerX chips, the big brothers of what Apple uses and quite a bit faster for some things that matter.
What I think is interesting is that the computing experience isn't necessarily improved by waiting for the next best thing. Patch29, for instance, may be better served getting his dual G5 now rather than waiting for 2 years for the first high-end MacIntel to come out, which he probably won't buy, since he'll wait for the b revision and for the apps to be updated and stable so he doesn't have to deal with Rosetta.
Over the long haul, this looks to be a good move. But to opt out of buying a dual G5 now, I'm not sure how much sense that makes.
What I think is interesting is that the computing experience isn't necessarily improved by waiting for the next best thing. Patch29, for instance, may be better served getting his dual G5 now rather than waiting for 2 years for the first high-end MacIntel to come out, which he probably won't buy, since he'll wait for the b revision and for the apps to be updated and stable so he doesn't have to deal with Rosetta.
Over the long haul, this looks to be a good move. But to opt out of buying a dual G5 now, I'm not sure how much sense that makes.
I have been waffling back and forth over the last few days. I may still take the plunge on a G5, which with my PB should get me through until rev B on the intel PB comes out.
David, sorry to be blunt, but you have to look pretty hard right now for a benchmark where the fastest x86 doesn't already beat the fastest PPC. And, as to power not mattering to most people, if those people are the people who wanted but didn't get a G5 Powerbook, those are the ones who don't care about power.
This really isn't subjective. When I was in the processor design business, we paid a lot of attention to the SPEC benchmarks. The people who can perform respectably on this still do. Go look at spec.org. Here's the page I looked at: http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html. Keep in mind that bigger numbers are better. Apple doesn't play this game, but IBM does. Look at the IBM pServer line. Keep in mind that these are PowerX chips, the big brothers of what Apple uses and quite a bit faster for some things that matter.
Also, keep in mind that in real world terms, the current G5s could perform better than the Intel's, especially if you end up having to run Rosetta. Rosetta does not support Altivec, so you will in effect be running a G3 processor. In real terms, the benefits of the Intel move may not be immediately apparent to the average user. In theory Rosetta can run at 80% speed, but that's just theory. Real world numbers will most likely be slower.
That is close to what I have come up with. All my software works, the performance will be very good and a huge jump up from a Ti PB 1ghz 1gb ram to G5 DP 2.7 8gb ram. It should last me through the hardest part of the transition and if it gets off to a rocky start my system will still be chugging along.
There has not been any affect so far. I would think if sales continue and orders come in they will not drop them until they are just about to be replaced which could be 1-2 years.
That is close to what I have come up with. All my software works, the performance will be very good and a huge jump up from a Ti PB 1ghz 1gb ram to G5 DP 2.7 8gb ram. It should last me through the hardest part of the transition and if it gets off to a rocky start my system will still be chugging along.
Where did I leave that credit card?
I've got the exact same configuration in my Pbook, and the dual 2.0 G5. You are going to be very, very happy with the performance.
I've got the exact same configuration in my Pbook, and the dual 2.0 G5. You are going to be very, very happy with the performance.
I have a friend with a dual 2.5 and I have run a couple tests on it and I know I need to do it. It is just a lot of money and I am looking at possibly adding a 4800, a lot of lighting gear, a 90mm TSE lens and a few other goodies, so it is getting expensive very quickly, at least I won't be short on write offs this year. :uhoh
I have a friend with a dual 2.5 and I have run a couple tests on it and I know I need to do it. It is just a lot of money and I am looking at possibly adding a 4800, a lot of lighting gear, a 90mm TSE lens and a few other goodies, so it is getting expensive very quickly, at least I won't be short on write offs this year. :uhoh
I've been thinking this through, and I think it's the right thing to do. If you were looking for a new PB, that would be a different thing. But the high end x86 machines are presumably a couple of years away, which is a long time to wait. In the meantime, for photoshop, the dual 2.5 is as fast as anything with Intel chips except Xeon which is pretty expensive (though I've seen some low prices recently.) So I think this thing will be a workhorse for at least a couploe of years.
Once Apple has high end Intel products, these are going to be very tempting. They need to make their first high end intel machines be real performance monsters and it's only a matter of shopping Intel's road map to see that this will be more than possible. What about 2X quad core Xeons at about 8GHz?
As to Powerbook, right now my Pentium-M linux notebook is more than 2x my G5 Powermac (1 processor) for almost every test I can come up with. So this is also going to be a very nice computer, and I think it will be among the first things Apple releases (though the first ones will be 32 bits only.) After all, this was the strongest motivation for the switch.
BTW, definitely shop ebay, etc, for your new Powermac. The supply is rising faster than the demand.
Jobs is shrewd. I don't think he'd announce a change like this unless
the time to market were a year or less.
Why do I think this? By announcing a switch to Intel and implying it's for
power consumption as much as performance, the bottom will fall out of PB
sales for a time as it will for desktops although maybe less so. I know that
one of the factors that keep me from buying a PB is the lag in processor
technology between the desktop and PB.
Apple marketing will have a tough time promoting existing technology
during the coming transition. I would think that pricing will be more
favorable in 6 months.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
.. the bottom will fall out of PB
sales for a time
My guess is that this has already happened to some extent, so there wasn' that much to lose. Think about the advice I just gave Patch. Powermacs still make sense because their performace is OK vs Intel bases machines, especially on a price/performace basis. Give them a 2 year lifetime, say. It's enough. The iMacs make sense because the package is so nicely differentiated and the price is good and they aren't really performance machines. Macmini? I don't know vs a linux machine in a shuttle package, but for Mac addicts? PB, well, I've been saying for 1/2 a year that it's time to wait or try to figure out if you can use a windows or linux notebook.
I think your average iMac user will probably not buy a new computer for a
really long time--until the hardware chokes and pukes.
On the other hand, Shuffle/Ipod customers probably consider those devices
throwaway and will buy when the next new thing when it comes along.
DP G5 users are probably careful but like Patch, will buy based on need.
Knowing that it will be a two to three year investment and that a lot
happens between initial purchase and end of life, will weigh their software
cost accordingly.
I would agree that PB sales may have slowed. I think some are waiting for a
G5 based machine and that will probably not happen unless you have the
room for a small cooling tower
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Comments
My guess is that it's a big announcement to kick-start the application conversion process so that they will be ready in a years time (or so). It sounds like the Operating System itself is good-to-go, and there are developmental Intel based systems waiting to be shipped off.
I had been thinking about getting a G5 for video editing. I'll probably wait on that now. I forsee the price of PowerMac hardware falling faster than normal in the next year.
Maybe this will finally allow Final Cut Pro to run under XP. Seriously, depending on the final architecture, this could mean less work/more money for software developers.
Watch ebay for good deals on power gear. People who just bough might want to ditch. And Apple will have to clear the shelves sooner or later.
What do you think the new stuff will be called: InsideBook, InsideMac?
I just hope the commercials don't use that Intel noise. :puke
I hope they can deliver it on time. I am definitely in a wait and see mode.
Very doubtful Steve would do that. By bringing in Intel in their ads it dilutes the Apple brand.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
BTW: the guy who wrote that little 5 note intel jingle thing is a composer I work with quite a lot. Weird to know the guy that wrote that of all things.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I don't believe that anyone has any choice about whether or not to use it. They can't advertise Intel products without that thing.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I'll tell you, if I were Intel there's no way in hell that I would let that kind of PR slip through my fingers. This is the single most significant migration any single computer platform has ever made. What a friggin' coup.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
The fee for not having an Intel jingle or case badge is probably one of those things Apple will add to the price of a Mac just to maintain its aesthetic purity.
All I know is that Apple is batting 3 for 3 on platform migrations. The survived Apple II to Macintosh, 680x0 to PowerPC, and Classic to OS X. Now they are facing another must-win game...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
David, sorry to be blunt, but you have to look pretty hard right now for a benchmark where the fastest x86 doesn't already beat the fastest PPC. And, as to power not mattering to most people, if those people are the people who wanted but didn't get a G5 Powerbook, those are the ones who don't care about power.
This really isn't subjective. When I was in the processor design business, we paid a lot of attention to the SPEC benchmarks. The people who can perform respectably on this still do. Go look at spec.org. Here's the page I looked at:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html. Keep in mind that bigger numbers are better. Apple doesn't play this game, but IBM does. Look at the IBM pServer line. Keep in mind that these are PowerX chips, the big brothers of what Apple uses and quite a bit faster for some things that matter.
Opinions differ. SPEC benchmarks aren't always all that indicative of real-world performance. You can also design and tweak specifically for SPEC. Makes your numbers look good, but won't always make Photoshop run faster.
Power PC and Intel always took rather different approaches to processor design. Intel looked for high clock rates, mostly because it was an easy number to market to customers. But that high frequency means longer and longer pipelines. And x86 code is notorious for frequent branching, which is murder to a long pipeline. Power PC took the approach of shorter pipelines at slower clock rates gets more real work done, with fewer transistors and less power, than the Intel approach. This is the basis for the megahertz myth, and that myth is truth.
To each his own.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
What I think is interesting is that the computing experience isn't necessarily improved by waiting for the next best thing. Patch29, for instance, may be better served getting his dual G5 now rather than waiting for 2 years for the first high-end MacIntel to come out, which he probably won't buy, since he'll wait for the b revision and for the apps to be updated and stable so he doesn't have to deal with Rosetta.
Over the long haul, this looks to be a good move. But to opt out of buying a dual G5 now, I'm not sure how much sense that makes.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I have been waffling back and forth over the last few days. I may still take the plunge on a G5, which with my PB should get me through until rev B on the intel PB comes out.
Also, keep in mind that in real world terms, the current G5s could perform better than the Intel's, especially if you end up having to run Rosetta. Rosetta does not support Altivec, so you will in effect be running a G3 processor. In real terms, the benefits of the Intel move may not be immediately apparent to the average user. In theory Rosetta can run at 80% speed, but that's just theory. Real world numbers will most likely be slower.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Here's more rationale for you to buy now:
macintouch.com
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
That is close to what I have come up with. All my software works, the performance will be very good and a huge jump up from a Ti PB 1ghz 1gb ram to G5 DP 2.7 8gb ram. It should last me through the hardest part of the transition and if it gets off to a rocky start my system will still be chugging along.
Where did I leave that credit card?
There has not been any affect so far. I would think if sales continue and orders come in they will not drop them until they are just about to be replaced which could be 1-2 years.
I've got the exact same configuration in my Pbook, and the dual 2.0 G5. You are going to be very, very happy with the performance.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I have a friend with a dual 2.5 and I have run a couple tests on it and I know I need to do it. It is just a lot of money and I am looking at possibly adding a 4800, a lot of lighting gear, a 90mm TSE lens and a few other goodies, so it is getting expensive very quickly, at least I won't be short on write offs this year. :uhoh
I've been thinking this through, and I think it's the right thing to do. If you were looking for a new PB, that would be a different thing. But the high end x86 machines are presumably a couple of years away, which is a long time to wait. In the meantime, for photoshop, the dual 2.5 is as fast as anything with Intel chips except Xeon which is pretty expensive (though I've seen some low prices recently.) So I think this thing will be a workhorse for at least a couploe of years.
Once Apple has high end Intel products, these are going to be very tempting. They need to make their first high end intel machines be real performance monsters and it's only a matter of shopping Intel's road map to see that this will be more than possible. What about 2X quad core Xeons at about 8GHz?
As to Powerbook, right now my Pentium-M linux notebook is more than 2x my G5 Powermac (1 processor) for almost every test I can come up with. So this is also going to be a very nice computer, and I think it will be among the first things Apple releases (though the first ones will be 32 bits only.) After all, this was the strongest motivation for the switch.
BTW, definitely shop ebay, etc, for your new Powermac. The supply is rising faster than the demand.
Jobs is shrewd. I don't think he'd announce a change like this unless
the time to market were a year or less.
Why do I think this? By announcing a switch to Intel and implying it's for
power consumption as much as performance, the bottom will fall out of PB
sales for a time as it will for desktops although maybe less so. I know that
one of the factors that keep me from buying a PB is the lag in processor
technology between the desktop and PB.
Apple marketing will have a tough time promoting existing technology
during the coming transition. I would think that pricing will be more
favorable in 6 months.
Ian
really long time--until the hardware chokes and pukes.
On the other hand, Shuffle/Ipod customers probably consider those devices
throwaway and will buy when the next new thing when it comes along.
DP G5 users are probably careful but like Patch, will buy based on need.
Knowing that it will be a two to three year investment and that a lot
happens between initial purchase and end of life, will weigh their software
cost accordingly.
I would agree that PB sales may have slowed. I think some are waiting for a
G5 based machine and that will probably not happen unless you have the
room for a small cooling tower
Ian