Intel gear is around the corner

[nosuch]

that was easy and I'm kicking myself for fighting for so long with Apple tech support, the mac stores, my fiance, my friends and the inner demon deep down within my psychological make-up

Adonis,

why was your fiance involved in the fight?

just curious

stephan

[forge]

Forge, I don't hold grudges, it's just conversation really, that's all.

good, because as I said, nothing was meant against the users. And also like I said I started with one sentence and Paws asked me to elaborate which was like picking a huge pussy pimple and I spewed forth.

I'm just one of these people that cut my teeth on a mac then got into audio HDR and just couldnt afford to do it with a mac but all the while sit here wanting too, but I just cant justify the performance thing, it would drive me crazy!

Personally it's virtually a given my next machine will be a macintel, but I still think they should have been available 2 years ago when I got this Laptop.

[hambone1]

A huge pussy pimple?

Is that a pimple on a huge pussy, a huge pimple on a pussy, or a huge pimple with pus?

Sorry... back to breakfast...

[forge]

A huge pussy pimple?

Is that a pimple on a huge pussy, a huge pimple on a pussy, or a huge pimple with pus?

Sorry... back to breakfast...

you know I never even saw that!

[gaspode]

A huge pussy pimple?

Is that a pimple on a huge pussy, a huge pimple on a pussy, or a huge pimple with pus?

Sorry... back to breakfast...

you know I never even saw that!

If you do, you'll never want to see it again...

[gaspode]

I'm going to wait until a revsion is provided and Ableton provides the right binary type native to the Intel version for Mac OS X.

sorry i am a technical moron. don't they just have to compile the C++ code when a compiler for the new system is released?

In some ways yes, this may be possible, and currently Apple I believe is starting to allow developers to bundle powerpc/intel compatible binaries in the same package. However, there can be differences acrossed C++ code on different platforms, any low level optimizations would likely need to be coded for a different processor, and even any C++ (or C) code that had been optimized for a specific platform will need to be rewritten.

For an application like Live, I would imagine that there are at least some code paths that will need to be refactored/optimized to run efficiently on OS X with Intel hardware.

[Machinesworking]

I'm just one of these people that cut my teeth on a mac then got into audio HDR and just couldnt afford to do it with a mac but all the while sit here wanting too, but I just cant justify the performance thing, it would drive me crazy!

Personally it's virtually a given my next machine will be a macintel, but I still think they should have been available 2 years ago when I got this Laptop.

OK that all makes sense. I started off on mac, and Digital Performer. At the time (96 I believe), macs were faster, and the price differences weren't that drastic, I think it was only a year later that PC components started becoming really cheap. Also at that time macs were faster, fastest PC was 200mhz. and the fastest mac was 225mhz, BLAZING I TELL YOU! ! I didn't move to digital audio until later with a G4 400mhz, and honestly it still surprises me how much I could do with it.

The thing is I think Intel's reluctance to piss off M$ by supplying chips to A¢ had a lot to do with the wait. Intel might have kept the price per chip too high, or flat out said no for years. Remember, we don't really know the full story, A¢ had OSX running on x86 in campus since OSX was introduced! It's been years since the G4 could trash a P3, and AMD would have the same sort of supply problems that IBM and Motorola experienced trying to keep up with A¢'s demand, so Intel are the natural choice, especially considering their Centrino technology would allow for the powerbook to remain thin and light.
Anyway, I'm definitely going to be an early adopter. I might seem like a mac zealot, but I have acknowledged for years that I give up a bit of price/performance, for OS and build quality. Every time I need to buy a new computer I think about whether the hassle of switching to PC would be worth the extra CPU, but in the end I'm happy with the software I have that isn't on PC. Some things are just meant to be as well, last time I was ready to get a desktop, a friend gave me his old dual Gig G4. So even though I've thought about putting together a desktop PC, it's sort of a waste with Logic and a dual sitting there being entirely useful.

So yeah, in a year at most, we can trash on everybody, Intel powerbooks with dual boot XP/OSX and with that a cross platform DAW in Live! 100% compatibility, and the fastest laptop chips out, I would bank on that!

[gaspode]

It's been years since the G4 could trash a P3, and AMD would have the same sort of supply problems that IBM and Motorola experienced trying to keep up with A¢'s demand, so Intel are the natural choice,

Actually this is a huge misconception. Why do you think IBM/Moto had a 'hard time' keeping up with chip demand? There wasn't any. Apple places an order for x chips at y price. If they need more they need to place another order. If they don't like the deal that they were getting for the next shipment, they suddenly were screaming that there wasn't enough supply and IBM/Moto couldn't keep up. It isn't like IBM/Moto are going to sit on extra chips that nobody else wants but Apple. I just always have found this kind of funny. Stating that AMD couldn't keep up with a high demand from Apple is just goofy. The most likely reason that Apple went with Intel over AMD has nothing to do with supply, and more to do with discounts given to chips. I would be willing to bet that Apple was more interested in the amount they could mark up the value of the chips over any amount of supply, brand recognition or any other factor.

The reason that Apple has been sitting on both a Power PC and a x86 build of OS X for years? I probably couldn't say, but my best guess would be that they were waiting for the right deal to come along. I had gotten a chance to play with a very early development build of the x86 version back before OS X was OS X, and back then it was 'just another UNIX'. Perhaps now that it has matured into a much more mature and stable product it can now stand on it's own two feet.

I think about whether the hassle of switching to PC would be worth the extra CPU, but in the end I'm happy with the software I have that isn't on PC.

My rule of thumb has always been that if you have to think about it, and it isn't a clear decision to make, then it probably isn't worth it. Besides, learning new hardware and a new operating system at the same time seems like altogether too much work. Perhaps there will be more reasons for people to switch to OS X, or to XP when the Intel hardware shows up, but only if the hardware allows you to install both OSs. I question this, as having a 'gateway' product that swings both ways seems a little out of the Apple style, but on the other hand, if they can get me to bite on the hardware again, while having the freedom to use my XP software if I boot into it... they could always get me hooked and lock me out later .

[noisetonepause]

maybe what paws said is right about day to day tasks running no different etc, but I think the Apple mentalitiy is definitely exclusive, the fact they are so closed and only interested in their own hardware just gets in the way of choice and probably makes it even harder to fix problems.

Err... I don't see MS making any effort to let Windows run on anything but x86-compatible, either. And all other hardware manufacturers design their stuff exclusively for Windows and even have the cheek to force you to pay for it when you buy their stuff. To me that's all of the cons and none of the pros.

I really don't see what the problem is with Apple being a company that makes both the OS and the hardware and keeps the integration tight. I can't really see how it's exclusivist. The whole sleek Apple iLifestyle brand might be exclusivist (it does feel like smugland here sometimes...), but the development decision itself, to make the whole package of hardware + OS, is not IMNotThatHO. Apple's stated goal since their earliest days has been to turn the personal computer into an appliance, "like a toaster" (hence the all-in-one designs). I have to say it's a philosophy I largely agree with, too.

Also, like I think I said somewhere on this thread, I view the switch to x86 processors in some ways as giving in. The whole "IBM's roadmap won't give us the chips we need" is apparently easily refuted - no, there won't be a G5 fit for laptops but there's other options coming (there's an Ars Technica article somewhere about this I think) that wouldn't mean a complete change of platform. I think the main reasons are that they want to take on MS and possibly some future DRM-related stuff that we don't know about yet; if they were just interested in making the best personal computers available (like they did in the late 90's-early 00's), they could've stuck with IBM chips. It's not about excelling, it's about market share, and whilst I'm looking forward to a faster, lighter, thinner iBook at some point I still can't help of thinking of that scene in Pirates of Silicon Valley, when Jobs realises that Windows is going to 'win' and says to Gates "But we've got better stuff!" and Gates just says "That doesn't matter"...

Speaking of that film, I watched it not long after the switch was announced and I couldn't help but think that, if the Jobs/Gates relationship is like it's portrayed in the film, Jobs will probably go quite a long way to get back at Gates, which is what I think it's all about - Apple rightly sees only one way to increase its market share, and that's by making the transition easier by building computers that will run Windows.

Natter, natter... sorry!

-Paws

[gaspode]

...Jobs will probably go quite a long way to get back at Gates, which is what I think it's all about - Apple rightly sees only one way to increase its market share, and that's by making the transition easier by building computers that will run Windows.

And, as MS knows market share has as much to do with peripheral appliances/apps as it does with the core system... hence why we've seen iTunes, iPods, iThis, iThat...

I think a lot of people are just not acknowledging the fact that Apple is anything but a glorified music store at this point. You read plenty of reports about how Apple hardware is some old dinosaur and a failing business. If looked at from a marketing perspective though, iWhatever is really about Apple at the center of your media/appliance hub... and that will squarely put the Apple in the middle for the 'optimum' experience. Clearly Apple has enough brand recognition and loyalty to make the new Napster and other mp3 services look less appealing, and I wouldn't be surprised if they dwarfed profit margins too.

Apple seems to have hit a home run with video content now too... I wouldn't be too surprised to start seeing Apple taking on even more forms of content such as newspapers, magazines, books etc in the next few years. And it is starting to look like Apple was right... maybe piracy really is a social problem.

[sweetjesus]

Err... I don't see MS making any effort to let Windows run on anything but x86-compatible, either. And all other hardware manufacturers design their stuff exclusively for Windows and even have the cheek to force you to pay for it when you buy their stuff. To me that's all of the cons and none of the pros.

-Paws

you couldn't be more wrong.

theres versions of NT which used to run on PPC and Alpha processors. NT is actually built on OS/2 Warp which was a joint venture between IBM and MS, which is why IBM cant open source OS/2.

[noisetonepause]

theres versions of NT which used to run on PPC and Alpha processors.

This wasn't the point of what I was saying and you know it... but still, NT? Yeah well... OpenDarwin runs on x86 processors as well, I think that's comparable... Is there a PPC/Alpha/SPARC version of XP that I haven't heard of, though?

[sweetjesus]

theres versions of NT which used to run on PPC and Alpha processors.

This wasn't the point of what I was saying and you know it... but still, NT? Yeah well... OpenDarwin runs on x86 processors as well, I think that's comparable... Is there a PPC/Alpha/SPARC version of XP that I haven't heard of, though?

your point was about vendor lock in and microsoft has at least tried to make their systems available on multiple platforms in the past. just that market conditions have not warranted for them to maintain such behaviour, which is quite different from locking into a proprietary system because you want to.

although MS is guilty as proprietary stuff (not as bad as say Sony) they have taken more steps than most in terms of at least being open or trying to maintain SOME compatibility.

[noisetonepause]

My point was not as much Microsoft being x86-centric, but hardware manufacturers being Windows-centric and this in effect not being that much different to Apple's supposed 'lock down'. I don't care to reiterate my views. Read my posts again more carefully if you can be bothered..

edit - that sounded a lot more arrogant than I wanted it to. I mean, you know I love being an obnoxious c-word, but still. Anyways. I think I've said what needs to be said about this till next week, then we can do it again:)

[kennerb]

A huge pussy pimple?

Is that a pimple on a huge pussy, a huge pimple on a pussy, or a huge pimple with pus?

Sorry... back to breakfast...

Whatcha eating?

Cream of wheat w/ strawberries?

Yogurt?

My stomach doesn't like this subject at all.