To Buy or Not to Buy

On 13 Jun 2005, at 16:13 , Brian Pearce wrote:
>
> Given that the installed user base of older PPC-based machines
> numbers will number in what -- the hundreds of thousands? -- when
> thefirst new models are available in a year or two, I'm still not too
> concerned that support for them will evaporate overnight.

Depending on how successful the switch is and how many Apptels Apple
manages to push out the doors over the next three years, the PPC
could easily find itself in a minority position very quickly.

Also, keep in mind that the current G4/G5 line is basically stagnant
until these new machines come out. If the first Apptels out the door
are dual processor dual core 4Ghz Intels the dual processor single
core 2.7Gh G5 starts looking anemic.

>
> I'm not sure I understand how a computer can "decline sharply in
> usability" just because something new has come along.

New software that won't run on it. New system versions that need an
Apptel machine (sure, Leopard will run on both, but what about Ocelot
[1]?).


> Sure, there are
> always going to be new and nifty whiz-bang tricks that a new computer
> can do that an old computer can't (or can't do as well), but that
> doesn't just render the old equipment useless.

It can render it far less usable, thus "decline sharply in usability".

Sure, my CURRENT app will continue to work, but my current apps may
not do what I need to do in 3 years time. Hardly any of the apps I
currently run are 3 years old right now, for example.

> I continued to use my
> G3 iBook for years after the G4 models were introduced, and my G4
> iMac continues to do just about everything I ask of it.

When php6 comes out, will it be compiled and built for PPC Macs?
gcc4.1? Apache3? I'm not even talking about GUI apps, but about the
core OS that is where I live 90% of the time. Will 10.6 run on my
PPC based machine?

In addition to the folks who bought 9600s only to find themselves
obsoleted by G3s, there were a ton of folks who bought first
generation G3s and G4s and found the new hardware buggy and unproven.

Given the comparative complexity of the Intel transition, I would say
that the likelihood of the MacIntels being buggy and difficult to
support at launch is high.

So, assuming that it will take 6-12 months for the revised models to
come in and stabilize things, that puts high end MacIntels as a good
buy in mid 2007/early 2008. Lower end machines come in a year earlier
than that.

And that's just to get a decent machine. Support for legacy machines
isn't likely to fade for 3+ years after the transition. Heck, you can
still get OS 9 friendly Carbon apps today.

So, assuming you're on a 3 year upgrade plan (pretty typical for
business machines), buying one now won't hurt at all. I doubt you're
going to feel a real NEED to upgrade until '09 at the inside.

--Nik

On Monday, June 13, 2005, at 02:51 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> This is however, a bad analogy.
>
> First of all, the final hardware config for OS X was announced rather
> suddenly, not almost a year or so out.
>
> Secondly, the only things that OS X and OS 9 had in common were the
> carbon
> APIs. This is OS X still, not an entirely different OS.
>
> Thirdly, you can't run Photoshop 5 on a 68K mac. You can't run OS 9
> even on
> a 68K mac. So Apple leaving older hardware behind after a time is not
> unusual.

9600's ran on an 604e processor, and I was able to run Photoshop
through version 5.5.

>
> Fourth, your 9600 wasn't obsolete on the day Mac OS X came out.

It wasn't obsolete the day OSX came out, it was obsolete before that. I
was able to do one Photoshop upgrade (to 5.5) around the time OS X was
released, and that was it. I missed out on three Photoshop and
Illustrator upgrades, and one or two Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Flash
upgrades. I use these applications to earn a living.

> It wasn't
> obsolete for almost a year after that, because it took a long time for
> OS X
> applications to be released, and for the OS to get to where it was
> usable
> for common tasks without pain and workarounds. Really, 10.2 was the
> first
> version that was generally usable. 10.1 was "if you gotta run OS X,
> it's
> good enough".

Once OS X was announced, the graphics companies stopped developing for
OS 9 - maybe they had one version that would run on both, but that was
it. Perhaps one of the reasons was that graphic apps crashed so badly
and often on anything before OS 9. True multi-tasking was a huge
advantage for graphics applications, and superior multitasking is a
reason why graphics apps still perform more efficiently on Macs that
PCs.

About the only company to hold off of developing for OS X was Quark,
who had such a stranglehold on the market (they still have more than
80% share, as of something I read 2-3 weeks ago), they didn't need to.


>
> There has been zero, absolutely zero indication that this will happen
> with
> any kind of haste. In fact, I'd bet that it won't really start to
> happen
> until all the Macs are Intel - based. So if you buy a used PPC Mac post
> transition, that would be probably silly. But buying a PPC Mac now is
> not
> going to be the same as buying that 9600 the day after the system
> requirements for Mac OS X were announced.

The Adobe CS2 Creative Suite was just released a few months ago. Adobe
tends to run in 18 month product cycles, so there's a chance that
they'll be just one more release that will run on both PPC and Intel
Macs.

Quark has moved up its development cycles to come closer to Adobe's
than its previous 3-4 year cycles, and 6.5 was just released this fall,
so I expect they'll have just one more cycle that too.

Marilyn

On 6/14/05 11:03, "Marilyn Matty" <mmattynyc.rr.com> wrote:

>> Thirdly, you can't run Photoshop 5 on a 68K mac. You can't run OS 9
>> even on
>> a 68K mac. So Apple leaving older hardware behind after a time is not
>> unusual.
>
> 9600's ran on an 604e processor, and I was able to run Photoshop
> through version 5.5.

You should have been able to run 6, since 7 was the first OS X version. From
Adobe's site, requirements for Photoshop 6:

System requirements
- PowerPC® processor
- Mac OS software version 8.5, 8.6, or 9.0
- 64 MB* of available RAM (with virtual memory on)
- 125 MB of available hard-disk space
- Color monitor with 256-color (8-bit) or greater video card
- Monitor resolution of 800x600 or greater
- CD-ROM drive

* 128 MB of RAM required to run Adobe® Photoshop® and Adobe ImageReady®
concurrently

>
>>
>> Fourth, your 9600 wasn't obsolete on the day Mac OS X came out.
>
> It wasn't obsolete the day OSX came out, it was obsolete before that. I
> was able to do one Photoshop upgrade (to 5.5) around the time OS X was
> released, and that was it. I missed out on three Photoshop and
> Illustrator upgrades, and one or two Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Flash
> upgrades. I use these applications to earn a living.

Again, photoshop 6 was the last OS 9 version. If you couldn't upgrade to
that, it had nothing to do with OS X.

If you're expecting third parties to support an OS that Apple said was
*dead*, (OS 9), then I would submit you were being unrealistic in those
expectations.

>
>> It wasn't
>> obsolete for almost a year after that, because it took a long time for
>> OS X
>> applications to be released, and for the OS to get to where it was
>> usable
>> for common tasks without pain and workarounds. Really, 10.2 was the
>> first
>> version that was generally usable. 10.1 was "if you gotta run OS X,
>> it's
>> good enough".
>
> Once OS X was announced, the graphics companies stopped developing for
> OS 9 - maybe they had one version that would run on both, but that was
> it. Perhaps one of the reasons was that graphic apps crashed so badly
> and often on anything before OS 9. True multi-tasking was a huge
> advantage for graphics applications, and superior multitasking is a
> reason why graphics apps still perform more efficiently on Macs that
> PCs.

There's a dozen other reasons, but killing support of OS 9 has little to do
with the same OS on a different chip.

>
> About the only company to hold off of developing for OS X was Quark,
> who had such a stranglehold on the market (they still have more than
> 80% share, as of something I read 2-3 weeks ago), they didn't need to.

Quark couldn't find its own rear end with mapquest. They encrypted the
Xpress 5 file format, so that anyone translating it for other applications,
(InDesign!) could be held in violation of the DMCA. But it is far less
InDesign than PDF that's killing them. Once your print house goes to PDF,
then you don't need Quark anymore, and it's not like it's hard to find a
company with better customer support. Quark took so long because Fred was
too busy outsourcing the company to his family's back porch.

>

>> There has been zero, absolutely zero indication that this will happen
>> with
>> any kind of haste. In fact, I'd bet that it won't really start to
>> happen
>> until all the Macs are Intel - based. So if you buy a used PPC Mac post
>> transition, that would be probably silly. But buying a PPC Mac now is
>> not
>> going to be the same as buying that 9600 the day after the system
>> requirements for Mac OS X were announced.
>
> The Adobe CS2 Creative Suite was just released a few months ago. Adobe
> tends to run in 18 month product cycles, so there's a chance that
> they'll be just one more release that will run on both PPC and Intel
> Macs.

Okay...so 18 months from now, your PPC still won't be obsolete. In THREE
YEARS, it may be unable to run CS4. My designers and I looked at CS2, and
found nothing about it that made it worth our while to upgrade. If CS3
doesn't give us a reason to upgrade other than Intel native-binaries, we may
skip that until we upgrade their systems.

From Apple's POV, well, from anyone's, the customer who upgrades regularly
is a better customer than the one with ten year old product wanting support
on it.

>
> Quark has moved up its development cycles to come closer to Adobe's
> than its previous 3-4 year cycles, and 6.5 was just released this fall,
> so I expect they'll have just one more cycle that too.

Okay, so again, that's three years. Most business computer amortization
takes place across three year cycles anyway. You get a new G5 today if you
need it. In three years, you *may* have to get an Intel one. But only if
there's software that offers a business - critical feature that requires an
Intel - based Mac. None of this is definite, and Adobe's already commited to
a universal binary for at least the next version.

If you try and base your purchase today against what the computing world
*may* look like in over three years, (remember, we don't know WHEN in 2006
the first MacIntels will show up, nor do we know the order. The model you
care about may not show up until late 2006/2007, so this is a three-four
year speculation) is going to keep you from doing anything.

Trying to use the OS9-OS X transition as a guide for an OS X - OS X
transition is going to lead you astray and badly.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 14 Jun 2005, at 15:47 , John C. Welch wrote:
> A three year purchase cycle starting now will give you three years
> of a solid computer,

Yes, and a 3 year purchase cycle might be just fine for PC users. My
purchase cycle is considerably longer than that. My current machine
is 5 years old and I am just now considering a new machine. I had a
performa 6200 for more years than I care to admit. I did blaze
through the 603/604 era rather quickly (mostly because it was very
easy to turn-over old machines for nearly the cost of a new machine),
but in general I expect a computer to be my primary machine for 3-5
years, and a perfectly useable secondary for another 3-5 after that.
I am still using a beige G3 desktop machine. I expect to move my G4
to replace the G3 and buy a G5 powermac to replace the G4. Now, I'm
not so sure that would be a good idea. I will probably still do it,
as I don't want to 1) be first on the block with an Intel Mac and 2)
wait three years to upgrade my current machine.

If I buy a new PPC Mac now I don't know that it will last me 5 years,
much less 10, as a viable machine, primary, secondary, or otherwise.

On 6/14/05 17:56, "Google Kreme" <gkremegmail.com> wrote:

> If I buy a new PPC Mac now I don't know that it will last me 5 years,
> much less 10, as a viable machine, primary, secondary, or otherwise.

It will last you just as well as that 6200 did if you're willing to settle
for old hardware and the inability to use current applications at all or at
top line speeds.

The three year purchase cycle has very little to do with hardware and far
more with amortization issues. Non-business users don't care about such
things, but they're on a totally random schedule.

But logically:

*sometime* in the next 18 to 24 months, the entire product line will be
MacIntel.

It is reasonable to expect that you won't hit even 40% of the installed base
on Intel until well into 2007.

Until an Intel - only version of the OS comes out, the major effort in
Universal Binaries is getting there. Once you're there, then the only real
effort is the one you create for yourself. Do a lot of assembly? UB's are a
pain in the butt. Play by the rules of UB? It's not that hard. Certainly a
lot easier than OS 9/OS X versions were. Again, this is the same OS on
different CPUs, not totally different OS's on the same CPUs.

The devs who take it in the keister getting to UBs are the heavy Codewarrior
devs. But if you're using Xcode, you're well ahead of the game.

Assuming that it takes a year from today for Office 12/CS 3/major
applications to get ported...that's still mid-2006 for top-line UB formats,
and I'll say it's going to be much closer to 2007. Remember, until you start
getting a lot of Intel *only* binaries, your PPC is just as useful then as
it is now. It's not going to be a real issue other than perception of
"MacStudLiNess" untill well into 2008, maybe even 2009.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 05:49 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> You should have been able to run 6, since 7 was the first OS X
> version. From
> Adobe's site, requirements for Photoshop 6:
>

I forgot about this one - I didn't buy the upgrade because it was
really just an OS X-ification of 5.5, though if I had been foresighted
enough to buy an OS X capable machine, I would have been delighted to
have a version that didn't crash 5-10 times a day.

>>> Fourth, your 9600 wasn't obsolete on the day Mac OS X came out.

I used that wonderful 9600 for six years, and loved it - it's a
testimonial to the longevity of Macs vs. PCs. And it ain't dead yet -
we still use it in in pinch when I've powerbook on the road and my
significant other needs to work at his desk.

  But I would have loved it more if I could have run OS X on it, and a
G3 would have been a better investment for me.

> If you're expecting third parties to support an OS that Apple said was
> *dead*, (OS 9), then I would submit you were being unrealistic in those
> expectations.

At the time I bought the 9600, they hadn't announced OS X wouldn't run
on 604-based machines - this was announced 3-4 months after I bought
the Mac. I naively assumed it would be, and I remember posting
something about this to TidBITS Talk at the time.

> It wasn't obsolete for almost a year after that, because it took a long
> time for OS X applications to be released, and for the OS to get to
> where it was usable for common tasks without pain and workarounds.
> Really, 10.2 was the first version that was generally usable. 10.1 was
> "if you gotta run OS X, it's good enough".

We had 10.1 on our Powerbook, and no complaints.

> Quark couldn't find its own rear end with mapquest. They encrypted the
> Xpress 5 file format, so that anyone translating it for other
> applications, (InDesign!) could be held in violation of the DMCA. But
> it is far less InDesign than PDF that's killing them. Once your print
> house goes to PDF, then you don't need Quark anymore, and it's not like
> it's hard to find a company with better customer support. Quark took so
> long because Fred was too busy outsourcing the company to his family's
> back porch.

I dunno about that - Quark is still entrenched, and as of what I read
in the last week or two, has 80% of the market. InDesign has only been
able to make the inroads it has because it is given away as part of the
Adobe Creative Suite. When they tried charging for it, it went
absolutely nowhere.

I'm currently using both, and InDesign because it came with Creative
Suite. But Quark + very expensive custom extensions are strongly
cemented into the workflow of many big publishing and advertising
companies that aren't converting.

> Okay...so 18 months from now, your PPC still won't be obsolete. In
> THREE YEARS, it may be unable to run CS4. My designers and I looked at
> CS2, and found nothing about it that made it worth our while to
> upgrade. If CS3 doesn't give us a reason to upgrade other than Intel
> native-binaries, we may skip that until we upgrade their systems.

But someone who waits a year or two to get a new Mac will be able to
run CS4 and CS 5. We were thinking of adding a new Powerbook our G4
Titanium early to mid next year so we both have mobile capacity, but
will now probably wait.

> Okay, so again, that's three years. Most business computer amortization
> takes place across three year cycles anyway. You get a new G5 today if
> you need it. In three years, you *may* have to get an Intel one. But
> only if there's software that offers a business - critical feature that
> requires an Intel - based Mac. None of this is definite, and Adobe's
> already commited to a universal binary for at least the next version.

The way it seems, Adobe is due for a new release in about 18 months
anyway. The timing was perfect.

> If you try and base your purchase today against what the computing
> world
> *may* look like in over three years, (remember, we don't know WHEN in
> 2006
> the first MacIntels will show up, nor do we know the order. The model
> you
> care about may not show up until late 2006/2007, so this is a
> three-four
> year speculation) is going to keep you from doing anything.

I'll bet Apple will start spitting them out sooner than later; they
need to do so to keep sales, and to keep the enthusiasm of the faithful.

Marilyn

On 6/14/05 18:32, "Marilyn Matty" <mmattynyc.rr.com> wrote:

> I'll bet Apple will start spitting them out sooner than later; they
> need to do so to keep sales, and to keep the enthusiasm of the faithful.

It has very little to do with that, and very much to do with the chips
Intel's planning on releasing in that timeframe.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 6/14/05 19:27, "Mike Wallinga" <mwallingagmail.com> wrote:

>> For $400 you get a PC with XP Pro and use Remote Desktop...faster and more
>> convenient.
>
> I don't follow you here. Assuming it can boot natively into Windows
> XP, an Intel Mac could likely be cheaper, more convenient, and faster
> than the separate-PC-and-Remote-Desktop tactic. Based upon some of the
> comments I've read on Ars Technica, most of them quoting various Apple
> sources, allowing dual booting - or at least not disallowing it -
> appears to be Apple's stance as of now. So, if that's the case,
> compared to the combination of owning both a PPC Mac and a "cheap"
> PC, will the Intel Mac be:

Assuming, doing it shakily, and doing it well are three different things.
WTS works now, and will in the future, and has some advantages that dual
booting won't have. As well, in a dual boot, you can't work on both at the
same time. With WTS, you can.

>
> Cheaper? - probably. My requirements probably won''t be met by the
> base-model $400 PC that you mention. I need RAM and decent processing
> power to do development work in Visual Studio, Visio, Access, and SQL
> Server. Right now, I load up my Mac and my PC with decent (not top of
> the line, but definitely not bottom of the barrel) processors, a good
> amount of RAM, networking hardware, large hard drives, etc. How could
> duplicating so many pieces of hardware be cheaper if I could buy one
> box with one set of beefed-up hardware instead?

If you're running WTS, you don't need anything for a video card, so you can
load up on RAM and a faster drive. Access and SQL Server are going to care
more about those two than CPU speed, and with SQL Server, network
infrastructure is a limiting factor too. As well, it's not like you have to
connect a thousand users to a dev box. That's a bit more than $400, but
still under a grand, (since you don't need a monitor), and since it's always
on, you don't have to stop working in one to use the other.

>
> More convenient? - a toss up. I agree that the Remote Desktop
> technique is more convenient in some regards, such as being able to
> have both OSes running at the same time. But I also measure
> convenience in the amount of physical space required, the number of
> electrical cords and outlets needed, etc. As a side consideration, if
> my first Intel Mac is a PowerBook, being able to boot into either OS
> and run at full speed on the road sounds very convenient, too.

You need two extra cords. One Power, one network. Or one if you have decent
wireless. Since you don't have to be at the machine, it can be *anywhere*
that wireless will reach. Dual booting is convenient up until the precise
moment you need to do something in the other environment, but have to wait
for a task to finish in your current one. Now a VMWare-style solution,
letting me run both at once in virtual machines? That would indeed be
convenient.

>
> Faster? - probably. A $400 PC will probably have a Celeron or
> lower-end Pentium 4, along with integrated audio and integrated
> graphics. Given Apple's past hardware offerings, I doubt even the
> cheapest Intel Mac will feature that configuration. So an Intel Mac
> will probably run Windows XP better than the $400 PC, and will run Mac
> OS X, too.

In an WTS usage, the audio is non-issue, and integrated video is a non-issue
as well. You're running it as a terminal, so if it has a lower - end P4,
that's not a big issue either. Start it up, log out, do other work, log back
in. Heck, if you need, get a couple of them, log into both, have them both
doing work, check on them as needed. It's great for running long involved
WMI stuff on big Active Directory trees.

>
> Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of the points made in this
> thread about buying a PPC Mac now. For the majority of Apple's
> customers, that doesn't seem like a bad move to me. But, I disagree
> that it's not worth waiting if you regularly need/want to use both Mac
> OS X and an operating system that currently runs on x86.

First, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to do this at all. It's a
maybe. If someone does dope it out, there's a world between 'possible' and
'reliably usable'. In the meantime, the WTC/RDC solution is doable now, and
will be of use to you even in your preferred scenario. Not waiting *at
least* 6-7 months for a solution is a far better ROI.

>
> I don't want to discourage people from buying a Mac now, and I don't
> want to see Apple's sales numbers plummet for the next year, but I
> don't think buying now is the best choice for everyone thinking about
> a new Mac, either. It's a very contextual decision.

Doing nothing and falling behind on your work for 6+ months is a better idea
than *maybe* having problems in 18 months to three years? Gotta disagree. If
you need a new mac now, get one now. No sense in wasting time, and therefore
money on what *may* happen.


--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On 6/14/05, John C. Welch <jwelchbynkii.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/05 13:51, "Mike Wallinga" <mwallingagmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If this transition to Intel allows me to run Windows XP on my Mac
> > without the need for Virtual PC, or at much faster speeds than
> > emulation on a PowerPC chip allows, then I find it worth waiting. If
> > one Intel Mac can effectively take the place of a PowerPC Mac and an
> > Intel PC for me, then even Apple's traditionally higher prices make
> > the purchase a bargain.
>
> For $400 you get a PC with XP Pro and use Remote Desktop...faster and more
> convenient.

I don't follow you here. Assuming it can boot natively into Windows
XP, an Intel Mac could likely be cheaper, more convenient, and faster
than the separate-PC-and-Remote-Desktop tactic. Based upon some of the
comments I've read on Ars Technica, most of them quoting various Apple
sources, allowing dual booting - or at least not disallowing it -
appears to be Apple's stance as of now. So, if that's the case,
compared to the combination of owning both a PPC Mac and a "cheap"
PC, will the Intel Mac be:

Cheaper? - probably. My requirements probably won''t be met by the
base-model $400 PC that you mention. I need RAM and decent processing
power to do development work in Visual Studio, Visio, Access, and SQL
Server. Right now, I load up my Mac and my PC with decent (not top of
the line, but definitely not bottom of the barrel) processors, a good
amount of RAM, networking hardware, large hard drives, etc. How could
duplicating so many pieces of hardware be cheaper if I could buy one
box with one set of beefed-up hardware instead?

More convenient? - a toss up. I agree that the Remote Desktop
technique is more convenient in some regards, such as being able to
have both OSes running at the same time. But I also measure
convenience in the amount of physical space required, the number of
electrical cords and outlets needed, etc. As a side consideration, if
my first Intel Mac is a PowerBook, being able to boot into either OS
and run at full speed on the road sounds very convenient, too.

Faster? - probably. A $400 PC will probably have a Celeron or
lower-end Pentium 4, along with integrated audio and integrated
graphics. Given Apple's past hardware offerings, I doubt even the
cheapest Intel Mac will feature that configuration. So an Intel Mac
will probably run Windows XP better than the $400 PC, and will run Mac
OS X, too.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with many of the points made in this
thread about buying a PPC Mac now. For the majority of Apple's
customers, that doesn't seem like a bad move to me. But, I disagree
that it's not worth waiting if you regularly need/want to use both Mac
OS X and an operating system that currently runs on x86.

I don't want to discourage people from buying a Mac now, and I don't
want to see Apple's sales numbers plummet for the next year, but I
don't think buying now is the best choice for everyone thinking about
a new Mac, either. It's a very contextual decision.

- Mike W.

Google Kreme wrote:

>
> When php6 comes out, will it be compiled and built for PPC Macs?
> gcc4.1? Apache3? I'm not even talking about GUI apps, but about the
> core OS that is where I live 90% of the time. Will 10.6 run on my
> PPC based machine?

Almost certainly (at least on PPC Linux :-)). Seriously, since you get
the source, and people will continue to want to port to Mac OS X on PPC,
open source packages will almost certainly continue to build on Mac OS X
on PPC. Whether 10.6 runs on PPC is up to Apple. Whether a given open
source package runs on Mac OS X PPC is up to a whole bunch more people
than Apple employs.

>
>
>


--
Paul Schinder
schinderpobox.com

--On June 16, 2005 10:41:12 PM -0700 Paul Schinder <schinderpobox.com>
wrote:

> Google Kreme wrote:
>
>>
>> When php6 comes out, will it be compiled and built for PPC Macs?
>> gcc4.1? Apache3? I'm not even talking about GUI apps, but about the
>> core OS that is where I live 90% of the time. Will 10.6 run on my
>> PPC based machine?
>
> Almost certainly (at least on PPC Linux :-)). Seriously, since you get
> the source, and people will continue to want to port to Mac OS X on PPC,
> open source packages will almost certainly continue to build on Mac OS X
> on PPC. Whether 10.6 runs on PPC is up to Apple. Whether a given open
> source package runs on Mac OS X PPC is up to a whole bunch more people
> than Apple employs.

If Apple drops any Open Source product it will be picked up by the Fink
project or Gentoo for OS X or DarwinPorts (or probably all 3) and made
available via a simple install.

<http://fink.sourceforge.net/>
<http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/macos-guide.xml>
<http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/>

Heck if WebCore remains open source I'd say we could expect WebCore based
browsers with all of Safari's features too.

Personally I'm guessing PPC versions of OS X will available for a long
time. OS XI or 11 or whatever might be Intel Mac only, but there are
simply too many PPC Mac's out there for Apple to give up $129 per machine.

Kevin

On Friday, June 17, 2005, at 01:38 AM, Mike Wallinga wrote:
>
> I don't follow you here. Assuming it can boot natively into Windows
> XP, an Intel Mac could likely be cheaper, more convenient, and faster
> than the separate-PC-and-Remote-Desktop tactic. Based upon some of the
> comments I've read on Ars Technica, most of them quoting various Apple
> sources, allowing dual booting - or at least not disallowing it -
> appears to be Apple's stance as of now. So, if that's the case,
> compared to the combination of owning both a PPC Mac and a "cheap"
> PC, will the Intel Mac be:

Anyone remember about 10 or so years ago there was a Mac model that had
both a PPC and an Intel/Windows processor built in? I knew two people
that had them, one a co-worker and the other an old boss at a different
company, and they both ended up having the Intel processor yanked out
as neither of them ended up using it.

I could swear it was an Apple product, not a clone.


[You're probably thinking about Apple's DOS Compatibility Card for the Centris and Quadra line... -Adam]


Marilyn

--On 6/17/2005 2:52 PM -0700 Marilyn Matty <mmattynyc.rr.com> wrote:

> Anyone remember about 10 or so years ago there was a Mac model that had
> both a PPC and an Intel/Windows processor built in?

> I could swear it was an Apple product, not a clone.

> [You're probably thinking about Apple's DOS Compatibility Card for the
> Centris and Quadra line... -Adam]

There were a handful of Power Mac models sold with PC (or DOS)
compatibility cards built in, including the Power Mac 6100/66 DOS
Compatible. I used one of those at work, initially as a way to sneak some
Mac access into an all-PC office (when I started working there in 1996 I
was given an OS/2 machine...)

According to the specification links at:

<http://www.info.apple.com/support/applespec.legacy/powermacintosh.html>

other models that shipped with compatibility cards were the 4400/200,
7200/120, and the 7300/180, as well as the non-US 7220/200.


Dave Scocca

On Jun 17, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Marilyn Matty wrote:

> Anyone remember about 10 or so years ago there was a Mac model that
> had
> both a PPC and an Intel/Windows processor built in? I knew two people
> that had them, one a co-worker and the other an old boss at a
> different
> company, and they both ended up having the Intel processor yanked out
> as neither of them ended up using it.
>
> I could swear it was an Apple product, not a clone.


Adam's right, Apple sold a DOS compatibility card for the Quadra 610
(68040) and Powermac 6100. Both were the same "pizza box" design, and
the card was a Nubus card.

I actually took one of the Quadra 610s to college with me, and used
the DOS card occasionally to run scientific programs. Was very
useful, both ran at the same time. The DOS card could have it's own
RAM chip on the NuBus card or share the Mac's memory. There was some
special key combination (Apple-Control-Power maybe?) that would
switch between the two.

Steve Cochran

On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:05 AM, Stephen A. Cochran wrote:
> Adam's right, Apple sold a DOS compatibility card for the Quadra 610
> (68040) and Powermac 6100. Both were the same "pizza box" design, and
> the card was a Nubus card.

Yep--I remember them. The PC card ran at about 60mhz, I believe (I
had a Power Mac 66Mhz with the card), had one slot for memory that had
some really low limit (32MB) you could have a core installation of
one and a reasonable installation of the other, but not be
comfortable in both. Apple also dropped support for the card after
Mac OS 8.1, so if you wanted to use it you had to stick with 8.1. It
was fun to switch between Windows and Mac, but not really all that
useful.
A good FAQ on the cards is here:
<http://homepage.mac.com/olivers/DOScard/DOScard.html>
macmaxbh

At 02:16 -0700 2005/06/15, Lewis Butler wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2005, at 16:13 , Brian Pearce wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand how a computer can "decline sharply in
> > usability" just because something new has come along.
>
>New software that won't run on it. New system versions that need...

No, that misses Brian's point. An old machine may be unable to
_increase_ its usability with new-platform-only software. But the
existence of new-platform-only software does not _decrease_ the
usability of a stable and reliable combination of old machine and old
software. If that combination meets the needs of a particular user's
workflow, and the new-platform-only software does not offer any
valuable new functionality, then there's no reason to buy new
hardware now.

For example, I currently operate three machines:
   Mac G4 (MDD, dual 1.25GHz)
     512MB main memory plus 20" Apple Cinema Display
     OS X 10.3.9 (Panther)
   PowerPC 9600 (originally dual 604e 200MHz, now single G3 250MHz),
     512 MB main memory plus dual monitors: 20" Apple, 13" Apple
     MacOS 8.1/8.6 (dual boot)
   80486 PC (33MHz), 15" generic monitor, MS-DOS 6.22

I've installed Virtual PC (DOS) on the G4 to run my critically
important legacy app from from the 486, but found that the virtual
DOS screen is only about 1/4 the size of the real DOS screen and the
keyboard interface is a real pain. Since that's a major DEcrease in
usability and efficiency (even though the app itself runs faster), I
continue to use the 486 regularly. If it ever dies and can't be
replaced, then I'll be forced to use VPC, but that won't be an
improvement over my present workflow.

Similarly, the combination of workflow tools which I run on the dual
monitors of the 9600 doesn't work as well on the G4. So I use the
9600 to maintain two Websites, manage my finances and handle the bulk
of my email.

On the other hand, the G4 is vastly superior to the 9600 for
Websurfing, for pre-processing incoming email on the Yahoo mail
server before downloading it to the 9600, for working with photos
from my digital camera, and for driving a flatbed & film scanner.
With the G4 and 9600 tied together by a local network, I have all the
flexibility I need and the best of both environments. (Incidentally,
the 486 is connected to the 9600 by sneakernet.)

Yes, my situation is unique. But there must be thousands more people
who could tell similarly unique stories, and who have similarly good
rationale for not replacing their present systems with something new.
For many of us, a new machine should be considered as an addition
rather than as a replacement (as it would be for thousands of other
people). We're in an entirely different category from those folks
who must earn their living by using cutting edge software.

As another correspondent wrote, "It's a very contextual decision."

Carl

(Sorry about the lag time in response to this subject, but I've been
away from home for weeks, with only sporadic and limited access to
email.)

At 13:24 -0700 06-07-2005, Carl S. Zimmerman wrote:
>At 02:16 -0700 2005/06/15, Lewis Butler wrote:
>> On 13 Jun 2005, at 16:13 , Brian Pearce wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I understand how a computer can "decline sharply in
>> > usability" just because something new has come along.
>>
>>New software that won't run on it. New system versions that need...
>
>No, that misses Brian's point. An old machine may be unable to
>_increase_ its usability with new-platform-only software. But the
>existence of new-platform-only software does not _decrease_ the
>usability of a stable and reliable combination of old machine and old
>software. If that combination meets the needs of a particular user's
>workflow, and the new-platform-only software does not offer any
>valuable new functionality, then there's no reason to buy new
>hardware now.
>
[cut]

I agree with Carl and the following quote.

>As another correspondent wrote, "It's a very contextual decision."

I use a network based on Appleshare, running fileserver on a SE/30.
Clients are:
        - G3 beige wih scanner for imageprocessing; Timbuktu for remote support
        - 7200/90 as (Webstar/FMPro) webserver
        - 7200/90 as webserver/mail client
        - Windows 95 (80486) for tax declarations and other old Windows/Dos
applications.

In this way I can help friends and other (old) people to continu to use
their old machines.
Old people, at least in my experience, have no money to upgrade to the
newer generation systems.

By the way, I'm just negotiating a trade in for my G3 Beige, because Skype
can not be used under Mac OS 10.2. And Installing 10.3 on a Beige G3 is not
so easy (I know it can be done)


Paul Chr. van Galen
<http://home.hccnet.nl/paul.van.galen>
Kennis intermediair

On 06 Jul 2005, at 14:24 , Carl S. Zimmerman wrote:
> But the existence of new-platform-only software does not _decrease_
> the
> usability of a stable and reliable combination of old machine and old
> software.

Well, that really depends on how you look at it, and what you're
doing. I say it does.

> If that combination meets the needs of a particular user's
> workflow, and the new-platform-only software does not offer any
> valuable new functionality, then there's no reason to buy new
> hardware now.

This is only true if your machine and your workflow is completely
isolated from the rest of the world. Let's say you have a machine
with ImportantSoftware 3.5 on it. New machines come out, and IS 4.0
is released. IS 4.0 will not run on your machine.

Has your machine DECREASED in usability? If you share files and data
with other IS users, and IS4 has features that you can't used in
IS3.x and IS3.x cannot read IS4 files, then yes, your computer has
decreased in usability. Things you could do before (share files with
Bob Uruncl down the hall, for example).

If the new website you're supposed to manage is using PNG graphics
and you're still on MyOS 3.0, you're going to have problems if there
are no browsers for that OS that support PNG graphics. Your machine
didn't change, but its usability did.

--
"Last night - you were unhinged. You were like some desperate,
howling demon. You frightened me. - Do it again!"

At 01:24 PM 07/06/2005 -0700, Carl S. Zimmerman wrote:
>But the existence of new-platform-only software does not _decrease_ the
>usability of a stable and reliable combination of old machine and old
>software. If that combination meets the needs of a particular user's workflow

This however must be evaluated in a changing environment. A system usually
decreases in usability as its environment evolves, when new software needed
to continue interacting with an evolving environment either won't run or
runs slowly.

The most obvious example is that a system which was totally adequate for
browsing the web eight years ago is unusable for that purpose today -- even
when retrieving the same information. The web has become more complex,
acquired characteristics that make it difficult for old systems to continue
using it.

Or perhaps a system is working on a LAN, and the office splits into
multiple locations, and each system has to run VPN software to connect. An
older system which cannot run the VPN is isolated. (Not a very good example
since there are boxes to do VPN, but that's the idea.)

It doesn't take a sophisticated network to have these difficulties. MS Word
4 worked pretty well on a Mac Plus. But when it became unable to read Word
files from the current version, its usability decreased, even when the net
was only sneakernet.

Edward
Art Works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org