Awkward aspects of the Intel transition

On 2/6/06 09:04, "Nick Pappas" <ngpappasnii.net> wrote:

> If I buy Macs because I do intensive graphics, I should wait at least
> a year to buy a new Mac, because the Adobe Creative suite actually
> performs worse on the new Intel chips (until the applications get
> re-coded and released in 2007).

Well yes. Just like 68K applications didn't do all that well on the first
generation PPC Macs, and some wouldn't run at all. If you need best
performance, you need to wait.

>
> If I want to keep my internal system support simple, I should stay
> away from the new Macs because Apple Remote Desktop doesn't work with
> them. And firewire disks have to be initialized to work with either a
> Mac format or the non-Mac format needed for the newer machines. So I
> can't just set up a single firewire boot disk to carry around to
> support various systems. Couldn't do that anyway, because the OS is
> different for each type of chip and the same OS image won't boot. (I
> may not have this perfectly right, so please don't pick nits unless
> they really matter).

That's correct, but again, that's not surprising, since the Intel macs are
supported by an OS Update, not a full universal OS. Leopard will take care
of the imaging issue.

>
> OK, so if I own a single Mac, and am thinking of replacing it, I
> don't care what chip is in it (as long as I don't use CS).
>
> But if I do use CS, or have a multi-system environment, I am asking
> for trouble with a mixed system environment.

Well, yes.

>
> Glad I don't need to buy any Macs for a while. I think I'll sit on
> the sidelines and watch this mess work itself out for the next year
> or two. It looks like they may not have thought this strategy through.
>
> It's a shame too, because Apple system sales seemed to be taking off.

No, it makes perfect sense. They didn't do the towers yet, they didn't do
the lower end models yet, they didn't do all the laptops yet. They did the
iMac and one model of PowerBook. This way, people can actually test *real*
hardware, (The DTK kits were SO not final form hardware, and only available
to ADC members), in their environment, and do so before all the hardware has
moved over, so they can make a planned, informed decision. They can see how
the applications they need to use will perform under rosetta, and also test
universal applications as they become available.

The sales perhaps being soft is a given, and Apple both planned for, and has
given guidance about this.

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

On Feb 6, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Nick Pappas wrote:

> Is Apple shooting itself in the foot?
>
>
and Adam commented:
> [No, just dealing with an awkward transition that there's no good
> solution to at the moment. If the Intel-based Power Mac
> replacements come out and can run Adobe's CS apps as fast as
> today's Power Mac G5s, even in Rosetta, then it will be a non-
> issue. Until people who need the utmost performance can get it with
> the apps they use, they'll hold off on buying new Macs, as well
> they should. Unless of course a new Mac is needed TODAY, at which
> point it should be purchased today. -Adam]
>
>
> If I buy Macs because I do intensive graphics, I should wait at least
> a year to buy a new Mac, because the Adobe Creative suite actually
> performs worse on the new Intel chips (until the applications get
> re-coded and released in 2007).

Well, I do make a living with Adobe CS, and also need Classic for my
obsolete accounting software, so I ordered a refurbished PB G4 from
Apple to fill the gap until the IntelMacs get things worked out. I
had held off buying a new PB (due last year) to see what the new ones
were like, and having seen the new vision, I'll stay with the old
models for another 2 years or so ;-(

Roger
Roger Henriques
rdh at rhen dot com

On Feb 6, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Nick Pappas wrote:

> Glad I don't need to buy any Macs for a while. I think I'll sit on
> the sidelines and watch this mess work itself out for the next year
> or two. It looks like they may not have thought this strategy through.
>
> It's a shame too, because Apple system sales seemed to be taking off.

I wouldn't count Apple out just yet. Their success rate with major
transitions has a pretty good track record.

Move from System 7 to 9
Move from CICS to RISC
Move from System 9 to X
Move from 32 bit to 64 bit
Move from PowerPC to Intel????

Sure there are bumps along the way, but overall very positive. No
other operating system/company has been able to make such large
platform changes and managed to stay in business. And when you look
at the Microsoft Windows mess and the long delay of Longhorn/Vista,
you really begin to appreciate the "Magic" of Apple.

That said, it has always been a long standing recommendation on any
hardware or software upgrade; Don't buy the 1.0 release, unless you
have to and if you have to, do it and don't look back. Everything
will catch up. I know my next purchase will be an Intel based Mac.

--
Jesse

At 7:04 AM -0800 2006/02/06, Nick Pappas wrote:

>If I want to keep my internal system support simple, I should stay
>away from the new Macs because Apple Remote Desktop doesn't work with
>them. And firewire disks have to be initialized to work with either a

        ARD2 works for me on a 17" Intel iMac, and worked well on a
DTS too. What's your issue?

>But if I do use CS, or have a multi-system environment, I am asking
>for trouble with a mixed system environment.

        So wait. For sizable or already-mixed environments, this is
probably a wash, as Macs will be closer to the existing Windows gear,
which is as good as the (temporary) Mac/Mac divergence is bad.

>Glad I don't need to buy any Macs for a while. I think I'll sit on
>the sidelines and watch this mess work itself out for the next year
>or two. It looks like they may not have thought this strategy through.

        I'm sure they did. This is the cost of a radical switch, and
it looks to me like Apple's doing as good a job as possible -- better
than I expected.

        If Adobe & MS announced CS & Office 2006 were both coming out
by end-of-year, things would be better, but Apple will survive the
wait.


                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

On 7/2/2006 4:04 AM, "Nick Pappas" <ngpappasnii.net> spake thus:

> Glad I don't need to buy any Macs for a while. I think I'll sit on
> the sidelines and watch this mess work itself out for the next year
> or two. It looks like they may not have thought this strategy through.

It's not really any different from when they switched to PowerPC. The same
arguments were made, and on top of that no-one thought that it could be
pulled off at all. Apple's already done this once before, which is once more
than most other companies. They've had machines in the hands of developers
for months, and this transition is going to be a *lot* less complex for
developers than the shift from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.

I think Apple's done a very good job of advance warning the corporate buyers
of what the state of affairs is. They'll just factor in the change and
adjust their purchasing strategy accordingly. If they need to replace
machines they'll buy now. If not, they'll wait.

--
Nigel Stanger, Dunedin, NEW ZEALAND.
http://public.xdi.org/=nigel.stanger

On Feb 6, 2006, at 6:02 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> On 2/6/06 09:04, "Nick Pappas" <ngpappasnii.net> wrote:
>
>> If I buy Macs because I do intensive graphics, I should wait at least
>> a year to buy a new Mac, because the Adobe Creative suite actually
>> performs worse on the new Intel chips (until the applications get
>> re-coded and released in 2007).
>
> Well yes. Just like 68K applications didn't do all that well on the
> first
> generation PPC Macs, and some wouldn't run at all. If you need best
> performance, you need to wait.

There's one major difference between this transition and the 68k ->
PPC transition (not even considering byte ordering issues).

When we switched from 68k, it was possible to combine 68K & PowerPC
code in a single application or call plug-ins in one architecture
from the other. With the Intel transition, that isn't the case. It
isn't possible for a native application to use non-native plugins. In
other words, even when Adobe apps go native, if you depend on third
party plugins or filters, you're out of luck if they also don't go
native.

You can manage Intel-based Macintosh computers from Apple Remote Desktop 2.2 administration software running on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers. However, the Apple Remote Desktop 2.2 administration software does not run on Intel-based Macintosh computers.

Intel-based Mac OS X 10.4.4 computers include a version of ARD 2.2 specifically designed to provide native support as an ARD client only. Though Rosetta allows most existing Mac OS X applications to run on Intel-based Macintosh computers, such a configuration is not intended or supported for use with any version of the Apple Remote Desktop administration application.

<x-sigsep>

-- 

</x-sigsep>

> There's one major difference between this transition and the 68k ->
> PPC transition (not even considering byte ordering issues).
>
> When we switched from 68k, it was possible to combine 68K & PowerPC
> code in a single application or call plug-ins in one architecture
> from the other. With the Intel transition, that isn't the case. It
> isn't possible for a native application to use non-native plugins.

This completely depends on the plug-in architecture used, of course.
If the plug-in acts as a separate process (communicating via sockets,
AppleScript, or any number of ways) then there's no reason why it
wouldn't work. If the plug-in/application is implemented in a cross-
platform language (e.g. Java, Python), then there's no reason why it
wouldn't work. If the plug-in uses an API provided by the
application (e.g. the scripting language of Poser, UnrealScript in
the Unreal games, Firefox plug-ins) then it should be able to work.

=Tony.Meyer

On 07 Feb 2006, at 22:23 , Mike Cohen wrote:
> When we switched from 68k, it was possible to combine 68K & PowerPC
> code in a single application or call plug-ins in one architecture
> from the other. With the Intel transition, that isn't the case.

In fact it IS the case. The example that was specifically provided was

You're running Safari on your Intel Mac and it needs to load a page
that requires a PPC plugin. Safari can use it's Universal Binary to
launch that window with the PPC code and load that plugin.

> In other words, even when Adobe apps go native, if you depend on third
> party plugins or filters, you're out of luck if they also don't go
> native.

That's going to depend on what Adobe does. I expect they will do
exactly what you said, but that is not a limitation of the OS or the
Universal file format, but a limitation imposed by the vendor.

On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Google Kreme wrote:

> On 07 Feb 2006, at 22:23 , Mike Cohen wrote:
>> When we switched from 68k, it was possible to combine 68K & PowerPC
>> code in a single application or call plug-ins in one architecture
>> from the other. With the Intel transition, that isn't the case.
>
> In fact it IS the case. The example that was specifically provided
> was

I believe you need to explicitly run Safari in Rosetta in that case
(using the option in the Get Info window). I haven't tried it,
although I'm using my Intel iMac now, since I don't have any PPC
plugins to try.

I ran into that problem attempting to run SourceOffsite, which is non-
native:

        [mike: 655] $ sos
        dyld: Library not loaded: /opt/local/lib/libexpat.0.dylib
        Referenced from: /usr/local/bin/sos
        Reason: no suitable image found. Did find:
        /opt/local/lib/libexpat.0.dylib: mach-o, but wrong architecture
        Trace/BPT trap

I was able to work around it by installing separate PPC libraries and
using DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH to refer to them.

It is now about 18 months now since the last post in this thread and I'm only now starting to move the production system for our company towards an Intel Mac regime.

What has staggered me is that so much software needs so many tweaks and updates before it will work reliably on an Intel Mac Mini.

Here are two instances:

1. Illustrator CS2 with ALL the latest updates in place will not open as it asks for a "BRS Pencil Tool plugin." A search of the Adobe website turns up the simple advice of trashing the preferences file.

2. We needed to update the driver for an Epson Scanner. All the files that were specified for OS X, and which we downloaded from the local Epson site had .exe extensions. Of course none were usable. Fortunately a visit to their North American site produced a genuine .dmg file that we could use.

Where would we be without an internet connection and a heavy measure of resourcefulness to keep on looking for the necessary fixes?

I was hoping that the Mother Ship would by now have had sufficient clout to have coerced, or at least encouraged, all of the major software suppliers to be a bit more proactive in helping to make this transition just as seamless as the Rosetta emulation itself.

Tomorrow is another day . . . I just wonder what next will we uncover?

Cheers,

John Wolff

Hamilton, New Zealand