Forums | MacLife

Shadowless wrote:

You know, I kinda like Apple where it is. The constant OS upgrades slipping a little compatibility also have the advantage of fixing issues and adding new features. For a college student or regular user or family computer, this kind of deal really isn't that bad. And with Macs now being able to run Windows apps, I don't even really care what the enterprises run, 'cause I'll probably be able to run it too.

Yeah, I can pretty much say I'm happy. And I'm running Tiger on a PowerBook G4.

Looking forward to upgrading to Snow Leopard when the time comes.

I wouldn't expect to be running Snow on that G4 if I were you.
The rumor is Snow will be Intel only, which I kinda doubt. I think support for late model G5s might be included but I think it is a certainty that Leopard is the end of the line for G4s.
Can't really complain about that really. Heck, my very upgraded G4 is 8 years old and running the current OS version, that's a damn long lifespan no matter how you cut it.

8 yrs isn't so bad, but remember that Apple was still selling G4 PowerBooks well into 2006, so it would still suck for some people.

Mr. T wrote:

8 yrs isn't so bad, but remember that Apple was still selling G4 PowerBooks well into 2006, so it would still suck for some people.

No, the PowerBooks and the iMacs were the first to be replaced with Intel counterparts, and that happened in early January at MWSF. The last G4 Macs were the iBooks, which according to MacTracker were discontinued in May 2006. The last PowerPC-based Macs were the PowerMacs and XServes, which were discontinued in August 2006 according to MacTracker.

Last edited by Macskeeball (2008-06-14 5:16 pm)

Mr. T wrote:

I'm going by Mac Tracker.  The 17" PowerBook was discontinued in May 2006.  New products aren't generally available at the time they're announced (at least not with Apple).

But your post raises an important point: there were a lot of PPC products in general hanging around in 06, so dropping PPC support entirely would be a bad idea.

And how long was Apple selling G4s in the refurb shop? Telling someone their $2500+ Powerbook has been EOLed in just three years.
Ouch.

Macskeeball wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

I think 10.1 was like $20 (to upgrade).  That's only because 10.0 shouldn't have existed.

That $20 was for shipping. If you showed up in a store like I did, it was a free upgrade.

Yeah, I remember that. They released it on a Saturday and my local Apple dealer wasn't open on Saturday at the time. I asked them about it and they opened for a couple of hours for me and a few other users that had asked about it. I was at work but my wife went by and picked up my copy. I installed it and that was the point when OS X became my full time OS.

Frank

Mr. T wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I can't say I am surprised but I rather think Apple is going after business users in a rather sideways way.
A BIG problem many business types have with Apple is that they have no reliable development roadmap and they drop compatibility so casually. The best example of that would be the way Apple broke Photoshop CS2 with 10.5 even after they made so much noise about stabilizing the API's after 10.4.
The new business oriented features are nice but I dont know that it will help Apple break into te enterprise when the improvements are accompanied by another big fat reminder of how Apple can't be trusted.
It's one thing to jerk consumers around by breaking everything in sight with every new point release but business takes a whole different angle on that sort of thing.
Not a lot of IT departments are going to be all that interested in joining Apples forced march into the future and beyond.
Apple's development philosophy is fundamentally contrary to the meeting enterprise requirements and I really don't see how Apple expects to make any inroads in that area without changing their ways at least a bit.

I agree.  Backwards compatibility is a huge deal in the enterprise arena.  Just look at all the flack Microsoft has taken for compatibility problems over the years, and then look at Apple's compatibility record -- it's atrocious by comparison.  If Apple were in Microsoft's shoes, they'd be toast.  As a consumer, I can kinda deal with it, but when you need to worry about keeping hundreds of clients happy, Apple is generally a poor decision -- especially when custom software enters the equation.

Except that businesses don't upgrade with every new release like we consumers do. Look at how many businesses are still using XP, which is 7 years old.

Having said that I don't think Apple is going after the business market just because they are adding Exchange support. This is just another tool to bring switchers over. First it was dual booting and many people have purchased Macs recently just because they knew they could run Windows software if they needed to. Well, add Exchange support and you have one less reason to boot into Windows.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

8 yrs isn't so bad, but remember that Apple was still selling G4 PowerBooks well into 2006, so it would still suck for some people.

What would suck about it? That they couldn't upgrade to an OS whose main function was to add multi-core support when their machine doesn't have multiple cores?

I mean seriously, that would be someone getting made just to get mad. If the focus of Snow Leopard (which may change) is not on user interface items then why would the G4 owner care?

To have an OS that is incredibly reliable and stable, while also having a much smaller footprint (I've got an 80GB HD with 4GB left on it, I'd love this upgrade). I don't know that I'd pay $130 for it, especially on my salary (oohrah military pay), but if it was below $100, it would certainly be cheaper than buying a bigger HD, and more effective too. Oh, and it would be going from .4 to .6, so I'd also be netting all the .5 upgrades in the process.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

8 yrs isn't so bad, but remember that Apple was still selling G4 PowerBooks well into 2006, so it would still suck for some people.

What would suck about it? That they couldn't upgrade to an OS whose main function was to add multi-core support when their machine doesn't have multiple cores?

I mean seriously, that would be someone getting made just to get mad. If the focus of Snow Leopard (which may change) is not on user interface items then why would the G4 owner care?

I suppose for much the same reason a Core Solo user would care. I don't recall Apple saying the main focus was multiple cores, but I do recall things like smaller footprint, Microsoft Exchange support, QuickTime X, improved Java Script performance, OpenCL (utilizing the GPU for general purpose tasks), compatibility with future software, and I'm sure a bunch of stuff we haven't heard of yet.  Sounds exciting!

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

8 yrs isn't so bad, but remember that Apple was still selling G4 PowerBooks well into 2006, so it would still suck for some people.

What would suck about it? That they couldn't upgrade to an OS whose main function was to add multi-core support when their machine doesn't have multiple cores?

I mean seriously, that would be someone getting made just to get mad. If the focus of Snow Leopard (which may change) is not on user interface items then why would the G4 owner care?

I suppose for much the same reason a Core Solo user would care. I don't recall Apple saying the main focus was multiple cores, but I do recall things like smaller footprint, Microsoft Exchange support, QuickTime X, improved Java Script performance, OpenCL (utilizing the GPU for general purpose tasks), compatibility with future software, and I'm sure a bunch of stuff we haven't heard of yet.  Sounds exciting!

The improved JavaScript support is going to come as part of the new WebKit which they could easily release for Leopard, as they have done in the past. They could also release certain technologies like the Exchange support and QuickTime X for Leopard. It is much easier for them to test and release certain apps for PowerPC than for them to test two entire Operating Systems. Also, many of the more recent PowerPC machines don't have the GPU capable of handling the improvements we are probably going to see.

frankly wrote:

Mr. T wrote:

frankly wrote:

What would suck about it? That they couldn't upgrade to an OS whose main function was to add multi-core support when their machine doesn't have multiple cores?

I mean seriously, that would be someone getting made just to get mad. If the focus of Snow Leopard (which may change) is not on user interface items then why would the G4 owner care?

I suppose for much the same reason a Core Solo user would care. I don't recall Apple saying the main focus was multiple cores, but I do recall things like smaller footprint, Microsoft Exchange support, QuickTime X, improved Java Script performance, OpenCL (utilizing the GPU for general purpose tasks), compatibility with future software, and I'm sure a bunch of stuff we haven't heard of yet.  Sounds exciting!

The improved JavaScript support is going to come as part of the new WebKit which they could easily release for Leopard, as they have done in the past. They could also release certain technologies like the Exchange support and QuickTime X for Leopard. It is much easier for them to test and release certain apps for PowerPC than for them to test two entire Operating Systems. Also, many of the more recent PowerPC machines don't have the GPU capable of handling the improvements we are probably going to see.

I don't want to lose the forrest for the trees by debating whether each individual feature will be helpful.  Yeah, they could release QTX and Exchange support and JavaScript for Leopard, but then all you'd have is Grand Central, 64 bit kernel, and OpenCL.  Grand Central would be useless to Core Solo owners, OpenCL would be of minimal benifit to minis and iMacs with integrated graphics, and the 64 bit kernel would be useless to everyone but Mac Pro and Power Mac owners.  And guess what?  It looks like the G5 will be left out in the cold, as well.  I don't think that Apple would release an update that would be of limited benefit to so many users.

btw, PowerBooks have had programmable GPUs since 2003, so OpenCL would be of even greater benefit to them than it would be to some Intel iMacs and all minis.  Application compatibility would benefit everyone.

I don't know what kind of release this is going to be, but the biggest complaint people have had against Vista is compatibility.  People sometimes describe the problem using words such as "travesty," when in fact, Microsoft has far exceeded Apple in this area, both in terms of legacy application support, and legacy hardware support.  Besides, where is it written that radical improvements requires ignoring half your user base?  MS is already using a 64-bit kernel, and thanks to WOW64, they didn't have to compromise compatibility to do it (one example).  I get the impression that you would rather Apple not make this update for PPC machines.

For the record, I do not believe that Apple will make the features you mentioned available in 10.5.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-17 2:01 pm)

frankly wrote:

Microsoft hasn't exceeded anyone. Vista runs horribly on some brand new hardware.

This is not true.

Do you really think that people buy their computers based on what it might do in the future or do you think they buy it based on what it can do now?

Both, actually.

If you want the latest and greatest thing then at some point you need to buy new hardware.

At some point, yes, but three years for high-end hardware is just too short.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-06-17 2:54 pm)

frankly wrote:

Do you really think that people buy their computers based on what it might do in the future or do you think they buy it based on what it can do now?

The thoughtful and intelligent consumer will evaluate a computer based on both present needs and likely needs that may develop over the expected life of the machine.
Now plenty of people do buy solely on the needs of today but that's shortsighted.