To be honest, I've got my MacBook and I love it but I'm feeling as though I can't exactly do much with it at the moment. I mainly used my last notebook (Dell Inspiron 5500) for intenet, word processing and music/sound production. I've found that concerning the audiosoftware industry the change over is either extremely slow, or non-existant. Why is this? Surely the top people in the business must have known that Apple were switching?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you feel the switch from PPC to Intel has been handled badly?
- Thread starter XP Defector
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think you could say it's been handled badly. There's a lot of non-Apple software that still needs to be UBd, but compared to previous Apple transitions (OS9 to OSX for one) this one has gone incredibly smoothly on the software front.
However, I jumped in just before Christmas and bought an iMac G5 for precisely these reasons. I didn't want to have to wait around for software to be updated again when I already own PowerPC versions.
However, I jumped in just before Christmas and bought an iMac G5 for precisely these reasons. I didn't want to have to wait around for software to be updated again when I already own PowerPC versions.
audio software will take a while to switch, as adobe is, purely because the programs have been optimised for several years for PPC chips, and now they have to completely re-write these programs for Intel.
I think it hasn't gone perfect, but considering the massive change which has occured, i think it has gone great.
I cant feel that my MacBook is being slowed down greatly, but thats probably because the last computer i used before it was an 800MHz iMac.
Apple have done a brilliant job of porting OS X to Intel. As jobs showed in the keynote, the writers converted the PPC version to Intel with no change to the useage of the OS. Through more than 86,000,000 lines of code, there were very few slip-ups.
I think it hasn't gone perfect, but considering the massive change which has occured, i think it has gone great.
I cant feel that my MacBook is being slowed down greatly, but thats probably because the last computer i used before it was an 800MHz iMac.
Apple have done a brilliant job of porting OS X to Intel. As jobs showed in the keynote, the writers converted the PPC version to Intel with no change to the useage of the OS. Through more than 86,000,000 lines of code, there were very few slip-ups.
Having purchased a macbook pro when they first came out, I think the switch has gone very well. The performance benefit in the portable line, which made some of the first switches over, made rosetta emulation almost a mute point, because the new processors were much better than what they replaced.
Even the move to MacPro, with some stuff still under emulation, gives good performance, and very seamless. We are pretty lucky in the fact that Rosetta is so well integrated, and runs very fast for what it is. Imagine if we had to boot or open a "PPC Classic" environment to run a PPC app?
We are getting faster machines that are generally cheaper for what they offer; Im happy.
Even the move to MacPro, with some stuff still under emulation, gives good performance, and very seamless. We are pretty lucky in the fact that Rosetta is so well integrated, and runs very fast for what it is. Imagine if we had to boot or open a "PPC Classic" environment to run a PPC app?
We are getting faster machines that are generally cheaper for what they offer; Im happy.
I think it has gone reasonably well. A year from now, we'll be thanking our lucky stars that Apple moved to intel. The new chips for next year are going to be even more impressive, and by then, most software will have been updated.
Big software like Adobe CS thats still running under rosetta is the only quibble people could possibly have.
I use Photoshop on my intel mini and it runs faster than my old 1 ghz ibook g4, so I'm happy. Rosetta isn't that bad. I think a lot of people overexaggerate how bad rosetta is. It's just that compared to the lightning fast native apps, they look slower. Most of the apps I use are native though, so I see a great computer for the most part.
Apple made enough bells and whistles on their new machines to make them appealing in spite of the third party software not being totally compatible. It has been a little annoying, but those problems are not long-term. In less than a year, Apple will be back on top as the best computers out there.
It really was a smart move for Apple to just get it over with and do the switch. Intels new chips are industry leading new technology. The PPC road was a dead end for sure. They made a fast g5 quad, but the heat generated was insane, and the enclosure was gigantic for such a lack of expandability. The G6 would have been twice as powerful for sure, but the enclosure would have been as big as a mini-fridge and need a mini-fridge to keep it cool.
Good move, Apple.
Big software like Adobe CS thats still running under rosetta is the only quibble people could possibly have.
I use Photoshop on my intel mini and it runs faster than my old 1 ghz ibook g4, so I'm happy. Rosetta isn't that bad. I think a lot of people overexaggerate how bad rosetta is. It's just that compared to the lightning fast native apps, they look slower. Most of the apps I use are native though, so I see a great computer for the most part.
Apple made enough bells and whistles on their new machines to make them appealing in spite of the third party software not being totally compatible. It has been a little annoying, but those problems are not long-term. In less than a year, Apple will be back on top as the best computers out there.
It really was a smart move for Apple to just get it over with and do the switch. Intels new chips are industry leading new technology. The PPC road was a dead end for sure. They made a fast g5 quad, but the heat generated was insane, and the enclosure was gigantic for such a lack of expandability. The G6 would have been twice as powerful for sure, but the enclosure would have been as big as a mini-fridge and need a mini-fridge to keep it cool.
Good move, Apple.
SheriffParker said:
Yeah I didn't really like PPC at the end of its life (G5) and the Intel move was brilliant, people see thats there is more than just the extra processor speed, Intel chips open up loads of possibilities for Mac users, just the whole Windows XP thing alone (boot camp or virtualization) is a HUGE benefit going from PPC to Intel, not to mention how PC-friendly Macs have become and how developers will port apps to Mac easier and faster (which means more apps will be ported).
I mean, going to Intel was way way more than just increasing processor speed, this one is a revolutionary change!
Move has been fairly smooth. apple has done pretty good in making transition quick. However, for those of us who cant afford to upgrade every 2-3 years their machines and software the intel move is a bit hard. If things go like they did during the switch to PPC software for old systems will evaporate fast. Here I was looking to buy a G5 and still use some of my classic apps. Now I'll probably go Intel, but have to do alot of software upgrading sooner, which is expensive.
Well, what exactly were you expecting from an Intel-based Mac? What I mean by this is Why did you switch to begin with?XP Defector said:
It is just that it seems odd to see someone who wasn't using PowerPC Macs but now uses Intel Macs saying they are disappointed with the transition... when they weren't actually making that transition (though you are making the Windows to Mac transition).
Honestly, if you really want to learn to do things on a Mac... lose the Dell for a couple weeks.
You sound like you are a pretty experienced Windows user, which means that in reality the switch to a Mac is going to be harder for you than the average Windows user. It is just a fact of life that the more people invest in learning a system, the harder it is to move to a system were they have to return to beginner status. And it isn't just Windows users I've seen this with, I have seen the same thing in people who were experts in the old Mac OS and in Linux when they moved to Mac OS X.
I learned this first hand when I started extensively using my first non-Mac platform (which happened to be NEXTSTEP). At the time I didn't really care much about computers, and basically I treated NeXTstations like black Macs. What I found was that by taking a couple steps back and learning how the system worked rather than trying to force the system to work the way I was used to, I was able to become as productive (if not more productive) on a NeXTstation as on a Mac.
First thing is to lose the safety net. If you can return to Windows rather than solving a problem on a Mac, then you'll never actually leave Windows.
For example, when I knew Apple was going to introduce a new OS, I decided to become an expert at that new system. To do this I first made OPENSTEP my only computing platform away from home, followed by doing the same with Rhapsody. In both cases I had them installed on an IBM ThinkPad. Now, in the case of Rhapsody, there was a version for Mac hardware... but if I had the ability to switch back to the Mac OS when I was having issues then I wouldn't learn how to resolve those issues on the new system. I ran Rhapsody on my ThinkPad (with no other OS to fall back on) so I could learn to really make that system work.
Give up the Dell for a couple weeks, buckle down and learn what makes a Mac great... and I mean really learn, and you'll soon see why switching (even to an Intel-based Mac) was a good idea.
As for the speed of this transition... it doesn't seem all that different from the move from 68k to PowerPC or from Mac OS 8/9 to Mac OS X. Intel-based Macs have only been around for about 8 months or so... Adobe waited almost a year and a half before releasing a Mac OS X native version of Photoshop after Mac OS X v10.0 was released.
And Adobe had demoed a working Carbon version of Photoshop less than two weeks after Apple had shown it to them back in the spring of 1998. How can the top developer for Macs who showed a working demo version of Photoshop running in Carbon be unable to release that software for another four years?
They could get it running for a demo in less than two weeks, but it took four years (and the release of two versions of Photoshop in the mean time, as the demo version was Photoshop 5.0) to finally get it out to the public.
The amount of time these people have depends on their feelings on updating their software. Adobe could have started with Carbon in Photoshop 5.5 and had Photoshop 6.0 native for Mac OS X (as it was released after Mac OS X), but they didn't. And there really wasn't any other software more important to the Mac platform than Photoshop at the time.
There really isn't any way to tell with these big companies.
XP Defector said:
Well - I think the transition is doing pretty well if you consider whats going on (ppc => x86). But it's by far not so good as Apple wants us (and it's shareholders) to believe.
In my case a transition to intel-mac is at the moment not possible cause the software of my daily use doesn't work at all - even under rossetta. I use statistic software like SPSS (will be available in summer 07 - and they miss their deadlines at least as good as microsoft
), lisrel (no date given) or jmp.So you see: your not alone waiting for the right software to be released as UB.
HF, Hans
PPC support
My only concern, at this point, is PPC support. I want to use my dual 2.7 G5 for at least another 3 years before I move on and I am concerned about Mac O.S. support for PPC.
What do you all think?
My only concern, at this point, is PPC support. I want to use my dual 2.7 G5 for at least another 3 years before I move on and I am concerned about Mac O.S. support for PPC.
What do you all think?
Well, consider this... NeXT Computer shut down hardware production on February 9th, 1993 (Black Tuesday). At the time NeXT had just shipped NEXTSTEP 3.0 the previous September (as I recall) and they had not started shipping NEXTSTEP 3.1 (the first version for Intel based PCs). Apple released the final version of OPENSTEP (4.2) in January of 1997... and it still ran on NeXT hardware. That is almost four years after the last NeXT system was built.QuantumLo0p said:
Further, Apple patched both NEXTSTEP 3.3 and OPENSTEP 4.2 in 1999, and for a while supplied NEXTSTEP 3.3 for free (cost of shipping) for anyone who owned NeXT hardware and supplied OPENSTEP 4.2 for free for anyone who owned NeXT hardware and owned OPENSTEP 4.0 or 4.1. And Apple continued to support OPENSTEP until around the summer of 2001 (they stopped selling OPENSTEP around the end of 1999 as I recall).
If that doesn't make you feel good about your system, how about this... my main work system is a 1997 Beige G3 and main browsing/writing/e-mail system is a 1998 PowerBook G3. Both of these systems are way beyond 3 years old!
In reply to RacerX
If you actually look at the Audio industry at the moment, there are so many problems with trying to run software and plugins because half of them haven't done Universal Binary's yet, hell I know people using UB's for Protools LE that doesn't work properly and they are supposed to have been sorted.
The idea about the transition when not owning a PowerPC before isn't based upon the end user, but the companies supplying the software. Currently the only guarantee in running audio software and plugins on a Mac is using a G5, but seen as though in not so long these will be outdated, it makes the current period for buying a Mac for audio enthusiasts and sound engineers quite tricky. Hell, I'm a PC user looking to Mac's, but no way will I be getting one for my main audio computer until virtually every company is using UB's, so therefore my next audio computer? A PC, because everything I want to install will work.
You can argue this as much as you want, but the audio industry has been caught on the backfoot by the Intel change over, and its going to be a good couple of years before everything is truly sorted. Thats 2 years of business to budding Sound Engineers down the drain.
None of this is Apple's fault mind you, it just makes things harder for us who want to record.
If you actually look at the Audio industry at the moment, there are so many problems with trying to run software and plugins because half of them haven't done Universal Binary's yet, hell I know people using UB's for Protools LE that doesn't work properly and they are supposed to have been sorted.
The idea about the transition when not owning a PowerPC before isn't based upon the end user, but the companies supplying the software. Currently the only guarantee in running audio software and plugins on a Mac is using a G5, but seen as though in not so long these will be outdated, it makes the current period for buying a Mac for audio enthusiasts and sound engineers quite tricky. Hell, I'm a PC user looking to Mac's, but no way will I be getting one for my main audio computer until virtually every company is using UB's, so therefore my next audio computer? A PC, because everything I want to install will work.
You can argue this as much as you want, but the audio industry has been caught on the backfoot by the Intel change over, and its going to be a good couple of years before everything is truly sorted. Thats 2 years of business to budding Sound Engineers down the drain.
None of this is Apple's fault mind you, it just makes things harder for us who want to record.
I do think intel is one of the best things Apple has done in a long time.. my intel Mac Mini(IE the cheapest Mac out) is SO much faster then my Rev A G5 iMac(which when i bought it cost be 2K)
I didn't say you were arguing, I said you COULD argue this, but anyway.
The G5 isn't outdated by any stretch of the imagination to most people, but in the audio industry, everything is processor intensive, and lo and behold the new Mac's have vastly superior ones in it. Given that G5's are still being sold on the Apple store for the same price (at least here in the UK) as the new Intel based Macs. Now when you are wanting to have a full guarantee and warranty in a business environment, second hand isn't much of an option. Yet, for the same (or even less in some cases) price, the Intel Mac's are being sold.
Isn't that going to make people think who buy these machines, I'm paying more for a machine which isn't as good as what I could get for the price, yet I can't buy a new one because half of what I need is incompatible? It sure would have that effect on me. The same way seeing a 300GB drive go for £54, but you have IDE in your PC, not SATA. Lets hypothetically say that its going to cost £54 in IDE for a 160GB drive (I know thats not the case). If you had SATA, you would instantly go for the 300GB drive, but you don't, due to incompatibility, so you are paying the same price for something which is not as good. Maybe not the best metaphor in the world I admit, but its a similar mindset of "If only these worked, then for the same price I could get so much better".
Also I think you are missing the point of the first post. He isn't saying he's got problems changing over. He is saying that the changeover is causing problems because half of the software needed to be used just isn't available. If I want the Waves Diamond plugins bundle, and say its not in UB, I sure as hell aint gonna be happy with the Digidesign stock plugins, just because thats whats available.
The G5 isn't outdated by any stretch of the imagination to most people, but in the audio industry, everything is processor intensive, and lo and behold the new Mac's have vastly superior ones in it. Given that G5's are still being sold on the Apple store for the same price (at least here in the UK) as the new Intel based Macs. Now when you are wanting to have a full guarantee and warranty in a business environment, second hand isn't much of an option. Yet, for the same (or even less in some cases) price, the Intel Mac's are being sold.
Isn't that going to make people think who buy these machines, I'm paying more for a machine which isn't as good as what I could get for the price, yet I can't buy a new one because half of what I need is incompatible? It sure would have that effect on me. The same way seeing a 300GB drive go for £54, but you have IDE in your PC, not SATA. Lets hypothetically say that its going to cost £54 in IDE for a 160GB drive (I know thats not the case). If you had SATA, you would instantly go for the 300GB drive, but you don't, due to incompatibility, so you are paying the same price for something which is not as good. Maybe not the best metaphor in the world I admit, but its a similar mindset of "If only these worked, then for the same price I could get so much better".
Also I think you are missing the point of the first post. He isn't saying he's got problems changing over. He is saying that the changeover is causing problems because half of the software needed to be used just isn't available. If I want the Waves Diamond plugins bundle, and say its not in UB, I sure as hell aint gonna be happy with the Digidesign stock plugins, just because thats whats available.
jaxstate said:
I also have a 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro, from before the speed bump... meaning I have the upgraded videocard, etc. I usually get 1-2 bounces before the programs open... But, generally, more bounces are not unusual. Programs can't just open in the blink of an eye. If you're that concerned, there's a simple fix in buying more RAM.
I never owned a PPC Mac, and I am a recent switcher. I have, however, had experiences with PPC Macs and I must say I am thrilled with the way the transition has gone. I have had no problems with my Mac and will probably never own a Windows-based computer ever again.