In your opinion, how has the Intel transition gone?

[Thank The Cheese]

It's been around a year and a half since Apple announced they would be switching to Intel processors. In the beginning there was a lot of apprehension, but as time has gone more have found this an exciting new era of the Macintosh.

How do you think it has gone?

I believe it has been a smooth transition -- rosetta has worked far better than I though it would -- and apart from a couple stubborn applications not making the switch, developers and consumers alike have embraced the change.

Having said that, I think Apple has huge issues with quality control; a direct result of the success of their Intel macs. My MacBook Pro has not suffered swollen batteries or random shut downs, but I hear the whine every day, and my optical drive has failed for the second time in 3 months and will need replacement.

I am glad they switched to Intel because of the new possibilities it has opened up, but I have to admit, as much as I love my MBP, it has to be the most negative Mac experience I've had since my Mac Classic. (EDIT: not suggesting my Mac Classic was a bad experience. Actually, it's still going strong, even after being dropped down the stairs in the mid 90s!)

[jpb5151]

I've seen Apple reluctantly discard their proprietary hardware piece by piece, to the point where Apples were pretty much just PCs with a different processor and OS. It's good to see that they've finally made it. Also funny to see how all of a sudden the benchmarks sort of point the other direction...

wrt their transition they've done very well, and clearly thought about many things. With this MacBook 1.83 I can use (hate to but need to) ms office X through LaTeX, and the Rosetta slowdowns with PPC apps aren't bad at all. No hardware problems, no heat problems since I told Energy Saver to be stingy, and the entire system seems to be very coherent. If I didn't know that an Intel chip were inside, I probably would have just thought that it was somehow a dual-chip PPC system. Very nicely done by Apple.

[Mikuro]

Well, it's gone better than I had imagined, but there are still downsides. Even today, the Power Mac G5 does not have a hands-down superior replacement. And that's not likely to change for another year or so when more apps are native.

As a desktop user, I'm still thinking "WHY???" Even with native apps, the speed of the Mac Pro is not much better than you would expect from a year's evolution of the G5.

You have to ask yourself, where would the PPC be now if Apple had not switched? We can assume we would have had faster G5s (possibly faster than the current Core 2 Duos). We probably also would have had dual-core G4s suitable for notebooks (the last roadmap I saw said they would be ready early this year, but I assume the project was stopped or at least slowed after Apple's switch announcement). Compare the Intel machines now to the PPC machines we probably would have had, and...I'm still not sure it was worth it. Of course, Apple knew what was in store for the PPC better than I ever will, I'll grant that.

I do expect the switch to have "paid for itself" in the next year or so. In the meantime, for laptop and Mini users, I'm pretty sure the Intel offerings beat what PPC systems we might have had by enough to justify it, even though they don't run PPC apps as well.

And I agree with the quality control statement. Something is seriously wrong there, and it's hurting Apple reputation.

[Lt Major Burns]

people have seemed to forgotten that the iBooks were some of the worst for things going inherently wrong.

iBook owners, hands up if you're still on your first logic board? or your first battery for that matter?

[fryke]

I don't think this has anything to do with this thread, Lt.? ;) ... Back to topic: I'm _very_ content with how this transition is going. If I think back to the older transitions (68K -> PowerPC, classic Mac OS -> Mac OS X), it's certainly been the smoothest yet. In some aspects, it's very similar to the former, the main difference being that when Macs got PPCs, the OS wasn't PPC clean for a long time (AFAIK Mac OS 9.2.2 _still_ isn't completely), whereas the operating system _here_ was quite intel-clean from the beginning in January 2006, when Apple released the first intel Mac.

I agree that the highest end PowerMac G5 probably still is the better machine than the highest end Mac Pro for certain tasks (involving non-universal applications, of course), but if we look at how things were going, it just didn't make sense for Apple to stay PPC. (Besides: Why not just wait things out 'til the software's universal? Your "old" quad G5 certainly still works quite fine?) Where PPC would be now? We'd probably have quad G5s running at 2.7 or 2.8 GHz, whereas the mobile Macs would use something like 1.83 GHz PowerPC G4+ processors, which would be slow as molasses compared to the current crop of mobile Macs.

Apple has done a seriously good job marketing the new machines and the transition in my opinion. They also managed _not_ to have every kiddie illegally installing Tiger on their vanilla PCs. Yes there were hacks that made one or the other build run - and maybe there _will_ be a day where this is going to be easy, but looking back: I expected this to happen very quickly when I first saw a PC boot the developer build(s). Good job as well, Apple.

Rosetta has really wowed me, so far. I remember running applications in Classic. Wow: *THAT* was ugly. It made me switch to a text-only application for all my HTML-coding (which has been a good thing, I've learned quite a bit then), because Golive was slow as molasses. Sure, Rosetta sometimes chokes a little and get slow as well, but nothing like how ugly and slow Classic was! The apps look and feel fine - apart from some performance issues that could only be expected. Very good job: And it keeps getting better. According to tests, Rosetta performance for some applications like Office and Adobe apps have increased up to 25% in the 10.4.8 update that was just released! Wow!

Of course there are still open questions. And we can always say "but PPC was the better architecture" or something like that. It just doesn't matter anymore. I personally wish that Apple would open up some more, add AMD processors to the game and let the _customer_ decide which exact processor(s) should go into his system. I'd also want Apple to be ready with new machines when new processors are available. Or that they'd update the old ones with the new processors as soon as those are available where possible. (We know that you can upgrade the oldest Mac mini with a Core solo processor to a Core 2 Duo processor with not much effort, so this is _not_ a technical issue, but rather Apple's stubbornness and unwillingness to let us have what we want at _our_ timing.)

Sorry for the very long post, but there's even more, of course. Windows. Yeah, we don't need it etc., but even for testing webpages in IE 5.5/6/7 and some other browsers on Windows, Parallels+WinXP is a *MUCH* nicer solution than VirtualPC ever was. Having such things run at native speeds sure is a good thing. Some might say that BootCamp's even better, but I don't really need that - and I'm glad that I don't.

So overall: Yes, this transition has been the best yet - compared to the two older ones I very clearly recall. And I'm not sure how they could have been much better. (Well, Adobe CS 3 would have been nice.)

[Lt Major Burns]

what major apps are left? the only ones i can think of are the Adobe suite of stuff. that and office, but office is fine under rosetta...

[Viro]

I think it's a real shame. The switch was announced over a year ago, and yet there are many non-Universal applications exist. These aren't your small time programs either, but ones put out by the large companies.

Of the software I use daily, I'm highly pissed off that Matlab and Office still aren't universal binaries. Matlab has no excuse, as guys like Mathematica took 5+ hours to do the port. MS Office is rather unbearable to use on a Intel Macbook. Sure, it works for small documents, but once you start getting to 20+ pages, you'll notice lag.

All in all, while the commercial software has taken time to become Universal, I've been forced to check out the alternatives! As a result, I've ditched Matlab (we'll release a universal binary in 2006. No wait, 2nd half of 2006. Scratch that, early 2007) and gone to R which is not only free, but is universal, and has a nice environment to boot. For my word processing needs, I've checked out Mellel, Nisus Writer Express and Mariner. Suffice to say, I'm quite satisfied with the shareware apps produced by small software houses.

Over all, the intel switch was a hard one for me. Most of my apps aren't universal yet, and that's made me look at alternatives. This can only be a good thing for the Mac shareware writers.

[bluedevils]

Only to hijack this momentarily, but how does open office stack up as an office replacement?

I'm relatively new to mac so I can't comment on the transition.

[fryke]

i guess this really _is_ the wrong thread for it. short answers would lead to long discussions. why not use a thread _about_ office replacements? you'd find them in Mac OS X System & Software.

[ebykm]

PPC, Intel, AMD or SPARC I wish apple paid attention to the build quality of hardware and OS like they did in those beige era. I had more hardware problems with el cheapo new world hardware than old word.

Also the frequent software/security updates are annoying.

[Lt Major Burns]

Old World had far more problems than new world (a 15-year old OS more than just prone to crashing, and a business model inspired by Hari-Kiri), and on the whole, new macs are just about the best-made computers in the world. put a mac tower, crafted out of precision metals, next to a dell and it's immediately clear which one is made better. same goes for the notebooks.

frequent software updates are one of the reasons i love macs - 10.4.8 made everything noticably faster, and also tweaked the fans on my g5 to run more quietly, while also adding support for my new printer and the mobile phone i'm getting next month.

[ebykm]

a 15-year old OS more than just prone to crashing,

i'm not talking about old OS, but build quality of hardware esp the SCSI based Mac's, we still have several of em running well without hardware problems. All i want is super hardware without issues.

as for new world macs we had logicboard, storage drive even display card problems.

put a mac tower, crafted out of precision metals, next to a dell and it's immediately clear which one is made better.

You consider Dell's build quality state of the art ? :eek:

frequent software updates are one of the reasons i love macs - 10.4.8

well adding new features, support for new devices and performance tweeks are always welcome as loong as it won't break certain functions. But frequent Security patches indicate not so secure OS, much like winduus. Just my personal opinion.

[fryke]

First: Please don't actively misunderstand people. You know well he meant that Apple's hardware was state of the art, not Dell's. I agree, though, we're far from the build quality of a PowerMac 7600 today. On the other hand, it's much easier to get at things on a Mac Pro than on a PowerMac 8100/8200/8500 etc. Times have changed. A PowerMac 8500 set you back about three times the price of a Mac Pro. SCSI was expensive. And yes it _was_ better quality, but on first glance, it just didn't make much sense anymore, because people out there didn't _know_ it was far better. IDE worked "as well" and was fast enough, too.

Second: If you think frequent security updates point to a not-so-secure OS, then stay with beige Macs and OS 8.6.1. It's the best. ;) (Unimplemented trap.) Times change, though. To think that your software is inherently safe would be a wrong assumption, simpy put. All software has bugs. I'm glad Apple's not afraid of things like this Month Of Apple Bugs and rather invites people to tell them about the bugs. And then Apple fixes them. I'd say that's what I want.

[chevy]

The transition was just perfect.

[ebykm]

I agree, though, we're far from the build quality of a PowerMac 7600 today. ........ SCSI was expensive. And yes it _was_ better quality, but on first glance, it just didn't make much sense anymore, because people out there didn't _know_ it was far better.

They better put all those superior things, when you charge twice the price. In US, mac's are cheaper, elsewhere they cost twice the price of kick ass system. And elseware people often ask why mac's are expensive, those beige days we could answer, SCSI, PPC processor, state of the art hardware, multiple displays, etc..... also when you put SCSI cards and drives, PC's would cost more than a mac.

But now ?, OS X, sexy looking design and nothing more........ well some folks reply they're running it on their $400 PC. ::evil::

then stay with beige Macs and OS 8.6.1. It's the best. ;)

no System 7.5.5 :D

[fryke]

"twice the price of kick ass system" ...? I wouldn't know about that. While I think the Mac Pro is not exactly the cheapest on the block, I _also_ think that that hardware is actually nice. Easily upgradable, perfectly done. And the cheaper stuff _is_ less expensive as well. I haven't seen a better AIO than the iMac for a similar price, the MacBooks are doing great (although _there_ Apple _should_ put quality checks first...) and the Mac mini could do with a 100 dollar rebate, but still isn't that expensive for a nicely done, rather mini, computer.

[ebykm]

"twice the price of kick ass system" ...?
one could custom build @ half the price of an imac (£800 - 2.0 ghz 17") with top quality components( but no legal os x). While I think the Mac Pro is not exactly the cheapest on the block when u custom build (using tyan or supermicro mobo) or buy a dell, the table turns upside down, mac pro being the cheapest :).

I haven't seen a better AIO than the iMac for a similar price

True, there isn't any.

MacBooks are doing great (although _there_ Apple _should_ put quality checks first...)

ya, macbook prices could have been more competitive(sub $800).

[ebykm]

well, i think apple have done better than last time (68k->PPC)...... and who knows they might even switch to a better processor (AMD or even another RISC chip) without even announcing. :) hint: Universal Binary...... who knows what it is capable of.

[Lt Major Burns]

there are no RISC chips in development, or even for future development that are at all competitive as a platform at the moment, or even in the future fr apple 'switch back'. it would also be very bad business, as it would indicate no thought or direction from above.

and i really can't see amd being competetive with intel for a few years yet, AMD were only the best because intel had become complacent, as many market leading companies do become. fortunately, they got scared and started to think properly again.

[chevy]

...
But now ?, OS X, sexy looking design and nothing more........ well some folks reply they're running it on their $400 PC. ::evil::
...

So you're speaking about desktop. True, Apple doesn't have a low cost desktop solution. The Mac mini is nice but not lowest cost... and it's becoming older. The lowest end iMac is nice too but is not lowest cost neither. And for that type of young boy machines, flexibility is an asset.

Now is this a market where one can really make money ?

Apple is very strong in the portable market, and has the best integrated desktop solution (my iMac 24" is very competitive in price and performance).

[Sunnz]

Not sure if my comments are useful, since I have only been start using the Mac platform since Apple used Intel chips.

I do the usual web surfing stuff at home and programming at school; the CDs had everything I needed for programming (GCC, Java, X). I had to write some documents as well (though not with MS Office, I ditched it after the several days.)

For me, I didn't have to cares what chip it is running, almost everything I needed has gone universal, with Rosttesa took care of the rest: Ada compiler, Fireworks. I just wish that the GNAT Ada Compiler can go universal soon so that I can actually create universal binary in Ada... but not huge problem.

P.S. I actually wanted to get an iBook in mid 2005... but they still haven't got anything better than G4 for laptops at that time, so I got a HP instead... I waited for something better, in my mind I was thinking perhaps some kind of G6 chip that has better performance per watt that goes into a laptop... then the Intel MacBook came out at 2006.

So I think the Intel transition is much needed, especially for the laptop market... I guess the G4 was good at its first release, but when you talk about 2006, it _has_ come with a better chip.

[fryke]

You're exactly right, Sunnz, I'd say. It was mainly the notebooks where the issue of performance/watt was worst and most noticeable. Of course, in the past we've seen other transitions. I'd say the intel one was the easiest by _far_. I just notice that I'm repeating myself already. (You know, that *VERY* long post by me above...)

ebykm: I think the whole subject of hardware having been much better in the (long gone) past does _not_ really have to do with this PPC2intel transition. I'd say it's worth its own thread even. The quality downward-spiral in my opinion started with the Performas of the PPC time, the clones back then in combination with the switch to PowerPC from 68K, when the OS just wasn't ready for that jump. But it's an overall "computer market" thing, really. Back then, Apple took more time to carefully pick and choose which suppliers, which technologies to use. Part of why Macs were incompatible with generic PC hardware was that Apple made _better_, though incompatible, choices. However: This didn't exactly _work_ very well for them. Apple could've died back then! People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality. Computers had become "normal" business. So Apple had to react. And they did. The iMac was inexpensive AND good at the same time. No SCSI, yep, but it wasn't for the SCSI-wanting crowd, anyway. No LocalTalk, no Serial Ports - but USB. Apple did the right thing back then. Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty. (That's a saying in German, not sure if it exists in English. To die in beauty, an attack on someone's failure to see that change is needed, maybe even at the cost of some once-important ideals.)

[ebykm]

...... even in the future fr apple 'switch back'. it would also be very bad business, as it would indicate no thought or direction from above.

I don't think so, apple used make fun of intel processors in their ads. It's all about making use of the best technology at the right time. If someone comesup with a better processor and other technology, i don't see any reason for not utilising it.


...People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality.

what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price.(eg. 17" 2.0 ghz imac costs, £800 in uk, dubai, singapore and malasia. but other companies are selling their products almost same or better than U.S prices here, except in uk)

[Ferdinand]

Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty.

In other words you'd rather have a "not-so-great-quality" MacBook than no Mac or Apple product at all. And about this saying, maybe if you write it again in German, it might make more sense (at least to those who speak German, which I know at least a dozen exist).

EDIT: Oh, and what this thread is really about:

Yes, I think the transition from Intel to PPC went really well, considering it was a lot faster than anyone expected. Many apps arent universal yet, I know, but most are, and for those who arent, well... what do you think Rosetta is for? I think why most of the Adobe/Macromedia stuff isnt universal yet is also because they never expected it that fast, so they concentrated about other stuff (bug fixes, CS3), but its actually not an excuse since in 2005 they said they were going to... I just realized that I'm kind of speaking against myself here! Just trying to say, all in all, the transition PPC 2 Intel went great.

[fryke]

"in Schönheit sterben". People who understand German and know the expression, would have gotten what I've written in English, because it was a word-by-word translation. ;)

ebykm said: "what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price."

Because they're not "cheapo models" exactly. (Apple is not really competing with noname manufacturers or build-it-yourself PCs with mix and [mis-]match parts.) Besides: I don't see *any* mini-form factor PC for similar price _anywhere_. They're all more expensive! Also the AIOs are less for more, most often. The MacBook is very competitively priced for its feature-set, although some manufacturers also offer cheaper notebooks with less RAM and older processor generations or core solo processors. In that regard, Apple could've offered an even lower-priced MacBook with a core solo processor, but I think they did the right thing. After all, the MacBooks have done _very_ impressively in the market.

[chevy]

They may offer an eMacBook for $899

[Sunnz]

"in Schönheit sterben". People who understand German and know the expression, would have gotten what I've written in English, because it was a word-by-word translation. ;)

ebykm said: "what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price."

Because they're not "cheapo models" exactly. (Apple is not really competing with noname manufacturers or build-it-yourself PCs with mix and [mis-]match parts.) Besides: I don't see *any* mini-form factor PC for similar price _anywhere_. They're all more expensive! Also the AIOs are less for more, most often. The MacBook is very competitively priced for its feature-set, although some manufacturers also offer cheaper notebooks with less RAM and older processor generations or core solo processors. In that regard, Apple could've offered an even lower-priced MacBook with a core solo processor, but I think they did the right thing. After all, the MacBooks have done _very_ impressively in the market.
As far as the prices go, you are right, the iMac and mini are comparatively cheaper.

However, IMHO, they are really mid-range products to the market, even though Apple markets them as lower-end machine - yes, they are lower-end to Apple's POV... but in the eye's of an average Joe, a cheap computer isn't a fancy AIO, nor anything really small, but your average box like smaller Mac Pro with a lower end CPU, without the front USB, Firewire, etc.

[ebykm]

fryke, i agree most of the things with you and others. But the most anticipated part of Intel transition was price reduction on par with dell, hp, ibm, etc...., in reality which didn't happen as most of us expected and some hardware issues.

Apple is not really competing with noname manufacturers or build-it-yourself PCs with mix and [mis-]match parts.

True, but apple have to compete with other manufacturers. As i've mentioned earlier, apple prices are higher than others. for e.g, i wouldn't mind if other products were expensive as apple in those countries i've mentioned earlier. One could get a better toshiba / dell / hp with same processor, bigger 15.4" screen, ati graphics card, built in card reader, etc....+ 3 years int warranty for less than the price of a white macbook, that really pisses me off.

Besides: I don't see *any* mini-form factor PC for similar price _anywhere_. They're all more expensive! Also the AIOs are less for more, most often

True, True.


yea yea, we may start a pricing thread to discuss this.

[fryke]

:) ... If you expected pricing to go down with the switch to intel, that's your thing. I haven't had the feeling that this was the overall suspicion. Rather: The call was _very_ loud at the time that the PowerPC just didn't cut it anymore. (Mostly for the notebooks, of course...)

A separate pricing thread: I don't think that's necessary. There'll always be discussion about it, and my answer is always the same: If you like a Dell/HP/Toshiba model better for its features, then go buy it. But that's not what you want, since those don't come with Mac OS X. ;)

[ebykm]

If you like a Dell/HP/Toshiba model better for its features, then go buy it. But that's not what you want, since those don't come with Mac OS X. ;)

yea man, no OS X on those beauties :(

[Sunnz]

Well you could install Linux/BSD and try get a Windows refund (http://community.linux.com/community/07/01/03/227237.shtml?tid=12).

[ebykm]

Sunnz, i'd prefer a computer can run major operating systems..... so Mac is my first and second choice :)

[fryke]

But if I break that down, all you're really saying is: Apple once made better-quality (and much more expensive) hardware, and their new lower prices aren't low enough, they should increase quality while bringing down prices even more.

But _that_ I'd have to call iWhining. ;) ... But who knows. It's the day of the MWSF '07 keynote. 30 years of Apple. Maybe we *will* see the 599 USD MacBook with Core2Duo processor and highend graphics chip? :P Let's get our expectations _really_ high, so we *know* we're going to be let down. I'm already writing up my angry comments so I can post on macnews.net.tc right after the keynote ends. ;)

[ebykm]

But _that_ I'd have to call iWhining. ;) ...
:D

But if I break that down, all you're really saying is: Apple once made better-quality (and much more expensive) hardware, and their new lower prices aren't low enough, they should increase quality while bringing down prices even more.

yay, either make better quality expensive Pro hardware or lower the prices of base models (mini, imac & macbook). Well, if possible Pro hardware @ current imac pricing. :D :D :p

I'm already writing up my angry comments so I can post on macnews.net.tc right after the keynote ends. ;)

you got it brother, i'ma proud of you :D

[rubaiyat]

"But the most anticipated part of Intel transition was price reduction on par with dell, hp, ibm, etc...., in reality which didn't happen as most of us expected and some hardware issues."

On my list of expected consequences of the Intel upgrade, in the Macworld forums, was that there would be no price reduction despite virtually every Mac user then repeating it ad nauseum as if it were fact.

The reason is three fold.

As has been pointed out, the new Intel chips are not cheaper than the old G5s. Second Apple's prices are due to a persistent fat profit margin, which it can get due to its isolation from direct PC competition and the sacrificial loyalty of its customers. Thirdly because Apple refuses to use the cheaper Intel and AMD chips because they are not cutting edge enough and might reveal the inherent slowness of the OSX system itself.

The other prediction I made was the Mac would be side tracked as not core to Apple's business and that the iPod would take over. This has happened. Apple is even removing the word "computer" from its name.

I also predicted either a fall in the Mac's market share or no substantial gain as Macs lost their distinctiveness. This hasn't happened but the gains the Mac has made have not made any major impact on Windows because they come off such a low base. Apple has not addressed its poor position outside the USA where its relative expensiveness and public invisibility have made it not even an option for the booming, but price sensitive, markets of China and India.

The full impact of Leopard vs Vista have yet to be felt. We will really get a clearer picture later this year and it all will depend on the relative disappointment and satisfaction both sides will feel with their respective upgrades.

I put my money on Leopard being a let down not because it won't be good but because it will change some things even further away from the Macs original simplicity and clean design without meeting the pent-up expectations of substantial radical innovations. Vista will be a let down but Windows users will get used to it and it will give them enough to not make them want to switch.

I then also predicted a bleeding of Mac software away from the Mac platform due to the possibility of easily launching the Windows versions on the same machine. This may not eventuate as the switch between Mac OSX and Windows still requires the purchase of Windows and is not as easy nor as quick as anticipated.

However there are still elements of this to be played out. We will find out how well Boot Camp, Parallels and WINE solve the switching problem once Leopard is released and Vista has been out for a while.

Another prediction was that the Mac would lose any hope of being the fastest PC because it would be using identical hardware to the Windows PCs. This was obvious and is exacerbated by Apple tying itself to Intel's offerings whereas PC manufacturers allow themselves the option of AMD as well.

The only hope was OSX might prove to be a better OS using 64 bit processing and multiple chips/cores. This is still to be played out.

The last prediction was that Steve Jobs has hedged his bets and left the possibility of eventually Macs booting off Windows as a store option and perhaps even abandoning the line all together just as the Apple line was abandoned when the Mac came along. Anyone psychicly atuned to the Steve's inner thoughts?

Now I have been quite explicit, definitely more than Nostrodamus, and definitely more than the hedged bets by many other posters or volte faces they commit relying on the short memories of many other forum dwellers. So I stand ready to be strung up on my own words at some future date.