Slashdot Mirror
New Apples Next Week
Vicissidude writes "CNN/Money reports: 'Apple may be gearing up to unveil a new slate of mini-Macs and may also release updated versions of its popular iBook laptop computers as early as next Tuesday, according to unconfirmed reports on a Web site that tracks Apple.' The Web site Think Secret reported three new Mac mini and two new iBook part numbers have appeared in Apple's retail database, indicating that new models are imminent. Apple would neither confirm nor deny the reports. The new mini models will be priced at $499, $599 and $699, with new iBooks priced at $999 and $1,299, according to the original story at Think Secret."
Increased memory, check.
Slight CPU jump, check.
Updated graphics card, check.
Looking back at all the posts lamenting how everyone and their grandma would buy a Mini if only it had slightly higher specs, apple should be seeing a whole lot of purchases from the slashdot crowd.
I've got my money ready. Do you?
"to unveil a new slate of mini-Macs..."
They're called a "Mac mini" not a "mini-mac".
-Imidazole
Hilarious Office Prank!
It's modern marketing miracle.
Apple updates it's retail databases, the news gets spread from one end of the web to the other.
Dell and MS marketing execs probably spend many a sleepless night trying to figure out how they can come up with something with nearly the same cost to value ratio.
Is what Fox-style journalism has done to the news world? CNN no longer does its own reporting and relies on rumors posted on the web site of a university student? Granted, Think Secret has been amazing accurate, so much so that Apple has sued them, but it is after all a rumor site run by a university student. CNN pays reporters to investigate stories, they shouldn't be reporting them from rumor sites without additional facts to corroborate them.
Mac Mini not far behind
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
it doesn't matter what you believe
it only matters what actually happens. and in the same situation before. Mac 68k to mac PPC the dual binaries stayed in place for years. even until 2001 seven years after ppc first started to come in there were still many 68k ppc FAT apps made for 68k macs.
when next was multiple cpu too the binaries across many platforms stayed in place for years.
what, is a developer going to go "oh there are 7% of mac users using intel macs now it's a year after they were introduced, let us drop PPC support even though it is 93% of our market. yeeeeeeah thats smart.
intel macs wont even contain a majority of macs until maybe 4 years after the changeover.
that they won't buy a Mac now because next year Macs will have x86 CPU.
Ok, but the x86 Mac + Rosetta will be able to run PPC software smothly?
If no, the new Mac will have to wait a little to have their software base enlarged.
Obviously, if Rosetta works very well...
Since when is quoting rumor site reporting. It may well be true we'll see updates from Apple next week, since it has been a while since the last updates, but to call quoting Think Secret reporting shows how little CNN has to do with journalism. The other evidence of the death of journalism at CNN is seen in their cheeleading of Bush as he led America into the war crime that is the war in Iraq.
There are tens of millions of PPC users. It would be completely illogical for companies to suddenly dump all PPC code just to market to (virtually) nobody with x86 macs. PPC support is not going to just disappear anytime soon.
Unless these are Intel machines, I won't buy. Sorry, I don't want to invest in a dying platform. I'm no Intel fan (more an AMD fan, and I loved the PowerPC), but buying a Gx Mac now is thrown away money. Whatever Steve says, I don't believe that binaries will stay Intel/PowerPC for very long.
Well, let's assume they won't stay Intel/PowerPC for more than 5 years. So what? Your 2005 machine will have hard time running 2010 software anyway - Intel/PowerPC switch has nothing to do with it. You won't room "Doom III" or even MacOS 10.4 with all features on a '2000 iBook.
Why do I assume 5 years period? I estimate it from similar situation with 68k/PowerPC switch. The first PowerPC Macs were introduced in spring 1994. The last 68k Macs were discontinued in spring 1996. So it was two years of dual CPU hardware - and further two years when software ran on both CPUs (Apple dropped 68k support in MacOS in 1998). Mactels are not to be expected before 2006. This gives me this 1+2+2 formula. Of course, it's just a guess but the bottom line is that every platform is a dying platform - no matter what you buy now, it will be obsolete in 5 years, anyway...
"Whatever Steve says, I don't believe that binaries will stay Intel/PowerPC for very long."
Try thinking about it in the most practical terms possible.
1. PPC Macs are going to dominate the market for years . The Mac market is going to be 100% PPC-based for another year. After that, PPC Macs will greatly outnumber Intel Macs for 4 or 5 years; possibly longer. Mac owners tend to hold onto their machines for a long time. The hundreds of millions of existing PPC Macs aren't going anywhere.
2. Creating "fat" dual Intel/PPC binaries is easy. With XCode it's only a mouse click away in most scenarios. In fact, I think the latest version of XCode creates dual binaries by default. So it would actually require effort to not create dual binaries, if I'm not mistaken. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
So. What is your reasoning again? Why would Mac developers ignore the majority of their market when supporting them takes no effort? I'm no Apple loyalist; I haven't owned an Apple computer since my IIgs, so if anybody is wary about being burned by a lack of Apple support it's me. But I would have no problem buying a PPC Mac today... in fact, as soon as I have some money I hope to pick up a Mini for testing purposes.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
OK, so i'm an apple fanboi, but one with some perspective i'd like to think. But, I'm fed up with Apple advertising machines with too little RAM as standard, combo drives instead of SuperDrives as standard, Wi-Fi & Bluetooth as extras, etc. I know it reduces the sticker price for their advertising, but once you add on these extras, which lets face it are pretty much standard on most portables these days, the price is a hell of a lot higher - almost double when looking at the Mac mini.
Apple should be pushing the minimal spec upwards, not stripping everything off so that it can get it's headlines saying *Mac's are now affordable*
The kind of people who are prepared to put down the cash for a Mac are prepared to pay that bit extra, but walking into a store thinking you're going to spend £350 to get a machine that does everything you've heard about and find out that it's actually closer to £500 or £600 (can't be arsed to check the exact prices atm), is disappointing. It makes me think of Dell and other company's tactics. If you know from the start you're looking at almost double that then you can budget for it easier.
I took a friend and their kids to the Apple store and they came out wanting a Mac mini because they thought that it was under £350. Once I'd factored in the SuperDrive (for making DVD's), Airport (for using it in the bedroom upstairs) - because you can't fit it yourself and bluetooth because if you're having the Airport installed you might as well and all kids these days have Bluetooth capable phones and some extra RAM as 256 Mb just isn't enough, it was a *LOT* more. I opted for a good 3rd party TFT display from elsewhere (19" TFT for £179), as Apple seem to think that plonking down £550 for their entry level display is fine for everyone. I'm glad that they reduced the price of the keyboards after the mini came out. I had to buy one for my Powerbook for nearly £50, now they're about £20 i think.
So, to wrap up my rant, up the minimum spec and put the price up *a bit* to make up for it. removing the need for build to order for simple and very popular options should have some benefits of scale to reduce the need to gouge everyone for a bit a ram, a modern optical drive and some wireless comms, or at least make it easier for people to actally install or swap out these components like most PC vendors do.
Ball matching game for MacOS X: http://www.funpause.com/atlantis/
I got the game, my balls still don't match. Thanks for nothing.
from Aspyr:
Minimum System Requirements
Doom 3 runs on any iMac G5, or any Mac that meets the requirements below
# Operating System: Mac OS X 10.3.8 or later
# CPU Processor: PowerPC G4/G5 or later
# CPU Speed: 1.5GHz or faster
# Memory: 512 MB or higher
# Hard Disk Space: 2.0GB free disk space
# Video Card (ATI): Radeon 9600 or better
# Video Card (NVidia): GeForce FX5200 or better
# Video Memory (VRam): 64 MB
# Media Required: DVD Drive
Recommended System Requirements
Doom 3 runs best on a Power Mac G5 2.0 GHz or faster
# CPU Processor:PowerPC G5
# CPU Speed:2.0GHz or faster
# Video RAM:128MB
Don't think a mini will be there anytime soon...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I wouldn't buy one of the new Intel macs until they've been out for two years. Who wants a brand new platform that isn't entirely supported yet?
The first intel mac won't be out until next year. That means I wouldn't buy an intel mac until three years from now.... which is of course when I'd feel like buying a new computer anyway.
The last PPC machines Apple makes are going to be classics. Completely perfected machines, all the bugs worked out, run today's software for the next five to ten years.
But then, I'm a mac user. We actually use our computers to get work done. The theoretical value of the total market availability isn't as important to me as whether I turn out my work today. If it were, I wouldn't be on a Mac in the first place.
Hopefully these mac minis will be a step up from the current offering... i would be interested in an available dual layer dvd+-rw. a bit more proc power, another 256megs of ram, and bigger hard disk would be nice upgrades too, but to me the dual layer drive is key. if i can configure a mac mini w/ the drive for under $600, a new mac owner i will soon be...
Seriously. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Apple, but to have a /. article everytime Apple farts is pretty bad. Worse though is having a /. article everytime ThinkSecret thinks Apple is going to fart. (Followed of course by an article a day later confirming that yes Apple did infact fart.)
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
You guys don't really know your Apple history, do you? When Apple made the transition from 68k to PPC, every application imaginable was released in fat binaries for several years afterwards, meaning that people running both processors were fully supported throughout the transition. When Apple moved to OSX, OS9 users were given ample time to make the switch, with measures such as the Carbon libs and Classic mode easing the way.
Face it - Apple has a history of supporting their legacy customers for as long as is technically and financially feasable, and the developers have generally gone along with this. Your imagined examples of non-support notwithstanding, there's just no evidence to suggest that either Apple or its developers would just suddenly drop PPC support the moment the first Intel Mac rolls off the production line. As has been stated before, there's going to be a majority of PPC Macs in users' hands for at least the next five to six years. No software company in their right mind would just abandon that market for convenience sake.
Calm down. A PPC iBook purchased this year will suit you perfectly well for the next five years. That being said, you can always wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest. Then you could wait another year for the latest and greatest...
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
Apple has always, and apparently still is taken with selling hardware that will only last two years at most.
I guess all those people who get five years or more out of their Macs must be hallucinating, then?
I bought a Power Mac 7600 in 1996, and it was my primary machine until 2002. Over the years I added RAM and a USB card and threw a G3 upgrade into it, but it was still a viable machine when I replaced it, except from the standpoint of being able to run OS X-- I needed a more recent model to do that. I'm a consultant, so I wanted a machine that would run it as my clients would see it, not with some third-party hack to get it working.
The 7600 was replaced with a used G4/733 from 2001, and that one was just fine until I bought the G5 I'm using now (yes, I only got 2 years out of the G4 as my primary Mac, but it was only ever intended to tide me over until the G5s came out). The G4 is now in my office running Tiger like a champ, and I expect this G5 to last me until nearly 2010.
Apple already successfully managed a CPU transition back in the 90s, and they did it without instantly obsoleting anyone's computer. I have no doubt that this one will go just as well. Mac applications that are written for the Intel processors can be compiled for the PPC by clicking a checkbox, so there's no additional effort or expense required for developers to support both architectures-- and with 5 years worth of PPC-based Macs out in the world (not counting the PPC Macs that can't run the current incarnation of OS X), they'd be crazy to not do so for at least the next five years.
~Philly
1. You're right, PPC will dominate for a while, but I suspect that a larger number of people will be getting new Macs once the Intel Macs come out since they will be so afraid of their PPC Macs becoming quickly outdated. 2. The latest XCode still requires a little hunting to find the checkbox, which is not checked by default. In addition, there is often a bit more to making it cross-platform than checking a little checkbox, particularly when there is code which needs to be different for little endian and big endian. For a Cocoa application, that is minimal, but for Carbon, it takes quite a bit of effort.
Dell and MS marketing execs probably spend many a sleepless night trying to figure out how they can come up with something with nearly the same cost to value ratio.
How about they do something interesting? Apple's news is reported on /. because, rightly or wrongly, Apple is perceived as doing interesting new things, some of which fail and and some of which work. Dell doesn't do much new at all (and makes vast sums doing that, so I'm guessing they're happy in that position.)
--
$tar -xvf
Apple doesn't need to upgrade the iBook line half as much as they need more powerful PowerBooks.
Hmm I think you have it wrong there. You see, with Apple's Xcode development platform, all you need to do to compile of PPC and Intel is click both checkboxes. If your application ran in PPC at first, then the developer's guide will help you port to Intel. If you are developing an app right from the start, here is your chance to follow the porting guide and apple programmer guidelines and get your code right the first time. If you had been following apple's guidelines from the beginning then porting to intel is easy.
You don't want to alienate your customers... You want your app to run on both for a long while until PPC becomes obsolete. That's like, 8 years from now considering the higher resale value of macs
Xcode provides the magic to do the compilation twice and package up both programs into the same bundle. This is really just to simplify the user experience. You could just as well offer separate "Photoshop - Mac PPC" and "Photoshop - Mac Intel" products, but that gets annoying to keep track of.
When NeXTStep went to multiple architectures, most binaries were provided in all architectures, even ones people didn't use (SPARC). My hope is that it will be the same this time around.
Isn't the "not checked by default" box the one that says to compile for x86? So by default it compiles for PowerPC, and you can turn on x86 compilation if you want?
Not quite. The default for builds in Xcode is to build for the architecture of the machine you're running on. So on PowerPC-based Macs, it defaults to PPC on and x86 off. On an Intel Mac, it would default to x86 on and PPC off.
Still, it's braindead simple to make most apps universal. Check the box and you're done, whether you're building on an Intel Mac or a PPC Mac.
I completely agree with you -- PowerPC systems will be actively supported for a long, long time. As a developer, it's incredibly trivial for me to support both platforms. And given the lifespan of the typical Mac, you have to support both platforms because a huge chunk of the potential customer base will on PPC for several years to come.
Fact is that no company, be it Apple or 3rd parties wants to support two different architectures.
Don't video game companies do this every day?
-- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
I have a machine I purchased in early 2002. It replaced a machine I bought in 1997. That machine from 1997 continued to run until I sold it 3rd party in 2004, and I am sure it is still running today. If you wanted to you could run OS X on it, however it requires a 3rd party hack. But OS 9 for someone who hasn't had need to upgrade their software (much like you haven't had need of upgrading your OS) still works just fine. In fact I often wished that I still had that machine for a certain software that I still haven't found a real replacement for yet (and will not work in classic).
As a matter of fact I purchased one of the first PPC machines back in 1995, and it is still in use by the person I sold it to. That is definitely 10 years old, but no it does not run OS X, but the tools that person uses were not upgraded enough for X for it to make sense for him to upgrade.
The only reason I dream of upgrading today is simply for portability. I would love to have a laptop, and while newer machines can do tasks with a bit more spunk than my current machine, it certainly does handle what I need it to do.
Shawn's Tech Articles
I can absolutely confirm this (dammit, I leave Slashdot one day & folks are already posting the answer *I* wanted to give).
As a Mac developer writing software that's in the hands of a not inconsequential number of people, I have on my desk one of the Intel-based Developer Transition Kits. The reason I have this is not because I'm now going to be building Intel-only applications from now on, but because in a year's time, when a client buys a new Mac an it's running on an Intel processor, they will still want to use my software.
As a result, I compile everything as a 'Universal Binary' -- which, to the uninitiated, is a new name for the 'Fat Binary' of yore; in other words, it's got the Intel and the PowerPC binary files concatenated together, with a little table of contents up front.
When I first fired it up, it took me one day to get a quite a few programs (components of one software product) to build & perform perfectly on Intel (one little problem - ntohl() modifying the source operand on Intel processors - caused 80% of the delay, due to it being a bitch to track down) and PowerPC. They even generate various files which can be passed between one another with nary a glitch.
And before people start whinging about applications doubling in size, take a look at the size of the actual program binary itself. Delicious Library is 908Kb. Final Cut Pro is 4.7Mb. Things like Photoshop will undoubtedly be larger, and will therefore be candidates for seperate Intel/PowerPC binaries (i.e. the installer detects what system is running, and installs the appropriate binary). It's worth noting, though, that applications which make heavy use of the OS X frameworks will be smaller, and much more palatable as universal binaries.
In short, as an Apple developer, whose software is installed on hundreds of thousands of Macs, it's actually more work for me to make my software work on intel only - after all, for that I would need to:
-Q