To add insult to injury, there is absolutely no technical reason why the site could not work with all browsers. To prove the theory, I tried Opera masquerading as IE 6 and got through the registration process without a hitch. Whoever designed that site should be fired instantly.
I am also baffled by this senseless turn of events and have written on the subject from a slightly different angle called Switching is a loser's game at The CDCer blog.
I am all for supporting Intel, but Mac OS X is platform-neutral by design, which is a huge advantage for our platform and shouldn't be casually thrown away.
I wonder whether someone should start a petition to save the PPC Mac, maybe SJ will listen this time.
Cringely is one of the most profound columnists on earth and knows the computer industry inside out, so pay attention to his analysis.
The reason his theory sounds so strange is because Apple had done something even stranger.
Unless Robert X. Cringely is correct with his profound analysis, this could be the greatest strategic blunder in the history of technology, for at least 4 reasons.
Firstly, there is zero, nada, diddly-squat technological reason for switching horses. The top range Power Mac G5 outperforms the best x86 PC for many computational tasks, based on benchmarks from System X at Virginia Tech, Digital Video Editing and Apple. PowerPC also benefits from a clean and elegant RISC architecture, free from the archaic x86 legacy ISA hated by virtually everyone except Intel designers. For comparable performance, the G5 (PowerPC 970FX) chip is half the size and consumes half the power of the Intel Xeon P4 , with 58 million transistors in G5 instead of 169 million in P4.
Secondly, the PowerPC has more headroom to evolve, which is why even Microsoft has chosen IBM over Intel for its next generation Xbox 360 game console, not to mention Sony's PowerPC based Cell processor for the revolutionary PlayStation 3. With a small sum from Apple's $7 billion war chest, IBM should be more than happy to match whatever roadmap that Intel can offer, without the worry or the bad blood.
Thirdly, Apple has the technology to consolidate its core PowerPC base and simultaneously carve out a new market in the x86 world. That would be the best for all worlds and make everyone happy.
Lastly, it doesn't make any sense to destroy you core business for the next 2 years by announcing the transition 12 months in advance, This is so uncharacteristic of Apple. Maybe Steve Jobs is too tired, but is he concerned about the inevitable Osborne effect or has he lost the plot entirely?
Here is my prediction: instead of announcing a switch to Intel in 2006 or 2007 and instantly killing the Mac business and Apple, Steve Jobs will demo Mac OS X Tiger on an Apple / Dell / HP / Sony x86 PC side by side with a 2-way Power Mac G5 with 3.2 GHz dual core PowerPC 970MP, which can be ordered immediately and delivered within 4 weeks.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't normally hype new products until they are nearly ready. In fact, no sane company would announce future plan that would put a stop to its current revenue stream.
There is just too much vested interest in PowerPC from Mac developers and users both technologically and emotionally, and it would be suicidal for Apple to dump something that has served the core Mac community well for over a decade. It's an unnecessary risk for no apparent reward.
Journalists prefer sensational stories, or they just don't understand Apple's business and technology. A complete switch to Intel makes a dramatic story, but is not going to happen if logic and common sense prevail.
Why on earth would Apple switch when IBM Power Everywhere is kicking Intel's butt from supercomputers to next generation Sony PlayStation 3 to Microsoft Xbox 360 to Nintendo Revolution?
Compared to the legacy ridden Intel Pentium 4, IBM PowerPC is a clean and efficient RISC architecture. For comparable performance, the 2.7 GHz G5 (PowerPC 970FX) chip is half the size of the 3.6 GHz Intel Xeon P4 with 58 million transistors in G5 instead of 169 million in P4, and the power dissipation is 59 W for the G5 and 110 W for the P4.
Apple is the last company on earth that would prefer an inferior technology just for market share. A CPU switch could have made some business sense a few years ago, but not now when PowerPC is gaining unprecedented momentum.
Perhaps more importantly, this is about Mac OS X embracing the market leading Intel chips in order to break the deadly Microsoft Monoculture that has been stifling innovations and become a national security risk. Supporting both PowerPC and x86 would give Mac OS X another huge advantage over Windows and challenge the Microsoft monopoly.
I have used a 700 MHz G3 iBook and a 1.25 GHz G4 PowerBook for Java development, speed has never been an issue.
Java apps look and feel great on OS X, much better than on Windows. With the toll-free Java Cocoa bridge, Java is an almost native language like Objective C, and UI design with Interface Builder is 1000x better than Swing.
There is definitely something wrong with the Amazon pages. For instance, your link shows Nomad Zen 40GB at #11 and no iPod in top 100, but All Jukeboxes places iPod at #1 and #2, while Jukeboxes up to 15GB has 7 iPod models in the top 18 best sellers.
I have never ever had any problem with Apple Software Update with any of my 4 Macs since 10.0. However, one of my iBook had to be sent back for repairing due to the black screen problem.
Actually OS X has much better international support than Windows. It works perfectly with Chinese out of the box, both for display and input. Some third party app (such as IE) may not have the correct UI for every language, but every single Apple I tried has Chinese interface, including Mail, Finder, Address Book, iMovie, iTunes, iCal, iChat AV, TextEdit, even Terminal.
You do realize that you are comparing Apple against the whole computer industry, and there is no single box maker in the Wintel world that is remotely as innovative as Apple.
The original iMac is the first legacy-free PC with built-in USB, Firewire and wireless, and its industry design has inspired not only computer makers but also designers of a wide range of products from mobile phones to printers. AFAIK, no consumer PC in 1998 could match the iMac in features, and it actually took the industry 2 to 3 years to catch up with Apple.
Dell is a cheap copycat with zero software and insignificant hardware engineering compared to Apple. Apple is 40x smaller than MS, but its software portfolio is comparable and often better than MS products.
Wireless Firewire has just been announced by the 1394 Trade association, and Apple is likely to be the first company to adopt the technology. Imagine wireless video streaming from an iBook to a 30" Cinema Display!
He has learnt that there is one security flaw on OS instead of hundreds on Windows, and concluded that "Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows". Am I missing something here?
>> I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts.
He is tired of the truth.
>> I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!"
This argument is really old and doesn't make any sense. More usage doesn't always mean more security issues, because Apache is twice more popular than IIS and has less that 50% vulnerabilities.
>> But the mindlessly superior retort is always the same, "No, it's because the Apple OS does not have the same holes as Windows. OS X is just a better operating system."
MS has issued hundreds of security patches over the last few years, versus only a few by Apple. If that doesn't prove superiority, what does?
>> Given this recent development, my question is, "Will you be stuffing that superior attitude in your crow or eating it separately, sir?"
>> So your Xeon price wasn't quite accurate. Admittedly, you lowballed the Itanium. I couldn't find it anywhere for that low.:)
A quote from http://www.cbronline.com/current-issue/cdd51c7c909 59c1680256d7c0018cf5e
"But a quick glance at Intel's price list shows how anchoring Opteron's price to Xeons could boost AMD's top line. AMD's Opteron single processor 100 Models range from $229 to $438. Intel's Xeon runs from $198 for its 2.4GHz with 512Kb of cache part to $690 for its 3.06GHz with 1MB of cache. Intel's multiprocessor Xeons start at $1,177 and run up to $3,692, while AMD's dual processor 200 Models range from $256 to $794 and its multiprocessor 800 series runs from $749 to $2,149."
>> But Intel is coming out with a "low-price" Itanium next year.
G5 / PPC 970 will reach 3 GHz next summer, and IBM is coming out with G6 / PPC 980 soon after.
The 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 costs over $3000 per chip, and even the 32-bit Xeon 3.06 GHz is about $1000, while the 2 GHz PPC 970 is about $300 or $400.  In addition, VT wants 64-bit chips, so Xeon is a nonstarter.
Excluding the Earth Simulator, the 2 GHz G5 has the highest Flops per CPU, even 5% higher than the 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 and 10 times cheaper:
>> VT could have built the cluster using Xeons, Itaniums, or Opterons and arrived at roughly the same level of performance.
This is not true at all. VT clearly has stated in their presentation that G5 has the best performance / price for what they do.
The 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 costs over $3000 per chip, and even the 32-bit Xeon 3.06 GHz is about $1000, while the 2 GHz PPC 970 is about $300 or $400. In addition, VT wants 64-bit chips, so Xeon is a nonstarter.
>> They've worked out a solid candidate for a name (it's not official yet) that isn't quite as catchy as "Big Mac", but it also doesn't have any of the downsides.
The official name is TCF - Terascale Computing Facility.
Apple has beaten them since Jaguar over a year ago.
Every window in Quartz Extreme is a 3D surface rendered by GPU, to which texture mapping or rotation or shadow can be applied. In fact, for most part Aero / Avalon is just catching up with plain old Quartz. The current Windows graphics engine GDI+ has a single frame buffer shared by all windows, which is why Windows doesn't have transparency / animation / shadow available on OS X since 3 years ago. Window tearing still occurs on even fast 2 or 3 GHz Windows machine, but on the slowest 200 MHz Mac. The problem for MS is that they are still clueless about graphic design other than painting in prime colors, which is why the icons and the color schemes in Longhorn are as disgusting as ever. It just proves the old cliche that money can't buy taste.
Slashdot Mirror
To add insult to injury, there is absolutely no technical reason why the site could not work with all browsers. To prove the theory, I tried Opera masquerading as IE 6 and got through the registration process without a hitch. Whoever designed that site should be fired instantly.
As usual, Slashdot is late by several days with this story. Read FEMA website doesn't work with any browser except IE 6 at The CDCer.
I am also baffled by this senseless turn of events and have written on the subject from a slightly different angle called Switching is a loser's game at The CDCer blog.
I am all for supporting Intel, but Mac OS X is platform-neutral by design, which is a huge advantage for our platform and shouldn't be casually thrown away.
I wonder whether someone should start a petition to save the PPC Mac, maybe SJ will listen this time.
Cringely is one of the most profound columnists on earth and knows the computer industry inside out, so pay attention to his analysis.
The reason his theory sounds so strange is because Apple had done something even stranger.
Unless Robert X. Cringely is correct with his profound analysis, this could be the greatest strategic blunder in the history of technology, for at least 4 reasons.
Firstly, there is zero, nada, diddly-squat technological reason for switching horses. The top range Power Mac G5 outperforms the best x86 PC for many computational tasks, based on benchmarks from System X at Virginia Tech, Digital Video Editing and Apple. PowerPC also benefits from a clean and elegant RISC architecture, free from the archaic x86 legacy ISA hated by virtually everyone except Intel designers. For comparable performance, the G5 (PowerPC 970FX) chip is half the size and consumes half the power of the Intel Xeon P4 , with 58 million transistors in G5 instead of 169 million in P4.
Secondly, the PowerPC has more headroom to evolve, which is why even Microsoft has chosen IBM over Intel for its next generation Xbox 360 game console, not to mention Sony's PowerPC based Cell processor for the revolutionary PlayStation 3. With a small sum from Apple's $7 billion war chest, IBM should be more than happy to match whatever roadmap that Intel can offer, without the worry or the bad blood.
Thirdly, Apple has the technology to consolidate its core PowerPC base and simultaneously carve out a new market in the x86 world. That would be the best for all worlds and make everyone happy.
Lastly, it doesn't make any sense to destroy you core business for the next 2 years by announcing the transition 12 months in advance, This is so uncharacteristic of Apple. Maybe Steve Jobs is too tired, but is he concerned about the inevitable Osborne effect or has he lost the plot entirely?
Read more Switching is a loser's game at The CDCer.
Here is my prediction: instead of announcing a switch to Intel in 2006 or 2007 and instantly killing the Mac business and Apple, Steve Jobs will demo Mac OS X Tiger on an Apple / Dell / HP / Sony x86 PC side by side with a 2-way Power Mac G5 with 3.2 GHz dual core PowerPC 970MP, which can be ordered immediately and delivered within 4 weeks.
Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't normally hype new products until they are nearly ready. In fact, no sane company would announce future plan that would put a stop to its current revenue stream.
There is just too much vested interest in PowerPC from Mac developers and users both technologically and emotionally, and it would be suicidal for Apple to dump something that has served the core Mac community well for over a decade. It's an unnecessary risk for no apparent reward.
Journalists prefer sensational stories, or they just don't understand Apple's business and technology. A complete switch to Intel makes a dramatic story, but is not going to happen if logic and common sense prevail.
Why on earth would Apple switch when IBM Power Everywhere is kicking Intel's butt from supercomputers to next generation Sony PlayStation 3 to Microsoft Xbox 360 to Nintendo Revolution?
Compared to the legacy ridden Intel Pentium 4, IBM PowerPC is a clean and efficient RISC architecture. For comparable performance, the 2.7 GHz G5 (PowerPC 970FX) chip is half the size of the 3.6 GHz Intel Xeon P4 with 58 million transistors in G5 instead of 169 million in P4, and the power dissipation is 59 W for the G5 and 110 W for the P4.
Apple is the last company on earth that would prefer an inferior technology just for market share. A CPU switch could have made some business sense a few years ago, but not now when PowerPC is gaining unprecedented momentum.
Perhaps more importantly, this is about Mac OS X embracing the market leading Intel chips in order to break the deadly Microsoft Monoculture that has been stifling innovations and become a national security risk. Supporting both PowerPC and x86 would give Mac OS X another huge advantage over Windows and challenge the Microsoft monopoly.
Read more Intel inside Apple may break Windows monoculture.
Here is the link.
In fact, there are 10 iPods in the top 20 best sellers!
>> My Windows box runs these apps flawlessly (except Xcode and NetBeans, which sucks on Windows too)
Xcode for Windows, where do you get that? Are you making up things?
It looks that your Mac experiences are totally out of date. Xcode is a very powerful IDE but may take some effort to learn.
I have used a 700 MHz G3 iBook and a 1.25 GHz G4 PowerBook for Java development, speed has never been an issue.
Java apps look and feel great on OS X, much better than on Windows. With the toll-free Java Cocoa bridge, Java is an almost native language like Objective C, and UI design with Interface Builder is 1000x better than Swing.
OS X does support a long list of other languages other than Chinese, although I am not sure about Hebrew.
There is definitely something wrong with the Amazon pages. For instance, your link shows Nomad Zen 40GB at #11 and no iPod in top 100, but All Jukeboxes places iPod at #1 and #2, while Jukeboxes up to 15GB has 7 iPod models in the top 18 best sellers.
Currently, all top 3 best selling jukeboxes are iPod . Would the mini iPod pushes everything else off the top 5?
I have never ever had any problem with Apple Software Update with any of my 4 Macs since 10.0. However, one of my iBook had to be sent back for repairing due to the black screen problem.
Actually OS X has much better international support than Windows. It works perfectly with Chinese out of the box, both for display and input. Some third party app (such as IE) may not have the correct UI for every language, but every single Apple I tried has Chinese interface, including Mail, Finder, Address Book, iMovie, iTunes, iCal, iChat AV, TextEdit, even Terminal.
You do realize that you are comparing Apple against the whole computer industry, and there is no single box maker in the Wintel world that is remotely as innovative as Apple.
The original iMac is the first legacy-free PC with built-in USB, Firewire and wireless, and its industry design has inspired not only computer makers but also designers of a wide range of products from mobile phones to printers. AFAIK, no consumer PC in 1998 could match the iMac in features, and it actually took the industry 2 to 3 years to catch up with Apple.
Dell is a cheap copycat with zero software and insignificant hardware engineering compared to Apple. Apple is 40x smaller than MS, but its software portfolio is comparable and often better than MS products.
Wireless Firewire has just been announced by the 1394 Trade association, and Apple is likely to be the first company to adopt the technology. Imagine wireless video streaming from an iBook to a 30" Cinema Display!
Several people have reported that 50% notebooks in JaveOne and O'Reilly OSCon 2003 were i/PowerBooks, and that's a lot for a minority platform.
He has learnt that there is one security flaw on OS instead of hundreds on Windows, and concluded that "Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows". Am I missing something here?
>> I was tired of the "We use Macs because they don't get attacked by viruses and hackers" refrain from Mac nuts.
He is tired of the truth.
>> I generally counter with what is apparently a secret carefully hidden from Mac zealots: "That's because only a fraction of the world uses Macs. What's the point of attacking a niche market? No one will notice!"
This argument is really old and doesn't make any sense. More usage doesn't always mean more security issues, because Apache is twice more popular than IIS and has less that 50% vulnerabilities.
>> But the mindlessly superior retort is always the same, "No, it's because the Apple OS does not have the same holes as Windows. OS X is just a better operating system."
MS has issued hundreds of security patches over the last few years, versus only a few by Apple. If that doesn't prove superiority, what does?
>> Given this recent development, my question is, "Will you be stuffing that superior attitude in your crow or eating it separately, sir?"
Do you have an inferiority complexity, Sir?
>> So your Xeon price wasn't quite accurate. Admittedly, you lowballed the Itanium. I couldn't find it anywhere for that low. :)
9 59c1680256d7c0018cf5e
A quote from http://www.cbronline.com/current-issue/cdd51c7c90
"But a quick glance at Intel's price list shows how anchoring Opteron's price to Xeons could boost AMD's top line. AMD's Opteron single processor 100 Models range from $229 to $438. Intel's Xeon runs from $198 for its 2.4GHz with 512Kb of cache part to $690 for its 3.06GHz with 1MB of cache. Intel's multiprocessor Xeons start at $1,177 and run up to $3,692, while AMD's dual processor 200 Models range from $256 to $794 and its multiprocessor 800 series runs from $749 to $2,149."
>> But Intel is coming out with a "low-price" Itanium next year.
G5 / PPC 970 will reach 3 GHz next summer, and IBM is coming out with G6 / PPC 980 soon after.
http://www.fftw.org/speed/
The 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 costs over $3000 per chip, and even the 32-bit Xeon 3.06 GHz is about $1000, while the 2 GHz PPC 970 is about $300 or $400.  In addition, VT wants 64-bit chips, so Xeon is a nonstarter.
Excluding the Earth Simulator, the 2 GHz G5 has the highest Flops per CPU, even 5% higher than the 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 and 10 times cheaper:
#2 Alpha 13880 / 8192 = 1.69
#3 G5 10280 / 2200 = 4.67
#4 Xeon 9819 / 2500 = 3.92
#5 Itanium 8633 / 1936 = 4.45
#6 Opetron 8051 / 2816 = 2.85
>> VT could have built the cluster using Xeons, Itaniums, or Opterons and arrived at roughly the same level of performance.
This is not true at all. VT clearly has stated in their presentation that G5 has the best performance / price for what they do.
The 1.5 GHz Itanium 2 costs over $3000 per chip, and even the 32-bit Xeon 3.06 GHz is about $1000, while the 2 GHz PPC 970 is about $300 or $400. In addition, VT wants 64-bit chips, so Xeon is a nonstarter.
They have been working on it, so expect some improvement shortly.
>> They've worked out a solid candidate for a name (it's not official yet) that isn't quite as catchy as "Big Mac", but it also doesn't have any of the downsides.
The official name is TCF - Terascale Computing Facility.
>> Window tearing still occurs on even fast 2 or 3 GHz Windows machine, but on the slowest 200 MHz Mac.
No, I mean it doesn't occur on any Mac.
Apple has beaten them since Jaguar over a year ago.
Every window in Quartz Extreme is a 3D surface rendered by GPU, to which texture mapping or rotation or shadow can be applied. In fact, for most part Aero / Avalon is just catching up with plain old Quartz. The current Windows graphics engine GDI+ has a single frame buffer shared by all windows, which is why Windows doesn't have transparency / animation / shadow available on OS X since 3 years ago. Window tearing still occurs on even fast 2 or 3 GHz Windows machine, but on the slowest 200 MHz Mac. The problem for MS is that they are still clueless about graphic design other than painting in prime colors, which is why the icons and the color schemes in Longhorn are as disgusting as ever. It just proves the old cliche that money can't buy taste.