Schnelle Kurzschlüsse

Soll ich dir einstweilen meine Schulter zum Ausheulen anbieten? Aber wehe, du sabberst!

 

Ich versteh' nich' warum sich so viele betrogen fühlen. Kann mir das mal jemand erklären?
Auch das Entsetzen versteh' ich nicht. Ob ein Kuchen nun mit Aurora oder Bäckerblume-Mehl gebacken wird macht den Kuchen doch nicht zur Pizza!

 

Doch, wenn du Zucker- und Salzgehalt vertauschst schon...

 

Hast Du nicht gesehen im stream von der WWDC? Der läuft schon jetzt!

 

MIST! ERWISCHT!

*impcforumalspcpcfriendanmeld*

:embar:

 

mmf - das PPC-OS-9- urgestein?


Teile das Weinen der G-5-Käufer nicht; wer vor nem Jahr (??) nen Dual 1.8 gekauft hatte, ist eigentlich gut bedient, und hat bis ins 08 durchaus noch nen schnellen Rechner.

Rein hardwaretechnisch kann ich Steve's Umstieg nachvollziehen; die ganze Palette der PC-Hardware steht nun mit einem Schlag zur Verfügung; wer hat sich nicht geärgert, für ne mac-kompatible GraKa das 4 fache einer PC-Karte zahlen zu müssen?

Mit dem RAM, etc dürfte es ähnlich sein; alles in allem ist das Bestreben, die aktuellste erhältliche Hardware zur Verfügung zu haben, ja nicht grundsätzlich blöd. Hatten nicht die PPC-Adaptionen zu den bekannten, und von de usern verschrienen zeitlichen Verzögerungen geführt? Lieferfristen und so weiter.

Den Knackpunkt sehe ich jedoch bei der Software:
Zum einen gehe ich mal davon aus, dass die binairies, sprich doppelt codierten Programme (für PPC und intel) langsamer sind; ev. gibts da jedoch auch einen workarround. Das lange hochgejubelte altivec, dass u.a. auch PS bediente - und beschleunigte, wird wohl auch gänzlich wegfallen. Die bisherige Erfahrung zeigt, dass doppelt gemopplete Software qualitativ nie richtig glänzen konnte: Der Code war bei kaum so gut debugged, wie bei oneplattformeonly, eine Frage des doppelten Aufwandes.

Da ist ein Spagat angesagt, der bei manchem Poweruser durchaus Bauchschmerzen verursachen könnte:

Letzlich wird sich die Pro/Contra intel-Frage bei den Powerusern am meisten auswirken; für's blosse surfen, Büro, etc reicht auch ein G-4 auch 2008 noch alleweil aus.
Die usern von PS, Video, und anderen rendering-trächtigen apps. werden sich jedoch schon fragen, ob Steve sie nicht noch ein weiteres mal im Regen stehen lässt. Vielleicht hat der iPod einfach zu gut funktioniert, und Steve mal Blut lecken lassen.

 

Er werkelt sicher noch an seinem 30000. Posting ... oder an einem neuen Reinluftfilter, damit hier nix MUFfelt. irat:

 

Gesehen nicht, jedoch °gelesen°

glaube gerne, dass der läuft, die Frage iss ja nun wie, und - für mich gesprochen - wie schnell ist PS. Nach 3 Jahren Baustellen im X, Classisc war wohl nicht ganz der grosse Renner - wäre eine Beruhigung schon schön. Oder möchte jemand mein Toast IV Deluxe kaufen :klimper:

 

Der probiert den Tiger auf nem P-4 zu installieren

°lötkolbenaufwärm°

 

*hihi*

 

:boese: :boese: :boese:

 

Glaube mittlerweile, dass die fehlenden (IBM) G-5-chips fürs powerbook einen nicht zu unterschätzenden Faktor in apple's switch darstellen. Abgesehen vom ipod mutierten die books ja zu den Verkaufsschlagern. Die intel-chips sollen weniger warm werden, weniger Strom verbrauchen; und genau das benötigt apple ja für die book-update's.

 

Dochdoch… recht flott. Und ist nicht abgestürzt. Alle weltbewegenden Neuerungen von Bill Gates, die ich in den letzten zehn Jahren live auf CNN gesehen habe, waren live *dead on stage*

Ganz schön frech, dieser Jobs, momoll!
*anerkennendnick*

 

das war bestimmt der ixus irat:

 

alsomacKnallauch!!

*freu*

Ob ich mir 2011 einen macintel anschaffen werde, weiss ich noch nicht. Eines aber ist sicher: M$-Schrottware wird nicht darauf sein.
OSX4ever, undalleswasmichsonstnochfröhlichmacht

 

>June 6, 2005

Apple Computer's announcement Monday that it will be switching from PowerPC to Intel processors brought a declaration of support for the change from Adobe Systems CEO Bruce Chizen.

Calling the shift a smart move on Apple's part, Chizen said Adobe plans to create versions of its Creative Suite for Macintosh to run on both PowerPC and Intel processors.

"We enthusiastically support Apple's new hardware strategy and believe Intel-based systems will deliver the high performance our millions of mutual customers demand," said Russell Brady, a spokesperson for Adobe.

Adobe products such as Creative Suite, Photoshop and InDesign are mainstays for the Mac community, Brady said. "Mac customers can be assured we'll support Apple's Intel-based hardware with products that take advantage of the new architecture," he added.

Adobe Systems Inc. has a strong grasp of both the Windows and Macintosh markets, said Joe Wilcox, a senior analyst at Jupiter Research. But he said it is possible that Apple Computer Inc.'s announcement will have limited impact on the company because Adobe does a larger volume of business on Windows machines.

"I'd say Adobe support is more important to Apple than Apple's support is to Adobe during the transition," Wilcox said.

In general, Wilcox predicted that the shift to Intel processors will cause somewhat of a ripple for all of Adobe's developers and users, as it will for many other companies.

"Any architectural change is disruptive for everyone," Wilcox said. "It looks like Apple has tried to make the transition as easy as possible, but that doesn't mean it's easy, period."

PointerClick here for a column on Apple moving to Intel's architecture.

Many developers who use Creative Suite on Macintosh computers are still waiting for more details about the processor switch and application changes, but the mood is fairly upbeat, said Dave Feldman, president of Interface This, a Massachusetts-based software UI design consultancy.

"We're obviously eager to find out how this will affect us," said Feldman, who has used Adobe software since the early 1990s. "But it seems like Apple has a plan in place and that the shift won't be too difficult."

Part of what is keeping the developer and user communities from fretting is Apple's track record when it comes to major overhauls, Feldman added.

"Beyond all the rhetoric of official statements that are being put out right now, I feel that it's important to look at Apple's past as an indication of the future," he said. "And they've shown that they can make huge changes without causing a lot of pain."<

http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1824801,00.asp

 

Der heute angekommene iMac wird mich mit Sicherheit noch bis zum Jahr 2008 begleiten und die vorhandene Software ebenfalls.
Was dann an Entwicklungen auf dem Markt sein wird, ist jetzt noch garnicht abzusehen und kratzt mich auch nicht sonderlich.
Ob bis dahin "Leopard" auf dem Markt ist oder "Longhorn" auf den Mac adaptiert wurde, ist doch erst dann interessant, wenn ein Neukauf ansteht.
Bis dahin wurschtel ich eben mit dem "Tiger" rum und warte ab.

Gruß Opi

 

Auszug: The key here is that Apple and its BSD-UNIX kernel running on the Intel platform should outperform Windows by an extreme and I'd guess outperform the PowerPC running the same software too.

>
Today's announcement that Apple will be phasing itself to the Intel architecture comes as no surprise to this writer since it's simply a smart move. I also first got wind of this deal back in 2003 and expected it to have been announced this January. I missed it by one keynote and 5 months. It's not a secret that I have been suggesting that Apple do this through most of the 1990's and most recently in 2001 (see links below). So when I got wind of it actually happening and wrote it up in this column it seemed, at least to many Mac heads, that I was making it up in desperation. I'd invite the readers to go back to those columns and read what the Mac blowhards had to say about it.

Why did this take so long? Insiders knew about the meetings between Intel and Apple back in 2003 and further knew that Jobs was having problems with IBM. One insider told me that Jobs was particularly peeved by the fact that IBM got into bed with Sony on the Cell chip and put Apple on the back burner. Apple and Motorola had already gotten into a beef once Jobs returned to Apple and killed the clone deals. Motorola was hoping to make money from the cloners as a supplier of the PowerPC chip. After that deal was killed Motorola, it is believed, began to make things miserable for Apple and the relationship became strained.

Meanwhile, Intel, which is right down the street from Apple unlike IBM and Motorola, kept up the pressure to get Apple to switch. Once the meetings began in earnest in 2003 you began to see a decline in comparison advertising. Intel was never pleased by that old ad where the snail had the Intel chip plastered on its back. By the middle of 2004 all the crazy performance claims for the Mac dissipated as Apple planned its next strategy: moving to Intel.

The key here is that Apple and its BSD-UNIX kernel running on the Intel platform should outperform Windows by an extreme and I'd guess outperform the PowerPC running the same software too. So Jobs can change his comparison advertising from PowerPC versus Intel to OS-X versus Windows on the exact same chip. The publicity potential here is chart-topping. What Mac user won't enjoy this show once it gets going?

I've never understood why the Mac nuts are in such denial over this platform shift. This change to Intel will not only save the platform but potentially drive it into a position of dominance. What will be lost, of course, is the niche and mystique aspect of the Mac which many of its users seem to relish as part of some misguided superiority complex.

A more interesting scenario to me is examining the possibility that Windows users can switch to the Mac OS on their Intel machines. Is this going to be possible?

I have always believed that Apple could enter the PC arena with an Intel-based computer that could run OS-X or Windows and begin to take market share away from Dell and HP. Apple's machines can easily be sold as a Lexus compared to the Fords and Chevy's of Dell and HP. This means better margins than Dell and HP and increased sales thanks to a more normal computer architecture. This is the future of Apple if it's going to survive as a computer maker.
ADVERTISEMENT

There are plenty of people who would pay a premium for a computer that didn't look like an old-fashioned PC. The case-mod movement has been indicating this trend for a decade. A good portion of the buyers today would like to see something around their desk that wasn't a beige box with all the appeal of 1977 Plymouth.

And now that the turnover of computers has fallen people are more likely, not less likely, to spend a few extra dollars for something cool looking. The marketing gurus have not figured this out and continue to drop prices to an extreme. In the 1980's you'd have to buy a new machine every 18 months, and now it's about one every 3-4 years.

In the short term, the problem for Apple is not to kill its sales during the transitional market. In other words, what happens to the left-over PowerPC machines? The company got through this once before when it switched from the 68000 to the PowerPC. It did it with add-on cards, specifically the Power Macintosh Upgrade card. So I expect a similar product this time. Still, this process is going to be bumpy, but with iPod and iTunes mania propping up the company, this is the exact right time to do this. The company can weather any storms in the process.

When it comes out the other end Apple should be stronger, although some of the Mac mystique will wane. Personally I think that will be the biggest benefit. And so much for the supposed superiority of the PowerPC.<

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1824711,00.asp

 

Das tönt doch schon mal interessant:

frei übersetzt:
>speedzuwachs, das design wird ja beibehalten, als nix mit beigen Kisten, als 2004 apple G-5 benchmarks auftauchten war das schon ein Hinweis auf den switch, der mac-mythos sei am sinken, und - was ja uns auch schon klar ist, die Durststrecke bis 08, wie will Steve da die Einbrüche bei den Hardwareverkäufen vermeiden?

Die Kasse ist ja voll, vielleicht sei dies eben darum der richtige Moment zum switschen, zumal mit itunes und ipod ja auch PC-user das Bild vom mac revidierten.<

Tönt eigentlich vernünftig :embar:

Schon eigenartig, dass die Amis damit weniger Probleme haben, als die meisten hier in good old Europe

 

>Rosetta is a translation process that runs a PowerPC binary on an Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor—it allows applications to run as nonnative binaries. Many, but not all, applications can run translated. Applications that run translated will never run as fast as they run as a native binary because the translation process itself incurs a processing cost. How compatible your application is with Rosetta depends on the type of application it is. Applications that have a lot of user interaction and low computational needs, such as a word processor, are quite compatible. Those that have a moderate amount of user interaction and some high computational needs or that use OpenGL are, in most cases, also quite compatible. Those that have intense computing needs aren’t compatible. This includes applications that need to repeatedly compute fast Fourier transforms (FFTs), that compute complex models for 3-D modelling, or compute ray tracing. To the user, Rosetta is transparent. Unlike Classic, when the user launches an application, there aren’t any visual cues to indicate that the application is translated. The user may perceive that the application is slow to start up or that the performance is slower than it is on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor. The user can discover whether an application has only a PowerPC binary by looking at the Finder information for the application. (See “Determining Whether a Binary is Universal” (page 18).) The purpose of this appendix is to discuss the sorts of applications that can run translated, describe how Rosetta works, point out special considerations for translated applications, and provide troubleshooting information if your application won’t run translated but you think that it should.


http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/universal_binary.pdf

Die Emulation wird also ziemlich langsam sein, die gemischten apps sind also nicht wirklich ein brauchbarer Weg.

--> den aktuellen PPC so lange ausreizen, bis ein vernünftiger intelmac mit der angepassten Software da ist; und classic-2 links liegen lassen