Paul:
You are way too negative. Much of what you are saying is simply
not true.
The new Intel Macs will have the same APIs. In many, many cases
****ting over is an easy recompile. On the other hand, creating
Carbon applications from Classic applications was a major effort.
The APIs changed. Much code had to be rewritten. That was a
painful change.
Unless you have been programming in assembly language (discouraged
by Apple from the beginning of PowerPC), the switch should not be
all that difficult.
Regarding chip speed, the reality is that Intel has faster
processors. Sure, you can find a few Photoshop benchmarks
that show the PowerPC doing better but, in general, the PowerPC
is slower. MHz really do matter. Don't fight it.
It is true that Apple will have a difficult period in terms of
Mac sales. Perhaps, they decided this is the time to do it
with iPods doing so well. Apple has the strongest customer base
by far. They always come back.
The Mac versus PC debate has, in my opinion, always been about
quality versus quantity. PCs are faster, cheaper, etc. but you
and I know that the Mac quality has always been far better and
that's why we lived with the other compromises. Finally, Apple
is doing something that will reduce the quantitative differences
between Macs and PCs. The only difference that will be left
is quality; Apple wins in that category hands down.
In article <_O1pe.272$eM6.251@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Paul" <remove_this_its_just_paul@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The main reason I couldn't believe the Mac on x86 rumor (aside from the
> utter insanity of it in the first place) was that MW had just finished
> selling off its x86 compilers.... Actually, that appears to have been a
good
> move, considering how Apple is now shoving XCode down everyone's throat.
> Maybe MW knew after all. I can't wait to hear their long-promised
> announcement at WWDC (I'm glad I saved my $2500-$3000 this year.)
>
> I haven't looked lately, but IIRC Apple has an installed based of around
30
> million, and they sell a couple of million a year. Given that NONE of
the
> major apps (the ones that sell Macs) use Cocoa, and therefore can't
merely
> be (hah!) recompiled, how is Apple going to convince Adobe or Quark to
> ****t/fork their product line _again_, so they can sell to maybe 10% of a
> market they barely care about anyway? They couldn't swing it with OSX,
and
> Adobe loves Apple, compared to most hardware manufacturers: judging by
the
> quality and availability of drivers I saw at OSX launch, I expect the
worst.
>
> And not only that:
>
> - How about all the shareware / small operations? Our stuff isn't as
hard
> to ****t, but we'd have to spend many registrations worth of cash on new
> computers to sell to the same tiny market (and maintain 2 versions for a
few
> years too.) XCode will be the only way to play (and playing is about all
> it's good for.)
>
> - When the PPC switch happened, Apple had a *more* powerful chip that
could
> do things like emulate legacy code at reasonable speed; without that,
the
> PowerMac's would have gone nowhere. This time they're switching to a
chip
> that's about equal in speed. Do the math.
>
> - Intel has other irons in the fire. If Microsoft officially endorsed
AMD,
> they'd cost Intel more than Apple's business will ever be worth. Would
you
> want to be in that position?
>
> - If many of the the major players are interested but decide to wait a
few
> months or a year to see how it goes (I would), the platform is dead (no
> software -> no sales -> no software.) Quark did that w/ OSX, probably in
the
> hope that it would go away before they had to bother; are they going to
jump
> at this?
>
>
> I've been an Apple fanboy since '86. I've written Mac shareware and
> commercial apps and cringed every time Apple did some gloriously stupid
> thing. For the first time in 19 years I think they really have blown it
> irretrievably. Technically it will work: the chips are powerful enough,
the
> OS has been ****ted, etc, but their new platform is likely to ****p with
zero
> third party software (except iLife, not one piece of which I use) for
the
> foreseeable future. Coming off a year of near zero hardware sales (would
you
> buy a PPC mac now?) I think this will be it. They'll still have the best
OS,
> but if no one buys it or the computers that run it, they get to be
BeOS2....
> If they somehow manage only a 50% loss of volume, they'll see a 95% loss
of
> driver sup****t, which means it'll take an extra year but be no less
certain.
>
> I have a G5 and a TiBook, still the best Internet / general use machines
> ever built and likely to be for a while yet; I might even spring for
> Leopard, depending on how my transition to Gentoo is going by then. You
see,
> I've never had anything against Intel (except their value compared to
AMD);
> I could care less what chip I run, and I've done Windows for a living
for
> years. I'd stick with Mac if I thought there was any chance of it
working
> out. As it is, I don't think the risk is worth gambling $1500 (Premier
> member****p + $999 computer) to stay in the game. And I fear I'm not the
only
> one.
>
> I think I'm going to be sick. If you read this far, sorry for the long
rant
> but it's my first and I thought I deserved it.
|
