Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 07:05 UTC
Apple Apple has always been about moving forward, about pressing customers to buy the latest and greatest. Product pacing has been high in Cupertino (except for the Mac Mini, obviously), and this is obviously a good thing if you're an Apple bean counter. Most Apple fans more or less accept this planned obsolescence without question, but the company may have just gone a little too far.
Order by: Score:
Snow Leopard
by kloty on Wed 4th Feb 2009 07:34 UTC
kloty
Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, I suppose these will be the requirements for Snow Leopard as well. Bye, bye iBook G4, you served me well last few years.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Snow Leopard
by Clinton on Wed 4th Feb 2009 20:04 UTC in reply to "Snow Leopard"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Well, I suppose these will be the requirements for Snow Leopard as well. Bye, bye iBook G4, you served me well last few years.


Isn't that kind of the point of Snow Leopard, to cut down the footprint? How could Apple do that if they still had code in there to support both the G4s and the Intel chips? The G4 support code is huge.

The Universal Binary was just a stepping stone to bridge the gap between the old CPU architecture and the new. I don't think any reasonable person expected Universal Binaries to be the standard from here on out. I think the Universal Binaries have served their purpose and it is now time for them to start saying goodbye.

I don't know why anybody is upset by this move either. At least Apple provided great support during the transition (through two major OS releases), unlike Microsoft, who releases an OS that is incompatible in many ways from their old OS and provides no transition support whatsoever.

Edited 2009-02-04 20:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Snow Leopard
by obi_oni on Sun 8th Feb 2009 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Snow Leopard"
obi_oni Member since:
2006-02-15

It's not as if a few GB (if that much) on disk mattered - it never gets loaded in memory, so it doesn't make a difference to startup speed or runtime performance.

Reply Score: 1

That's a shame
by Budd on Wed 4th Feb 2009 08:14 UTC
Budd
Member since:
2005-07-08

So,Leopard will be the last OS my Pro G4 Quicksilver will see. And that's a shame because Snow Leopard supposed to be even snappier compared with 10.5. The sad part is that I can't use the Apple monitor that I have (1280x1024) anymore. I have no use for it otherwise (or maybe I can hook it to the MBP , downgrading the resolution). But hey, maybe it's time to buy some new gear.

Edited 2009-02-04 08:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: That's a shame
by alcibiades on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:15 UTC in reply to "That's a shame"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Get a hackintosh, and carry on using your monitor. It will be cheap, fast, stable and expandable. If you don't want to do it yourself from scratch, you've got two choices, one is psystar, the other is efi-x. If you have someone put it together for you, get a gigabyte board and core 2 as specified in the macintouch review of efi-x, and you'll get a better quality main board than anything Apple will sell you at any price. And if you go for the Antec case they used, you'll even get a far better case with it.

You also can get a dual core Duo, rather than the ridiculously expensive quad core the macs use. Yes, they are going to be faster. A tiny amount faster for a huge amount more cash. We are well into diminishing returns at this point. And i7 is coming towards every buyer of a full priced Pro at this point, its like a bullet aimed right at your investment, just as the core 2 was a bullet aimed at your PPC investment. Planned obsolescence, here we come again.

The issue is never that you can duplicate the Mac for less. You cannot and should not want to. The issue is always that you can get something better fitted for purpose for far, far less.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: That's a shame
by Sabon on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: That's a shame"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

"You also can get a dual core Duo, rather than the ridiculously expensive quad core the macs use.

The only Macs that use quad core are the Mac Pros (not to be confused with MacBook Pros). No iMac or any other mac currently has quad processors.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's a shame
by alcibiades on Thu 5th Feb 2009 07:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's a shame"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

He presumably will be in the market for a Pro rather than an iMac since he wants to carry on using his monitor, and its a Pro he has now.

The iMacs are fine, if that form factor is what you want, and if you need a new screen, but what lots of people want is a base unit under 1,000 with a decent graphics card, space for another hard drive or two, a fast core 2 processor, decent amount of memory, and the ability to use the monitor they already have.

This is not at all unreasonable, there are heaps of the things available for purchase. Computer users all over the world buy them by the million. Its just that Apple, perhaps for perfectly sound business reasons, refuses to stick its brand namne on one of them.

Apple is basically driving loyal users to get Hackintoshes. Why wait around? As the Macintouch review showed, and other reviews have showed, the result is excellent quality and also excellent value.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's a shame
by Liquidator on Wed 4th Feb 2009 12:56 UTC in reply to "That's a shame"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

When you're an Apple customer, you're not supposed to really care about how much you spend in your $#!% ;)

Introducing the iProduct...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: That's a shame
by DeadFishMan on Wed 4th Feb 2009 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: That's a shame"
DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

When you're an Apple customer, you're not supposed to really care about how much you spend in your $#!% ;)

Introducing the iProduct...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif


lol... That's a classic! I will always love that iProduct ad!

Reply Score: 2

Time for some critical reflection on Apple
by porcel on Wed 4th Feb 2009 08:26 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Good call, Thom.

More journalists and bloggers need to do just that. All large corporations will push far enough until the consumers of their products say they have had enough.

Apple does not do this in ignorance. They know that they have a loyal following and that they are able to get away with behavior that no other company would.

It is high time that Apple's users push back in a meaningful and coordinated fashion. Remember that 1984 ad with its not-so-subtle references to an Orwelian future?

One of Orwell's big concerns was when people relinquish their freedom to empty slogans that mean the exact opposite of what they claim.

Apple thinks or does "different".

I think not. Just another corporation without much concern for anything other than profits.

And before I get the horde of hard-core capitalists telling me that that's the way it has or needs to be.

Spare me.

You can make good money and be good to your customers. Sometimes, it means making less money, sure, but I would rather do that and retain a sense of corporate responsibility and honor the founding values of the company than sacrifice everything I or the company once stood for in the quest for higher profit margins.

Edited 2009-02-04 08:31 UTC

Reply Score: 14

wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

and honor the founding values of the company

uh-huh...tap a market and make lots and lots of money by pushing the technological envelope with cool toys that everyone would want to have.

Generally, I see what you're both saying... but since I'm a glass half full kinda guy, I see the picture a little differently.

For me, Apple's message with the 1984 ad was as much about breaking the shackles of the existing culture and doing something new and brave as it is 'Orwellian'...to hell with the repurcussions. Sometimes a little revolution is good and necessary to move forward.

And there's usually a reason.

And no, I don't own one.

Edited 2009-02-04 12:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Traumflug
by Traumflug on Wed 4th Feb 2009 08:32 UTC
Traumflug
Member since:
2008-05-22

It's exactly this type of artifical limitation which make me a happy Linux camper now.

For many years, buying Apple made sure you'd get solid hardware along with reasonable state-of-the-art software for a few years to come. Now they expect me to throw away perfectly working hardware or to stay seriously behind. That's an attitude I'm used to from marketing gadgets, not from a premium product.

Reply Score: 10

v Looking at it in other ways.
by iwod on Wed 4th Feb 2009 08:50 UTC
one more thing: AVCHD
by mono on Wed 4th Feb 2009 09:37 UTC
mono
Member since:
2005-10-19

We bought a PowerPC G5 two and a half years ago and last year we realized that AVCHD doesn't work on PPC hardware in Final Cut (I know there is the 3rd party VoltaicHD but that's extremely slow and a really cumbersome workaround).
Apple should have announce in 2005 that AVCHD, iLife etc won't run on old hardware in 2008 or 2009. Simply they mislead consumers because they had to sell all those G5-based computers during the transition.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply Score: 7

RE: one more thing: AVCHD
by alcibiades on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:03 UTC in reply to "one more thing: AVCHD"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Those who are with PowerPC, will be classified as "Pending for upgrade" Status, in Apple ecosystem, 3 years are around the time they expect you to upgrade.


The myth of course is that Apple hardware lasts longer. So when people do analysis of the installed base, they assume lots more of the shipped Macs are still in service than of the shipped Windows machines. When they do value for money comparisons, they assume that the Macs last longer.

There never has been any evidence for this, and the quote above suggests the contrary, as does the phasing out of support for anything that is not current.

Throw the junk out and buy a new one, seems to be the message.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: one more thing: AVCHD
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:06 UTC in reply to "RE: one more thing: AVCHD"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There never has been any evidence for this, and the quote above suggests the contrary, as does the phasing out of support for anything that is not current.


It gets even better: PowerPC and Intel Macs sold in 2006 are still under Apple warranty. So you have the weird situation where your machine is under full warranty, yet you do not get to use parts of Apple's software.

I'm sorry, but you have to be crazy to accept this without question.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: one more thing: AVCHD
by polaris20 on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: one more thing: AVCHD"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

"There never has been any evidence for this, and the quote above suggests the contrary, as does the phasing out of support for anything that is not current.


It gets even better: PowerPC and Intel Macs sold in 2006 are still under Apple warranty. So you have the weird situation where your machine is under full warranty, yet you do not get to use parts of Apple's software.

I'm sorry, but you have to be crazy to accept this without question.
"

I love my shiny new MBP, but I agree completely. I wonder in what way I'll be left out in the cold in 2 or 3 years!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: one more thing: AVCHD
by DigitalAxis on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE: one more thing: AVCHD"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

There's a difference between "lasts longer" and "is supported longer".

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: one more thing: AVCHD
by Sabon on Wed 4th Feb 2009 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: one more thing: AVCHD"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

"The myth of course is that Apple hardware lasts longer."

Hmmmm - you had better tell my wife that her 800mhz G4 iMac (lamp) purchased in 2000 and is running Mac OS X 10.4.6 isn't still working. Sure it isn't as fast as current computers but she does all the normal stuff that normal people do on computers. Except maybe pron. I don't think she surfs for that but maybe she does. The same is true without 2001 800mhz G4 PowerBook

Sure she can't have me install OS X 10.5 or let her run the newest version of iLife.

I was able to install the newest version of iWork (I bought the family pack for it) which runs on all of our computers except for the 1998 original iMac version b. That still works for surfing the web and doing e-mail too running Mac OS 9.2 and is the only Mac we have with anti-virus software.

I was thinking about updating both but she likes the look of her iMac lamp and the new MacBook doesn't have a firewire port so I can't connect our Sony digital 8 video camera to it. So in a way, our old PowerBook is better than the new MacBook. And I don't feel like spending an additional $500 just for a FireWire port.

I do also have a Nov '06 white 24" iMac Core2Duo which I've installed the new iLife on. The learn keyboard and guitar looks pretty cool. I've only peeked at it. The new iMovie is MUCH improved though I may still need iMove '06 (I restored it from TimeMachine - very easy - very cool). Guess I'm glad a waited for the Core2Duo version.

Edited 2009-02-04 16:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: one more thing: AVCHD
by alcibiades on Thu 5th Feb 2009 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: one more thing: AVCHD"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

her 800mhz G4 iMac (lamp) purchased in 2000 and is running Mac OS X 10.4.6 isn't still working.

Its not at all surprising that it is still working. There is nothing unusual about this. Go into small businesses and charities all over the place, and you'll find Dells and Compaqs as old as or older than this working just fine. Some are running Win 98, some XP.

What is amazing is that people seem to think there is something unique about Apple hardware when it lasts the normal length of time for all computer hardware.

The reason people swap out PC hardware sooner is nothing to do with longevity of the hardware. Its for three reasons.

One, they want the increased performance. Probably Mac users do too, but they do without.

Two, they want to run new software (and this, obviously, applies to Mac owners as well).

Three, and this does not apply to Mac owners, its real cheap. You buy a new base unit, it comes with OS installed, or you put your favorite distro on it, and its not a size of purchase you have to think about much. Its not like buying a Mac. And you get to reuse your monitor which makes it cheaper.

Mac owners hang on forever to obsolete hardware because its too expensive to replace. PC owners throw out perfectly well functioning hardware and replace it with something faster because they can afford to and they feel like it.

Mac people then conclude that their hardware was better quality and lasted longer. No, it was just more expensive.

Reply Score: 4

A lot of dev.
by riha on Wed 4th Feb 2009 09:43 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

More platforms means more developement and buggfixing as well. Think about that.

By that i mean the PPC vs. intel support in applications and OS.

Reply Score: 0

Two points
by kaiwai on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:13 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

1) I can understanding killing off PowerPC, that makes sense BUT I think the idea of killing off the Core Solo is pretty crap - at the very least they should have 'recommended' a dual core but still allow those who want to run iLife on their core solo to continue on doing as they did. People could still use it whilst at the same time realising that their machine is underpowered and things might take a little longer than if they had a dual core.

2) Regarding this statement, "If I had bought a dual quad-core PowerMac G5 2.5 years ago for three kidneys and a liver, I'd be pretty pissed off right about now" - I (along with many others) warned and I warned and I warned and I warned - but people didn't listen to me. I said it was a stupid idea to purchase a G5 given that there is a move to Intel.

Guess what? no one listened to me (and people like me) - and now this group of complainers are now swarming websites like this - pissing an moaning after being full warned as to the consequences of their purchasing decision. Please explain to me why the slightest bit of sympathy should be shed for those who went and purchased a massive upgrade knowing that there was a limited life span to it?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Two points
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:43 UTC in reply to "Two points"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Guess what? no one listened to me (and people like me) - and now this group of complainers are now swarming websites like this - pissing an moaning after being full warned as to the consequences of their purchasing decision. Please explain to me why the slightest bit of sympathy should be shed for those who went and purchased a massive upgrade knowing that there was a limited life span to it?


Exactly BECAUSE that limited lifespan is ARTIFICIAL. A PowerPC G5 machine was expensive then, and right now, they are still perfectly capable and fine machines, rivalling many cheap computers still sold today - with the dual G5/quad core models still being top-of-the-line performance-wise. In fact, even many G4 machines, especially the dual processor models, are still perfectly capable of powering ANYTHING Apple currently releases, yet Apple ARTIFICIALLY kills them off.

That is simply appalling, and it's one of the main reasons why I decided to buy a normal x86 a few weeks ago, instead of buying a Mac: what guarantee do I have that my investment will not be made obsolete by Apple's software police?

Edited 2009-02-04 10:45 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Two points
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Two points"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Apple's not a huge company. For them x86 is the mainstream platform, so it's probably going to be better-supported from here on out. They're going to have to make the crossover sometime, no? Whenever they do it, there's going to be some moaning.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Two points
by Sabon on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Two points"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Right. And let's say you bought a computer with Windows XP on it at the time that you bought your G4. Are you saying that you could have bought Vista Ultimate and ran EVERYTHING that is part of Ultimate and that you could run EVERY game that game out in the last year?

I'm knowledgeably saying no to both. No you wouldn't have been able to run everything in Vista and no you wouldn't have been able to run ALL of the newest games. So you would be limited either way.

You also KNEW that Apple wasn't going to be sticking with PowerPC chips when the G5 came out. The problems with IBM and Motorola updating the G5 chip for iMacs and Mac Pros, let alone laptops, was ALL over the web even before the G5 came out.

Which is why I didn't buy a G5. I also didn't buy an early Intel Mac because I was pretty certain that there would be bugs to work out. I waited until the Core2Duo's came out and only then bought a new iMac.

In the meantime my wife and I used, and still use, our 2000 800mhz G4 iMac lamp and our 800mhz G4 PowerBook, which I'm writing this on, by the way.

I've been wanting a Mac mini for over a year now. At the time it had been just under 180 days since the last time that the Mac Mini had been updated and I figured I'm not going to buy a new one until it has been updated again. I'm still waiting at 530 some days or so for it to be updated. I'm not going to buy one know that if I bought one before it gets updated I would be pretty upset when it did.

I in no way feel screwed that my G4s can't install Mac OS 10.5.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Two points
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two points"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Right. And let's say you bought a computer with Windows XP on it at the time that you bought your G4. Are you saying that you could have bought Vista Ultimate and ran EVERYTHING that is part of Ultimate and that you could run EVERY game that game out in the last year?


Before we start his discussion, let me, your friendly neighbourhood editor, give you the opportunity to forfeit your point about running the latest games. Because, well, Mac and Games? You REALLY want to go there?

But anyway, well, to answer your question: yes. That machine on the left side of my desk is a machine I bought back in early 2003 (could be late 2002, even), and it has no problems running Vista and Windows 7, and the latest Ubuntu also runs without any problems, but with ALL the bells and whistles on both the Windows and Linux sides.

A Mac bought in that same year, or even during the 3 years after that, will not run Apple's latest software. Sure, I gave that x86 I mentioned a RAM and (minor) video card upgrade - but I can do the same on the Mac, and it STILL wouldn't be able to run the latest Apple software.

All because Apple places arbitrary and artificial restrictions, simply because it wants to shove more hardware up your ass.

When I was given the opportunity to buy a new computer a few weeks ago, I thought about getting a Mac. I like Mac OS X, I like the hardware design (I already own a few and have owned a few). Still, I'm not rich enough to join Apple's upgrade treadmill, and because of that, they just lost a customer. I'm simply not rich enough to buy a new computer whenever Apple decides to place yet another arbitrary cut-off point in its software.

So, I bought a generic x86. Not only is it cheaper, it's also a LOT faster than anything Apple has to offer me (only a custom Mac Pro would beat it, at 5 (!) times the price), and I KNOW that I will be able to install Windows 8 and Ubuntu Grizzly Grucktard on it when the time comes. It may not be the best and fastest computer by then, but at least Redmond and Shuttleworth give me a frakking CHOICE.

Edited 2009-02-04 16:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Two points
by thebluesgnr on Fri 6th Feb 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Two points"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

It's not true that they've been "artificially" killed. Apple did what almost every software company would do, and looked at the cost of supporting those platforms and the money they would make by doing so.

Also, you mentioned buying a "normal x86"... Macs now are normal x86 systems. The main reason Apple's cutting support for older systems is because they transitioned to "normal x86".

You also mentioned running a current Linux distribution on an old PC - can't you do that on the old Mac as well? It seems the only problem here is that Apple doesn't support older systems with newer software as well as Microsoft. That's pretty much a solid fact, but keep in mind that supporting a completely different architecture is not the same as supporting older and less powerful machines.

Apple's hardware and software have always been very much tied together, but people should start seeing things for how they are now. Apple sells computers that can run Mac OS X, Windows or Linux as well as any other PC.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Two points
by Bounty on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two points"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Right. And let's say you bought a computer with Windows XP on it at the time that you bought your G4. Are you saying that you could have bought Vista Ultimate and ran EVERYTHING that is part of Ultimate and that you could run EVERY game that game out in the last year? I'm knowledgeably saying no to both. No you wouldn't have been able to run everything in Vista and no you wouldn't have been able to run ALL of the newest games. So you would be limited either way. You also KNEW that Apple wasn't going to be sticking with PowerPC chips when the G5 came out. The problems with IBM and Motorola updating the G5 chip for iMacs and Mac Pros, let alone laptops, was ALL over the web even before the G5 came out. Which is why I didn't buy a G5. I also didn't buy an early Intel Mac because I was pretty certain that there would be bugs to work out. I waited until the Core2Duo's came out and only then bought a new iMac. In the meantime my wife and I used, and still use, our 2000 800mhz G4 iMac lamp and our 800mhz G4 PowerBook, which I'm writing this on, by the way. I've been wanting a Mac mini for over a year now. At the time it had been just under 180 days since the last time that the Mac Mini had been updated and I figured I'm not going to buy a new one until it has been updated again. I'm still waiting at 530 some days or so for it to be updated. I'm not going to buy one know that if I bought one before it gets updated I would be pretty upset when it did. I in no way feel screwed that my G4s can't install Mac OS 10.5.



I'm gonna go ahead and call this a Troll... You're going to compare what games you can run on a PC purchased in 2006 v.s. a PPC imac purchased at the same time in the same price bracket.... MAUAHAHAMAUAHAMAUIAHAMAMAUAHAHAA

(p.s. This may be a foregin concept for iMac users, but on a PC you can purchase this thing called a video card upgrade for about 100$, and run all of Vista's features and all PC games.)

Edited 2009-02-04 16:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Two points
by weildish on Thu 5th Feb 2009 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Two points"
weildish Member since:
2008-12-06

(p.s. This may be a foregin concept for iMac users, but on a PC you can purchase this thing called a video card upgrade for about 100$, and run all of Vista's features and all PC games.)


You know, I've heard of that? It's genius! I think the general term is called "customization." I read about people who actually build their own computers with as little or as much power as they want and with as high or as low quality parts as they want, usually for cheaper than buying from a manufacturer. Fancy that! Installing whatever you want on most hardware available! Power to the consumer!

Sarcasm aside, Apple artificially disabling hardware and software? I don't follow Apple as much as MS and some open source, but have they been practicing this for their entire existence? If this is a new concept, I don't see it helping computer sales in the future. They're hurting enough as it is because the price-to-power ratio when compared with non-Mac PCs is in favor of the non-Macs, especially in this economy. Bad move, I say. It'll only lose them customers. But then Apple really doesn't make a ton of profits from Macs when you look at iPhones and iPods and all of their other iStuff.

On the other hand, I can see why Apple's doing it. Letting new software run on hardware incapable of running it properly will often result in some negative light. But doesn't it seem a little... totalitarian to limit people's choice on what hardware to run their software on? That's what system requirements on the side of the box are for. Just make sure the requirements are high enough to run the software well, and most people, especially Mac users, will know that they're taking a risk of poor performance to run on a machine that doesn't meet the standards.

**getting off my soapbox and going to bed**

Edited 2009-02-05 06:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Two points
by adamcw on Wed 4th Feb 2009 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Two points"
adamcw Member since:
2009-02-04

Software police? Really? Did they break down your door and remove all the software that is currently working? No. One new product has one feature that won't work on your legacy architecture. An architecture that was publically announced as on the way out...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Two points
by Vide on Wed 4th Feb 2009 13:01 UTC in reply to "Two points"
Vide Member since:
2006-02-17


Guess what? no one listened to me (and people like me) - and now this group of complainers are now swarming websites like this - pissing an moaning after being full warned as to the consequences of their purchasing decision. Please explain to me why the slightest bit of sympathy should be shed for those who went and purchased a massive upgrade knowing that there was a limited life span to it?


Kaiwai, were you speaking as an Apple worker or official Apple reseller to customers or as a simple Apple/tech-savvy to his friends? Because what really counts it's only the first position: official Apple position. In 2006 Apple was migrating to Intel yet it was still selling powerful&expensive PPC machines, saying to its paying costumers "Don't worry for your brand new PPC, we will support it!". Now, the support ended after 2.5 years, and people have all the right to complain and shout at Apple.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Two points
by kaiwai on Wed 4th Feb 2009 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Two points"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Kaiwai, were you speaking as an Apple worker or official Apple reseller to customers or as a simple Apple/tech-savvy to his friends? Because what really counts it's only the first position: official Apple position. In 2006 Apple was migrating to Intel yet it was still selling powerful&expensive PPC machines, saying to its paying costumers "Don't worry for your brand new PPC, we will support it!". Now, the support ended after 2.5 years, and people have all the right to complain and shout at Apple.


Where did Apple ever make a commitment to a certain time period? Provide the information. Discussions on Mac boards over the internet came to pretty much the conclusion of: get the G5 PPC if you really need it for work and that the performance is crucial for work immediately or hold off to get an Intel one once released.

This filtered back through the forums into articles, online buying advice etc even resellers were advising customers to hold off their purchases. etc. It wasn't as though a unsure buyer couldn't pull on resources to quantify as to whether purchasing a PPC G5 monster at that moment was a good investment. I don't know about you, but I tend to RESEARCH my purchases before slapping down several thousand dollars.

If the general concensus of pundits, forum goers, resellers and so forth is to hold off for the Intel release - you know what? I'd take their advice because to me the several thousand dollars is worth a pretty penny. If the advice from people who are 9/10 correct in their prediction, I'm going to trust them more than I trust Apple - whose sole purpose for pushing the PPC is to maintain the high margin profit stream.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Two points
by andrewg on Wed 4th Feb 2009 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Two points"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

They implied that PPC support was not going to disappear, that it had a long future ahead of it. They made a big song and dance about fat binaries and the like. Everything the said made it seem like PPC had a long future. Of course they never came out and blatantly said it would be dropped after 3 years. I am sure the ambiguity of what they were saying was deliberate. They were just like your stereotypical sleazy politician deliberately employing ambiguity.

Its obvious why they did this. They did not want to lose out on sales.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Two points
by Sabon on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Two points"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

"They implied that PPC support was not going to disappear, that it had a long future ahead of it. They made a big song and dance about fat binaries and the like. Everything the said made it seem like PPC had a long future. Of course they never came out and blatantly said it would be dropped after 3 years. I am sure the ambiguity of what they were saying was deliberate. They were just like your stereotypical sleazy politician deliberately employing ambiguity."

Actually, if you bought your G5 less than three years ago they DO support it. They NEVER said that ALL software that is available three years from now will run on it.

Supporting something and saying that the latest and greatest version of ALL apps was going to run on it. Microsoft can't say that either. Such as any computer bought 2.5 years ago being able to run Vista Ultimate. Not everything will run. People complain about that all over the internet about this and how they went back to Windows XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Two points
by andrewg on Wed 4th Feb 2009 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Two points"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

I happily ran 5 and 6 year old computers running Vista. They were Pentium 4 and an the 700 and something pin AMD64. The one had an Nvidia 5000 series GPU the other an ATI 9550. Both ran Aero fine and Vista runs fine without Aero.

You don't need more resources to run Vista Ultimate than you do Home premium or Business. Ultimate is just a superset of those versions + some worthless extras some people are still waiting to receive.

Reply Score: 3

You're crazy if you stick with Apple
by 3rdalbum on Wed 4th Feb 2009 10:39 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

This is a great example of the upgrade rollercoaster that Apple puts you on. Requiring a dual-core processor to run a multitrack recording program is obscene. Requiring a Firewire port in order to run OS X Tiger is even dumber.

My Mac got obsolete very quickly and would have required a memory upgrade and a new operating system in order to keep running new programs - then Tiger came out and I couldn't install it because Apple didn't give my machine any provisions to add Firewire.

I told them politely where they could put their Firewire, and installed Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 7

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Please gives more information about which Mac you purchased. What model? What year? Was it new or used when you bought it?

Reply Score: 1

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Requiring a dual-core processor to run a multitrack recording program is obscene.


This very likely has more to do with the Core Solos not being 64 bit processors than it has to do with just having a second core.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by haakin
by haakin on Wed 4th Feb 2009 13:13 UTC
haakin
Member since:
2008-12-18

According to an Spanish website that it's not true. It's possible to play those lessons in a G5. In this post:

http://www.faq-mac.com/noticias/34272/utiliza-aprende-tocar-garageb...

there is a video (in Spanish, sorry) that shows one of those lessons being payed in a PowerPC. It seems that you have to open some files here Library > Application Support > GarageBand.

I haven't got iLife 09 and couldn't test it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by haakin
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 13:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by haakin"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It seems that you have to open some files here Library > Application Support > GarageBand.


Further proving Apple placing artificial limitations. Isn't there a law against this sort of thing?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by haakin
by jimbofluffy on Wed 4th Feb 2009 17:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by haakin"
jimbofluffy Member since:
2008-07-15

Just off my RSS feeds, here is a fix for iMovie '09 to run on a G4:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20090130074400511

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by haakin
by jcgf on Wed 4th Feb 2009 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by haakin"
jcgf Member since:
2005-11-14

Thanks. I bet folks will keep whining and ignore the fact that a solution exists though ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by haakin
by Raf.be on Wed 4th Feb 2009 20:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by haakin"
Raf.be Member since:
2005-06-29

There's a documented workaround @ http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/iLife09_user_feedback_tips.html... to use the 'learn to play' lessons on PPC Mac's.

Reply Score: 1

Consider...
by Solow on Wed 4th Feb 2009 13:28 UTC
Solow
Member since:
2006-05-28

that most of these artificial limitations have been overcome by various enthusiasts. One can run OS X on older machines using "Xpostfacto". One can install leopard on slower G4's (<867 Mhz)using "LeopardAssist" among other methods. I suspect that someone will find a way to run the newer iLife on single core Intels as well. We'll all just have to wait and see.

Reply Score: 2

So....don't Upgrade....
by tjolley on Wed 4th Feb 2009 13:57 UTC
tjolley
Member since:
2006-03-14

You purchased your machine with some version of OSX and some version of iLife and maybe purchased some version of iWork and some other apps were happy as a clam.

Did they suddenly stop working? Do they no longer function? Do they no longer do what they did before the announcement of the new shiny toys?

What? No? Everything works as it did before? Hmm...so what's the problem?

It's called progress. They want to move forward and do neat new things that only work, or only work as they desire with dual-core machines.

So if you want the new versions of various things, you need to have a dual-core processor or upgrade hardware to meet the minimum requirements.

Really I don't see the problem. Nothing is dictating that you MUST upgrade.

It's no different than the 2G-3G iPhone. I don't hear 2G iPhone owners whining that they can't use iPhone 3G features because there is different hardware requirements that their 2G phones don't meet.

It's no different than certain new game version requiring a certain type/level of graphics hardware, or processor speed, or amount of RAM, etc, etc. You don't meet the new minimum specs? Upgrade hardware or don't buy the new shiny toy. I really don't hear gamers whining..I just hear them salivating over the opportunity/excuse to upgrade 6 months after their last major upgrade.

Heck, I don't hear console gamers complaining. XBox360? What about all those poor Xbox owners who spent all that money on games and controllers..they can't use the new XBox360 games..Should MS upgrade their machines for Free? Should Sony upgrade all the PSOne and PS2 owners hardware because they can't play the new PS3 games or use the new features in the PS3 on their older hardware? Should MS or Sony requie all new games also work on the older hardware platforms because those people spent money on them? NO!

Want a dual-core Intel and only have a core-solo? Then upgrade the processor and stop whining. Almost all core-solo machines have a dual-core upgrade path.

If you own a PPC, you KNEW Apple was moving to Intel, and you should have known this day was coming.

This is no different than when Microsoft stopped supporting true DOS apps, or Microsoft stopping support of Windows 3.x apps, or Microsoft ceasing support of Windows 95 apps, or Apple stopping support of System X.X, etc, etc, etc..it's called progress.

Do you blame the manufacturer of your DVD player (if you have one) because you can't play Blu-Ray discs? It still plays DVD's fine, but you want to use the new shiny toy..and can't..but you know the new shiny toy was coming, but you purchased the DVD player anyway...but...but...but...I should Always be able to use the newest shiny toy even if my original toy wasn't designed to do it...and the manufacturer never ever directly told me my toy wouldn't be able to use the newer shiny toys coming out a few years from now..WAAAAAAAAAAA!!

Grow up. Stop complaining. Either upgrade your hardware, don't partake in this round of upgrades, or 'show 'em' and install Windows or Linux an your machine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So....don't Upgrade....
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 4th Feb 2009 14:15 UTC in reply to "So....don't Upgrade...."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Do you blame the manufacturer of your DVD player (if you have one) because you can't play Blu-Ray discs?


That's a technical limitation, nor an artificial one. Apple's limitations are almost always artificial. This case included.

That is completely different.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: So....don't Upgrade....
by godawful on Wed 4th Feb 2009 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE: So....don't Upgrade...."
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

Isn't it possible that the reasoning for this limitation is due to performance? I can understand not wanting certain software to run on a core solo machine if it would be detrimental to the appearance of the software. Same as running certain versions of OS X on older hardware.. there are patches which prove it is possible, but it is hardly optimal.

Some will argue that this should be left up to them to decide, but, that's just not how the apple world works, and folks who buy into it accept that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: So....don't Upgrade....
by jcgf on Wed 4th Feb 2009 14:31 UTC in reply to "So....don't Upgrade...."
jcgf Member since:
2005-11-14

I agree. Seems the same as when people whine about the new ribbon in Office 2007.

"planned obsolescence" shout the haters

"progress" shout the fans

Everyone else just keeps doing what they were doing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: So....don't Upgrade....
by Cymro on Wed 4th Feb 2009 14:39 UTC in reply to "So....don't Upgrade...."
Cymro Member since:
2005-07-07

You purchased your machine with some version of OSX and some version of iLife and maybe purchased some version of iWork and some other apps were happy as a clam.

Did they suddenly stop working?


What a waste of words your post was. Being able to run future software without arbitrary limitations placed on you by the manufacturer is something that you simply expect when you buy a new computer.

Since you're a fan of metaphors, it's like a buying a tower machine and finding later that the expansion slots are arbitrarily set not to work with cards newer than 2008.

If you can't take a simple feature like this for granted, then it's a big argument against buying a Mac and people are rightly annoyed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: So....don't Upgrade....
by Sabon on Wed 4th Feb 2009 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: So....don't Upgrade...."
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

"Since you're a fan of metaphors, it's like a buying a tower machine and finding later that the expansion slots are arbitrarily set not to work with cards newer than 2008."

Ok, do PowerPC adapter cards with in Intel Mac machines? No. Note it was you that brought that up.

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, do PowerPC adapter cards with in Intel Mac machines? No. Note it was you that brought that up.


See the word "arbitrarily" in the text you quoted? As in "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something."

That's the total opposite of the example you gave - you're talking about incompatibilities between different CPU architectures. That's an intrinsic limitation, not an arbitrary one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: So....don't Upgrade....
by apoclypse on Wed 4th Feb 2009 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE: So....don't Upgrade...."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Funny you should mention that because has happened before. I didn't here to many complaint when ATI and Nvidia moved to PCI express over AGP and only gave consumers the lowest performing parts for AGP. Yes the limitation Apple puts are artificial but as it has been pointe out easily worked around, so hey don't support it out of the ox, big whoop, there are ways to get it to work if you REALLY need to learn how to play Proud Mary from John Fogerty.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes the limitation Apple puts are artificial but as it has been pointe out easily worked around


The existence of a work-around does nothing to change the fact that the limitation shouldn't have been present in the first place - and that people shouldn't need to resort to work-around solutions.

Reply Score: 2

Single Core Intel Macs
by asiafish on Wed 4th Feb 2009 14:15 UTC
asiafish
Member since:
2006-05-11

There have only been TWO single core Intel Mac models made, and only one of them, the Core Solo Mac Mini, was ever available for retail sail, and briefly in 2006 at that.

I just don't see what the fuss is about Apple leaving releasing an application that works perfectly on all Macs of at least the last 6 years, and loses one of its features unless you have something more powerful than the absolutely slowest three-year-old model.

The other single core Mac was the developer Intel Mac from 2005 that was never sold at retail.

So other than developers who should have moved to production Macs by now, those who bought the very first and very cheapest Intel Mini 3-years-ago, or of course the many Hackintosh users for whom Apple has no obligation to support in any way, exactly which Intel Mac owners are affected by this?

Reply Score: 0

Artificial
by Windows Sucks on Wed 4th Feb 2009 15:24 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

The thing that sucks here is that Apple is forcing people to upgrade to newer hardware. But who doesn't??

MS has been doing it for decades and now the truth is coming out, 2000 required a faster machine then NT, XP requires a faster machine then 2000, Vista requires a much faster machine then XP but Windows 7 doesn't??(Because of netbooks) Hummmmm.

Normally though Apple does this forced upgrade through a flag in a file. For example iLife 09 requires that you are on 10.5.6. But you can go into your Mac and change the setting that shows the version number and up it to 10.5.6 so you can do the install (Why would you do this? Because I have an MSI wind with 10.5.4 on it and I don't want to yet risk upgrading to 10.5.6. Since I only use it to get on to BS sites like Myspace I am not worried about it getting hacked or data stolen)

Another example is Leopard. Even though it runs like crap on my G4 750 MHZ power book you can install it on older hardware. You just rip Leopard from the DVD, there is a file on the DVD that tells the installer to look for the CPU speed to be at least a 800 MHZ G4. You can edit this and then reburn Leopard and install it on whatever you want.

It sucks but you can get around this issues (Even though the software may run like crap)

Reply Score: 2

Amazing....
by nathbeadle on Wed 4th Feb 2009 17:00 UTC
nathbeadle
Member since:
2006-08-08

....how a little tid bit like "Training videos in Garage Band won't play on PPC systems" suddenly throw everyone into a rut about their computer being obsolete.

If your computer is working fine for you now, then it will continue to work and you can keep doing everything you do. Eventually these things happen, Apple for some reason has this image that whatever works now will forever work. At some point support just stops... Canonical stops updates after 18 months for it's distro (not the LTS), Microsoft end-of-life's their OS after a set period..

EVERYONE, not just mac users, run into the point of "do I stay with what I have or do I need to buy a new computer to get newer stuff"

Reply Score: 1

RE: Amazing....
by andrewg on Wed 4th Feb 2009 17:25 UTC in reply to "Amazing...."
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

We are talking about obsoleting HARDWARE for no reason. Drawing comparisons with SOFTWARE is misleading.

Ubuntu doesn't sell hardware the sell services for software. Microsoft doesn't sell PC's they sell operating systems and application software.

Apple on the other hand sells you software and hardware. There is a conflict of interest here. If they can entice you with new software and tell you, you need new hardware to run it they increase their sales.

Microsoft could do the same thing by using their application software to drive sales of their new OS. But they generally don't -> DX10 could be cited as an example of the contrary. Apple does it whenever and wherever they can.

Reply Score: 3

Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

Ah! It's the Apple way.
It's all about the experience people! (BTW,I don't own one) Apple wants users to experience iLife or whatever it is the way it should be experienced - on a current machine. If you could run it on a G3 all you will here about in the forums is: "Oh yeah, the new iLife is crap coz it's slow bro"
With Apple, you do as your told or GTF out of here.
BTW, anyone with an "obsolete" dual quad core please let me know and I'll send a courier to pick it up as I have a nice copy of Linux here for it. I feel like an upgrade.

Reply Score: 2

Examples
by JMcCarthy on Thu 5th Feb 2009 16:34 UTC
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

A few people have mentioned that newer versions of Windows, etc. require newer hardware and ask how this is any different?

The difference is generally you only require newer hardware for a "proper" experience, with Apple you often just plain need new hardware. You'd be surprised how far under the system "requirements" you can go with Windows XP, the only roadblock is your sanity. Apple has the habit of propping up actual walls with armed guards.

The problem being my idea satisfactory of performance may be different from that of Apples, and I shouldn't be forced to upgrade just so they can maintain the perfectly uniform gated community.

Reply Score: 2

Nicholas Blachford
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's only the music movies that require a dual core Intel. iLife itself still runs on G4s except for iMovie which requires a G5.

The problem with the movies is they are probably high bitrate & high resolution. high bitrate 1080p requires some pretty hefty computing power to play it back - I have a dual core Intel Macbook and I've been playing some fottage from the Canon 5d Mk ii, it can record high bitrate 1080p and playing it nearly maxes out both cores, making this machine run hot - which is quite an achievement. The single core processors probably can't handle it.

The multi core G5s will have the power but that'd require a codec optimised for them. I doubt Apple want to create a codec just to play some movies.

Edited 2009-02-07 17:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1