Helen Brown Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 A user sent me these detailed questions, which mirror those asked by others, so I thought I would post them along with my answers, for everyone to see. Assume now, I have owned a great amount of accordance software running in Mac OSX and will upgrade and purchase new accordance product in the future. Now, if I need to buy a new Mac to run my present/ future accordance software, which one should I go for? Present Power PC Mac or future Intel/ Mac?I cannot answer this one for you, and some of it will depend on the timing. In general it is always worth getting the best and newest Mac you can afford, but it is also a good idea NOT to buy a new system immediately it is released, but allow a few months for the bugs to be worked out. If I stick to the present Power PC (PPC) Mac, will the future accordance be incompatible with the present PPC Mac? If so, when will it happen?We maintain compatibility now with OS 7.1 (for the sake of the emulator) and we have no plans to abandon the Classic platform, let alone PPC with OS X, so you should be safe for many years to come. If I choose to buy a new Intel Mac next month (rumor is that apple will produce a new Intel ibook), can I still use my present accordance software? Will future accordance upgrade be more feasible with the new Intel/ Mac or old PPC Mac in terms of cost and of compatibility?We have already tested Accordance on the MacIntel developer kit, and there are no problems at all. It runs fast and well. Future Accordance upgrades will also work well on MacIntel and older systems. Similarly, if I am happy with my present PPC Mac and OSX compatible accordance, when will I be forced to buy new version of accordance because the old accordance is so un-upgradable that it almost means to me to pay again for the same software just because the hardware has changed so much? Or, when will I be forced to buy the new Intel/ Mac because the PPC Mac with its OSX is obsolete for accordance to run?As I said above, you will never be forced to buy a MacIntel just to run Accordance. Future Accordance upgrades will be as reasonably priced as the current one is: $29 from version 5, $39 from version 4 or earlier, and usually $10 for new CD-ROMs, except for new content and some major module upgrades. You NEVER have to pay again for the same software. You may have to upgrade the program in order to run a new module. I know you may not know all the details but please give me just some advice without the need for explaining the details and the technical like FAT binary codes or so. Thanks a lot.I hope this sets your mind at rest. As far as Accordance is concerned, it really makes no difference whether you stay with your present Mac or buy a MacIntel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythrenegade Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 As a mac user of 21 years, and the manager of an IT department of about 70 macs, let me add a little non-accordance advice: (1) Once you have a choice, buy the intel box. At some point developers stopped offering 68k versions of their programs. The same will likely be true with PPC, and so the intel box will likely be usable longer. (2) If you need a machine now, buy a machine now. If you are always waiting for an upgrade you will never have the tool in hand to use. I wanted to wait for a G5 laptop, but I needed a machine in January of 2004. Had I waited I would have spent the last two years with no laptop and would have suffered greatly reduced productivity as a result. (3) If you buy the first rev of the intel macs, be prepared for them to be a bit rough for a while. Expect most of those problems to be resolved in a few months. I have run Mac OS X as my primary OS since 10.0.0 (and tested the public beta, but not on my primary machine) and I know of what I speak :-) It wasn't until 10.2 that it was a truly great product... (4) Don't panic about the Rosetta thing (PPC emulation). Stuff runs remarkably well using this. (5) Buying an intel mac gives you the option of running windows if you must. So if you get bitten by a bug for a great pc game, you can buy it and run it, and still use it as a mac when you actually need to get work done... Joel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 We are still getting many questions about whether we plan to port Accordance to the Universal Binary that will be native on the MacIntel. We have not been in a hurry to do this since Accordance runs fine in Rosetta on MacIntel, and there will be no visible difference to the user. We have been waiting to see how things develop, and for compilers to be developed for the programming code that we use. This is well underway, and we are confident that we will be able to make the transition at the right time. At the same time we do plan to maintain compatibility with the older Mac systems so that people can upgrade their Macs and upgrade Accordance at the same time, but they can also run the newest Accordance on older Mac systems. Our policy is always to charge merely a nominal price for major version upgrades, nothing for downloaded upgrades within a version, nominally for CD-ROMs unless they include new content, and nothing for most module upgrades (unless they are really major or involve additional royalties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddoyle777 Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Helen, I just thought I'd throw in my user's perspective here. I just upgraded to a new MacIntel iMac. Accordance runs just fine - I haven't noticed any difference in speed or functionality since retiring my Dual G4 (1.42) PowerMac. Since you said the program would run ok, I went ahead and upgraded. You are true to your word! Blessings, <>< Dr. David Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (5) Buying an intel mac gives you the option of running windows if you must. So if you get bitten by a bug for a great pc game, you can buy it and run it, and still use it as a mac when you actually need to get work done... I don't want to get too far off topic, but I must clarify. Windows does NOT run on Intel Macs. Many have tried. All have failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Matousek Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 These benchmarks support the comments above. "Rosetta is comparable to running Geekbench natively on a Power Mac G5 1.6GHz" Here are some quantifiable benchmarks for Rosetta on a MacBook Pro. http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/92/ http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=13835 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Dietrich Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (5) Buying an intel mac gives you the option of running windows if you must. So if you get bitten by a bug for a great pc game, you can buy it and run it, and still use it as a mac when you actually need to get work done... I don't want to get too far off topic, but I must clarify. Windows does NOT run on Intel Macs. Many have tried. All have failed. It has now been proven true that you can dual boot OSX and Windows. I don't know all the in's and out's yet, but it is possible. See this link for more info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Turner Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I replaced my PowerBook G4, 500 mhz with a MacBook Pro, 2 ghz two weeks ago. I use Accordance about three hours each day, seven days a week. I am very happy with its performance on my new computer. Of course...I was using a 500 mhz PowerBook. One more thing; I though I was going blind - turns out I just needed a brighter computer screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianBowman Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 (5) Buying an intel mac gives you the option of running windows if you must. So if you get bitten by a bug for a great pc game, you can buy it and run it, and still use it as a mac when you actually need to get work done... I don't want to get too far off topic, but I must clarify. Windows does NOT run on Intel Macs. Many have tried. All have failed. um, Apple does not agree ... and neither does: Parallels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 (5) Buying an intel mac gives you the option of running windows if you must. So if you get bitten by a bug for a great pc game, you can buy it and run it, and still use it as a mac when you actually need to get work done... I don't want to get too far off topic, but I must clarify. Windows does NOT run on Intel Macs. Many have tried. All have failed. Accordance runs fine for me on my MacBook Pro. Also, my MacBook Pro does dual boot. One partition is OSX and the other is Windows XP Pro. Apple has a product call Boot Camp that allows you to partition the drive and includes the MacBook Pro Windows drivers. It works great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Edinger Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 We are still getting many questions about whether we plan to port Accordance to the Universal Binary that will be native on the MacIntel. We have not been in a hurry to do this since Accordance runs fine in Rosetta on MacIntel, and there will be no visible difference to the user. We have been waiting to see how things develop, and for compilers to be developed for the programming code that we use. This is well underway, and we are confident that we will be able to make the transition at the right time. Actually there would be quite a benefit to OSX users. Accordance should become native to Xcode technology and thereby benefit from the many buit in features of OSX that make OSX such a delightful experience. As it stands now, the Accordance user interface feels dated and not fully functional. It sounds like from this post Helen, that OakTree has no intention of upgrading their code any time soon - and that is sad to me. I understand your desire to maintain backward compatibility with classic - and that is admirable - but when does the delta of diminishing returns occur? And how long do OSX users have to remain second class citizens? It has been a number of years now (OSX.) Thanks for listening. -Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted May 29, 2006 Author Share Posted May 29, 2006 We do plan to start the work of porting to MacIntel this year. You must understand that this will divert resouces from the actual development of new features for Accordance, for what I believe are very small returns. Making Accordance Universal Binary is different from making it Cocoa. It does not add features automatically and will not increase the running speed perceptibly on MacIntel. We will do it simply to answer the demands of those who feel that it is important. Making Accordance Cocoa would require a complete rewrite of the entire code. That means no new versions of Accordance for several years. It is not true that we refuse to do it so as to stay backwards compatible with old systems. That is an advantage of being Carbon, but not the reason. We do not think it is the right use of our resources. We have a powerful and mature program that continues to run fine on new systems. I have no idea how long it would take our developers to get the same functionality and stability with a completely new code, but certainly years. How many of our users would still be around to purchase the new version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Dietrich Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Is porting Accordance to a Universal Binary really that important? I have been running it on my MBP now for a couple of months and it is still wicked fast. In fact I notice no difference between my old PowerBook and MBP. If it is not going to necessarily be a great advantage to make a universal binary, then I vote that you continue to make great resources instead of wasting time with this conversion. This is just my two sense...anyone with me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Brown Posted May 29, 2006 Author Share Posted May 29, 2006 I think you mean 2 cents, but thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robb B Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 Gregory, I'm definitely with you on that one! It almost seems like it would be making it universal binary just for the sake of the label being on the box, with no real advantages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Lawrence Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Helen, If I may encourage all of you at Oak Tree to not be so quick to give in to demands for the Universal Binary. If there are no real benefits to Accordance users, and if it's going to consume valuable resources that could be put toward future updates, upgrades or better yet, some of the resources we have on our wish lists, then by all means hold off. Some applications are rather slow under Rosetta, but not Accordance. I suppose the argument for a Universal Binary would be that no one really knows how fast Accordance would run if it were running under Intel natively, but for me it's plenty fast. It is most certainly faster than what I was using when I was in the Windows environment. IMHO, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 The obvious answer here is not if but when. On the one hand most will recognize immediate benefits do not justify an immediate conversion. On the other hand, no one will want a non-universal Accordance, say, three years from now running on their system OSX 10.6 Mactel computer, and all of their other staple software is running universal. We won't want it, nor would Oaktree. It's just a fact that software developers have to stay up to date. The answer that I interpret, is, that Oaktree is going to go Universal, they know they have to, but not to the exclusion of current revenue generating development. It is going to be an ongoing parallel process. That is something we all can understand and, I think, live with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allard Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 Hey Forum, I recently upgraded my iBook 1.2 ghz with 1.25 gigs of RAM to a new Macbook 2.0 Intel with 512mb of RAM. Granted, I knew from the getgo that I would need to upgrade my RAM for the sake of OSX, I have seen even more so the need for programs to be native in universal binary. Even with extra RAM, programs that are made for PPC are sluggish. If Intel is the way Apple is going to go in the future, it would seem to make sense that Accordance follow suit and offer both options (PPC & Intel). I can relate with the desire for more resources in Accordance and porting the software over to Intel will steal some of that away, however, not porting to Intel may turn new Accordance users away who have only ever had MacIntel computers and expect performance. I recognize this is a difficult decision, but I don't think porting Accordance to Intel would be a detrimental use of resources. I think having the availability for both options would greatly expand the base of customers for Accordance in the coming months and years and with that larger base of customers, Oaktree would have more resources to work on additional modules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpkang Posted August 1, 2006 Share Posted August 1, 2006 John, my informal benchmarks indicate to me that Accordance runs quite acceptably on Intel Macs with plenty of RAM. Per your comment, then, that "programs that are made for PPC are sluggish," it is true that some non-Intel-native apps (like Microsoft Office) are already sluggish on the PPC, so the molasses effect will be even more pronounced under Rosetta. All that to say that not all PPC programs will be affected identically by emulation. The fact that Accordance runs quite responsively on decade-old Mac hardware should tell you something about its underlying design and efficiency... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.