I read a piece at Wired this week that reminded me of something that many of today’s Mac users probably never heard before. June 6, 2016 is the 11th anniversary of Steve Jobs’ original announcement that Macs were switching from the PowerPC to Intel. And to say that Mac users of the time were surprised is probably a huge understatement. Indeed, to some it seemed to be a betrayal.

For years, Apple touted the amazing performance of the PowerPC. Macworld keynotes featured bake-offs demonstrating that a Mac would leave an Intel box in the dust. These were real comparisons, not faked, or at least the ones that I duplicated were real. I remember one year convincing HP to supply a computer to compare its performance to my Power Mac. Using Apple’s benchmarking scripts, which included running a number of rendering processes in Adobe Photoshop, I was able to confirm all or most of Apple’s claims.

Now some would suggest that Apple manipulated the test to favor their gear. No doubt that’s true to some extent, but the tests I ran represented operations any graphic artist might do in Photoshop as a part of their workflow. In almost every case, an Intel Pentium with a clock speed more than twice that of the Power Mac would end up second best.

There’s little doubt that Intel’s sales and marketing people made regular pilgrimages to Apple headquarters to try to earn their business. No doubt Apple got a gander at Intel’s future product roadmap to see the possibilities.

Now in the years before the Intel switch was announced, Apple was secretly building a version of OS X to run on Intel. Just in case. There was also a certain statement from Jobs that Apple was satisfied with the PowerPC roadmap, but was keeping its options open.

There’s little doubt Apple had reason to be concerned. PowerPC development had stalled in the early 2000s. IBM and Motorola couldn’t tame the high-end G5 to run on a notebook. It ran too hot and used too much power. Indeed, some Power Mac G5 towers required liquid cooling to keep them running at safe temperatures. I know mine did. If that coolant ever leaked, your Mac would be toast, and you might have an expensive carpet cleaning bill.

Now Intel was obviously aware of the Pentium’s limitations. High clock speeds, lots of heat to dissipate. So a successor was being developed, the Intel Core series. The first two processors, the Core Solo and Core Duo mobile chips, were slated to ship in January, 2006. Desktop versions arrived that summer.

So during the 2015 WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs brought on Paul Otellini, Intel’s CEO at the time, to cement the new deal. Apple planned to start moving Macs to Intel in early 2006, with the entire migration set to conclude by the end of the year. In fact, with the introduction of the Mac Pro that summer, the migration was completed way ahead of schedule.

For Mac users, the switchover was mostly seamless. Some of those early notebook processors could run hot, hot enough that if you put your notebook on your lap barelegged it would get too hot. But further development of cooling systems, and Intel’s efforts to reduce power consumption and heat generation resolved that problem over time.

The first Intel compatible OS was 10.4 Tiger, which was in most respects otherwise identical to the PowerPC version. Except that it ran much faster on an Intel Mac. In order to be able to continue to use your PowerPC apps, Apple released a utility called Rosetta that would launch the first time one of those older apps launched. The Intel chips were so powerful, you’d hardly notice any performance loss.

But moving to Intel had yet another advantage, perhaps the greatest advantage of all, and that was the ability to run Windows as a virtual machine and natively. Both seemed to happen at about the same time. In 2006, Apple released Boot Camp, which allowed you to establish a Windows partition and load Windows on it. The word “Boot” told the tale. You had to restart to use Windows.

The virtual machine, however, is the best alternative for most users. Around the same time the first Boot Camp beta arrived, Parallels released a beta of their Desktop app, which managed multiple operating systems. The final version came out early in 2007. A virtual machine means that you can set up a number of drive-based operating systems, and not just Windows. Even the earliest versions of Parallels Desktop supported Linux and other operating systems.

In the old days, when a PowerPC had to emulate an Intel processor, Windows performance was glacial. I remember trying to write books about Windows on my Mac using one of those emulators, and I’d have to wait long seconds or minutes to do simple things. In contrast, Windows was pretty snappy as a virtual machine. If you didn’t use a graphics heavy app, or attempt to play a game, it seemed about as fast as a native Windows box.

Over time, Parallels and a rival company, VMWare, added accelerated graphics, so simple games would work just fine. The power-user games for which you paid a bundle on a Windows box to run won’t do so well on a virtual machine. But for most purposes, using Windows on a Mac works just fine. I’ve done it for 10 years and haven’t encountered any serious problems beyond the glitches that are part and parcel of Windows.

Today, the performance difference between a Mac and a PC is usually not significant, except for those costly Windows gaming boxes with high-end graphics hardware. Had Apple not gone Intel when it did, the Mac platform might have seriously suffered over the years. PowerPC development was focused on embedded systems, not on Macs, and Apple’s business wasn’t large enough to encourage continued improvement of desktop chips.

You might not even have a Mac platform in 2016 had Steve Jobs and crew not made the decision to engage in the second processor switch in the company’s history. The first, from the Motorola 680×0 processors to the PowerPC, occurred in 1994.

Some suggest Apple’s next processor transition on the Mac is to AMD. But if that were to happen — and the potential is certainly there — what about Windows compatibility? Would Apple be able to build sort sort of hardware emulator that would provide good performance and compatibility for Windows and Intel apps? Is the Mac business even large enough to fund that level of development?

In any case, Mac users have to be glad the Intel transition happened when it did. It really helped the Mac live long and prosper.

Perhaps the best evidence of the media disconnect about Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference is the usual refrain that it was unsuccessful. No, not because of the attendance. In fact, Apple has to turn developers away, and now uses a sort of lottery system from which to select applicants. Of course, selected high-profile developers, such as Adobe and Microsoft, will always be there.

But the core premise of the complaint is about the lack of new hardware at most of these events. So it’s mostly about operating systems, developer APIs and development tools. That’s the nasty fact the critics often miss, yet at times there will be news of new hardware. The most recent example was the launch of the 2013 Mac Pro, a long-awaited refresh to what some believed to be a dying product line.

Then again, there hasn’t been another Mac Pro upgrade since then, so maybe the skeptics are going to have their wish. But I really expect a new model this year. It may not be a hot seller, but a certain segment of customers expect a powerful workstation with which to do their work. If Apple doesn’t deliver on that promise, you can expect some movement to Microsoft and Windows.

Continue Reading…

So the fourth-generation Apple TV arrived last fall with a fair amount of publicity from Apple. With a touchscreen and Siri support, not to mention an App Store, it seemed to answer many of the complaints of the previous model.

But whether it will overhaul your TV watching experience is another question, and it’s hard to say. If all you want to do is watch iTunes content, Netflix and some other streaming services, probably not. If you want to play casual games, perhaps, although the Apple TV is no substitute for a true gaming console, such as a Microsoft Xbox. If you want to try some other apps, such as some that enable online shopping, perhaps.

Unfortunately, it was two steps forward, one step back as Apple left out some important features in the initial tvOS release. So you couldn’t use a Bluetooth keyboard to manage passwords and other things, which made the setup process on some services supremely awkward. But no longer, though it may not matter if you don’t need sign up for any new services.

Curiously, Apple opted not to support the higher resolution 4K models with the new Apple Store, even though millions of those sets are now reaching customers, and the big push is expected by the holidays. You can buy 4K sets for less than $500, and they are pretty decent. They may lack the advanced color features of the more expensive sets, which is to be expected, but they will provide a good picture nonetheless.

The latest streamers from Amazon and Roku support 4K, and Netflix and other services are rolling out a small amount of Ultra HD content. But you’re left at the rear of the pack if you stick with an Apple TV. In fact, the picture you see from today’s model should be about the same as the third generation, which is one of many reasons why I haven’t bothered to consider buying one.

Yes, I appreciate the improved user interface, the possible value of Siri when it works, and all the rest. But my specific needs are fairly simple. There are several TV shows I will watch from Netflix, including “House of Cards,” “Daredevil,” “Jessica Jones,” “Sense8,” and a few others. When they are available for binge viewing, I’m there. When they’re not, I usually get enough from network fare and an occasional iTunes movie rental.

As I said modest, so I may not be the target customer for the latest Apple TV.

On the other hand, if I purchased a 4K TV set, I might feel disappointed that Apple has yet to recognize its value. But there ought to be a reality check.

You see, the most advanced features of 4K, which include HDR, provide superior color rendering. Different TV makers are choosing between two improved color rendering schemes, HDR10 or Dolby Vision, or sometimes both. This can only breed confusion. The 4K Blu-ray players, which are just entering the market, support HDR10. Sets without support will simply display pictures with the normal level of color rendering.

Some companies are providing both. Two of VIZIO’s newest models, the P-Series and the M-Series, come with Dolby Vision along with the promise that HDR10 will be available in a downloadable software update. Eventually.

These features are new for 2016, however. Neither the Amazon or Roku streamers have them, and I’m not aware whether the existing streaming services that offer 4K have them either.

Now you might not regard superior color as so much of a deal. But to actually see any advantage with a 4K set, you have to sit real close, or have a really large screen, often more than 55 inches, if you watch TV at a normal viewing distance. Otherwise it doesn’t look much different compared to regular HD. Either way, enhanced color will provide a visible improvement.

So how does that have anything to do with Apple? Well, Apple isn’t a company that always embraces new standards on Day One. Sometimes they wait for the standards to stabilize, and for the bugs to be ironed out. So it may well be there’s a 2016 Apple TV in the works for this fall that will offer 4K and all the enhanced color features out of the box.

I suppose it’s possible the fourth-generation Apple TV can be upgraded via firmware, but I doubt it. It’s also very likely that the differences won’t be that visible when streaming highly compressed video to your TV, though it’s likely Apple will tout the advancements if you buy or rent from iTunes.

However, even if there’s full 4K support for a fifth-generation Apple TV, it doesn’t mean you should throw out the one you have. There’s no great rush, and it will depend on the sources of your programming, and what they offer. Besides, if you don’t have a 4K set — and it’s not on your shopping list — there’s nothing to worry about. No doubt all or most other new features will appear in future versions of tvOS.

Perhaps there will be more developments about where tvOS is heading at the WWDC the week of June 13. Maybe I’ll have reason to consider a new Apple TV when the next model comes out, but it’s not a huge priority right now.

The big tech story for June will be all about Apple, and the media will have plenty to say before, during and after as to whether Apple’s new product announcements will have any potential. So, as expected, Apple has invited selected members of the press to attend the WWDC keynote on Monday, June 13 at 10:00 AM. This year’s event will be held at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium in San Francisco, which will accommodate more attendees than the previous venue, Moscone West.

Having more members of the press present may hint at the potential for what’s to come. Or it may be a practical way to respond to the needs of the media to have people present. Or both.

While hints are vague, there are always certainties at a WWDC, and product expectations that really come true.

So the tech media is assuming there will be no hardware announcements. The reason? Well, because the WWDC is rarely the venue for a new Mac, although it happens sometimes. The Late 2013 Mac Pro made its debut at a WWDC keynote, although it didn’t actually ship until the end of that year. Other Macs have been announced, but you shouldn’t expect a new iPhone, Apple TV or even an Apple Watch.

This year, Mac updates are, so far, limited to only one model, the MacBook. Some of the speculation is that major upgrades remain in the pipeline. But Apple would want to get into the back-t0-school action, so pushing new Macs into the channel would have to occur in the next few weeks. With a WWDC imminent, it’s very possible there will be announcements about the next MacBook Air and MacBook Pro. Just introducing them with a simple press release a week or two later wouldn’t hardly have as much impact.

The future of the Mac Pro is again uncertain, just three years after the small, lightweight cylindrical box was introduced. There are faster graphics chips, there are faster Intel Xeons, so why hasn’t Apple refreshed its flagship workstation?

Some suggest the Mac Pro is doomed, that you are expected to do all your math and 3D rendering on a top-of-the-line 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display. But I don’t see why Apple would discontinue the Mac Pro. It wouldn’t cost all that much to swap out the guts with up-to-date hardware. It doesn’t even have to change physically other than expected connection port updates that include Thunderbolt 3. I suppose Apple could also add a couple of USB-C ports.

But the Mac Pro is a polarizing machine. Some customers are happy to be able to add loads of external stuff, even if it creates endless wiring nightmares. Others would prefer the old way, a huge tower with loads of room inside for expansion cards and storage devices. But I doubt Apple will go there, though I suppose it’s possible that a fancy breakout box could be offered that would operate with only a single connector to the cylinder, similar to what third parties offer. Or maybe a circular dock into which the Mac Pro is inserted.

All of that is uncertain. Developers come to look at the next OS releases, and this year there will no doubt be four — iOS 10, OS X (or macOS) 10.12, watchOS 3 and the newest tvOS, which I presume will follow the iOS numbering scheme and become version 10.

Last year, the iOS and OS X updates were relatively modest, focusing heavily on supposed bug fixes and performance improvements. While iOS 9 has been reasonably stable, except for a recent iPad Pro show stopper, the reception to El Capitan has been none-too-good. As of 10.11.5 (with a 10.11.6 rumored to be under development), it earns a three-star rating at the App Store. That’s not so encouraging, as it seems that lots of users are still complaining about bugs and performance issues.

Now as I’ve written in these pages, my sole remaining issue with El Capitan is an occasional stall with Mail. I observed it from the very first developer beta and it persisted through the maintenance updates, at least so far. So for 30 seconds or so, everything freezes in Mail before it starts working normally again. All the rebuild options I’ve read about, including ones for each mailbox, haven’t helped.

But the real speculation is about whether Siri will make its debut on the Mac. Perhaps it’ll be a souped up Siri with more expansive voice recognition capabilities, including the ability to respond to questions in context without having to restate everything from scratch every single time. The same capability would no doubt be incorporated in the versions of Siri for iOS, watchOS and tvOS. Perhaps it can all be done in the cloud, so the software changes would be minimal.

The real question is just how many fancy new tentpole features can be offered year in and year out. When does Apple run out of useful enhancements ahead of just rebuilding the whole thing from scratch?

I’m keeping the speculation to the minimum, since the truth is not far away.