Despite the fact that I don’t consider it a very logical move, I realize some folks have decided to put off buying a new Mac until they contain Intel processors. Yes, I understand that you want the latest and greatest, and I expect Apple is going to do something to help you change your mind, such as cut prices of existing models. But that won’t completely stop the fence-sitters.

But I have another point of view that may make you think twice about whether waiting is a good idea. No, it’s not because that decision might affect Apple’s bottom line. I am sure that’s something Apple has also accounted for, even if it has to suffer a few quarters of lower sales, or at least lower than expected.

My argument, instead, is to look at the lessons of history, the version 1.0 syndrome. Do you remember the very first Macs with PowerPC processors? Did they operate perfectly and did they leverage the power of the new chip? Well, they did run all right for the most part, but not as fast as you might have hoped, largely because it took time for developers to build native software. Emulation basically made a PowerPC Mac run no faster than one with a 68030 processor, a model two generations behind. And that itself is something that should give you pause.

Yes, the early chatter is that developers aren’t going to have to work all that hard to recompile their software to run as Universal Binaries. But that’s only the applications built in Apple’s Xcode programming environment. If developers used CodeWarrior, as many have, the application’s source code has to be brought into Xcode, which may involve days, weeks or months of extra work.

The other factor is the PowerPC emulation scheme that will be used on the Intel-based Macs. Rosetta will basically emulate a G3, meaning that the AltiVec performance enhancements offered by the G4 and G5 won’t be supported. Now don’t take the fact that Photoshop seemed to take forever to launch during that WWDC keynote, when run on a test Mac with an Intel processor. I expect that Rosetta will be optimized, and that the chips Apple will use are apt to be a lot faster than today’s Pentium 4. That may be sufficient to pick up some of the slack and allow emulated software to run at a pretty speedy clip. But such things as printer drivers won’t operate in that mode. You’ll have to wait for driver updates to get those devices to work on the Macintel, or whatever it’s going to be called. Maybe the peripheral makers will get the work done in time, but what about older products? Will you have to cast them aside?

Also, do you really expect software publishers to just give away the Universal Binary updates? Some will, of course. But it’s quite likely that new versions will just be rolled into a regular feature upgrade, which means you’ll have to pay to buy the native product. How much? Well, what did the last upgrade for these applications cost you? Yes, I believe that Adobe, Microsoft and most of the software publishers out there will be ready around the same time the new Macs are available, but it also means you’ll have to consider those upgrade fees when you figure whether you can afford a Macintel. Sure, you will, in most cases, be able to run older versions in emulation, but does it make any sense to buy a computer that won’t perform any faster than your present Mac?

And what about Classic? The chances that you’ll be able to run your Classic applications on a Macintel are at the low end of zero. If you need these programs, you’re out of luck, unless Apple or a third party finds a way to make it happen, but don’t hold your breath.

Yes, I’m sure Apple has considered all the ramifications of the processor transition very carefully. I have little doubt that the Intel-compatible versions of Mac OS X will be near as reliable as the PowerPC versions. Applications that can be updated quickly ought to just work as well. But the ones that require extra work may not be quite as stable. There may be early release bugs that will create problems.

Then there’s the hardware itself. Based on what Intel says, Apple is going to use the same off-the-shelf processors as a regular PC box. But the makeup of the motherboard may be quite different when compared to the competition. First and foremost, Apple will have to incorporate hardware that will restrict Mac OS X to a Mac, and that itself will make the product different from the run-of-the-mill Dell or HP. Although Apple already uses industry standard components on its computers, the cooling scheme for an Intel processor will no doubt be different from the one used for the G5. Early production bugs are apt to rear their ugly heads, and that may also be good reason to wait for version 2.0 before diving in.

What’s more, I’m quite certain Apple will have to keep some PowerPC Macs in the lineup even after the transition to Intel Inside is officially complete. Just as they had to keep dual booting models available to serve the needs of business and educational customers, you can be sure that you’ll be able to buy a Power Mac even after they are technically discontinued. Even more important, with millions of Macs with PowerPC in service, it will be years before Apple pulls the plug on operating system support. Software publishers will have little reason to stop building Universal Binaries until sales to PowerPC users drop precipitously.

In short, the Intel transition may indeed usher in a new era of ultra-powerful Mac desktops, and cooler running iBooks and PowerBooks that also sport greater battery life. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t buy the Mac you need now. For many of you, waiting would be a bad move.

Related Articles:

• The Apple Report: Yes, Most of the Time it Just Works!
• Newsletter #455 Preview: The Death of Power PC
  Support is Coming Sooner Than You Think!
• Newsletter #453 Preview: Consumer Reports Again
  Shows How Not to Convert PC Users to Macs
• The Personal Computer Chaos Theory
• The iPhone Report: So Where Is That Critical Feature?

In the fall of 1989, I received a floppy disk in the mail, along with material promoting a new online service. At the time, I was enduring the high prices of CompuServe, since it was the best game in town, but I was sorely tempted by the lower price offered by America Online, then a Mac only service.

At the beginning, it was a lonely place, and there wasn’t a whole lot of content, but it was simple to navigate, and, like others, I soon discovered the message boards. Over time, those message boards developed into a wonderful outlet for Mac users to get advice, trade troubleshooting tips and just stay in touch with one another. I got sucked in and, before long, one of the producers at AOL offered me a free account in exchange for becoming a forum person.

In those days, AOL was a universe unto itself. You could only send mail to fellow members, and, from your vantage point, there was no such thing as an Internet, since you were shut off from the rest of the world.

Over the years, AOL gradually opened its borders and allowed you to communicate with outsiders. The rest of the Internet features you now take for granted were gradually phased in, and AOL became king of the online universe, big time.

Today, AOL is still number one, and number two is way, way behind in membership, but people are leaving the service in droves. Like other Internet companies during the dot.com boom, AOL had an artificially inflated cash value, sufficient to allow it to take over Time Warner. Of course, the folks at Time Warner eventually realized they were snookered, and they’re now in charge. With membership and income hemorrhaging, AOL had to find a new financial model, and that was to become like Yahoo and allow everyone to access its content, while deriving more and more of its income from advertising.

The other day, a friend, who was still part of AOL’s forum staff, was notified that the program was being axed. Yes, you can still sign up with AOL and use its proprietary software to experience a sanitized version of the Internet, but it’s no longer necessary. If you want most of what AOL has to offer, just visit its aol.com portal. That includes its message boards and information centers. Need an AOL or AIM user name? It’s free for the asking.

Over the next few months, pretty much all of AOL’s proprietary content will become part of its Web portal. Most of it is there now and that includes its message boards, which are apparently no longer going to be monitored by a staff of volunteers. Pity, because it means that visitors won’t be protected from unsavory characters, but how many of you actually bother with message boards these days?

On the other hand, millions still use AIM for instant messaging, and chances are that your kids are part of the crowd. In fact, it’s still very common for children to come home from school, fire up their personal computers, and launch their instant messaging software. They talk to their friends online and, when it’s time to use the phone, remember that land lines are relics of the past. Your kids will just take their cell phones out of their backpacks and quickly use up your monthly minute allotment.

AOL, by the way, is working hard to develop new income streams. In addition to ads, it has created an Internet phone service that’s integrated with its online software. But Mac users, who once ruled the roost at AOL, have played second fiddle for years, and some of its content, such as AOL Radio, remain Windows only. In fact, AOL Radio doesn’t even work with Firefox, part of AOL’s Mozilla spin-off. But that will come, although it’s not certain whether Mac users will be supported.

But does it really matter? Is AOL just late to the game, or will its content be compelling enough to garner enough traffic to keep advertisers happy? Right now, the picture seems somewhat encouraging, as AOL is indeed deriving more and more of its income from ads, while members rapidly depart and select faster, cheaper online alternatives. One of those alternatives, by the way, is AOL’s own Netscape service, which is $9.95 per month but, alas, also restricted to the Windows platform.

AOL’s future, however, is by no means certain. While AIM instant messaging seems destined to remain popular for the foreseeable future, I wonder how many folks will consider deserting Yahoo and Google in favor of AOL?

In a way, I miss the old days, but even then AOL was slow to catch up with the rest of the world. That may still be the case, and maybe some day, AOL will itself be history. But maybe Time Warner’s executives will be glad to finally get rid of that albatross once and for all.

Related Articles:

• The Apple Report: Yes, Most of the Time it Just Works!
• The Leopard Report: My Personal Petty Mac Annoyances
• The MobileMe Wrecking Ball
• Newsletter #449 Preview: Should Apple Take the
  Gloves Off and Go After Microsoft For Real?
• The New Mac OS X Trojan: Are the Naysayers Right After All?