Intel MAC universal ArchiCAD version.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know when we will be getting a Universal Mac version of AC 9 or 10??

[__archiben]

Craig wrote:
Matt, good to hear from you. No, I did not know it was not supported. Given the coverage of the issue, I am a little surprised that the information was not given a cautionary warning.

craig,

the warning about non-support under rosetta emulation is on the archiCAD support page. as matthew says, we're led to believe that graphisoft are working on a universal binary . . . remember, though, that graphisoft themselves are subject to the broad issue of 'client support' from apple as well . . . and my opinion is that working toward the universal binary version is far better a solution than simply keeping an emulated version supported. don't you think?

~/archiben

[stefan]

ArchiCAD 9 was released before the MacTels. It's no surprise that it's not well supported.

The switch to universal binary requires compilation with XCode/gcc instead of CodeWarrior, which GS used before. This means that it's quite a lot of work to "port" the application from it's previous configuration.
Given that at this time it makes no sense to invest a huge amount of time into a product that is considered finished, with the next release allready lurking around the corner, I don't expect them to fix AC9 to work fine on the Intel-based Macs.

So even without any warnings at all, I wouldn't assume that it would work "out-of-the-box".

[Anonymous]

Craig wrote:
Matt, good to hear from you. No, I did not know it was not supported. Given the coverage of the issue, I am a little surprised that the information was not given a cautionary warning.

Craig,

The pleasure's all mine. But I must take issue with your anger at GS. I do understand how it must feel to get a brand new and "four times as fast" computer only to find that it barely runs your primary software, but I also think is is unreasonable to buy such a dramatically different piece of computer hardware and expect that everything will be hunky dory. This is the same reason I am careful about upgrading system software and that is a much lesser change than a complete hardware/firmware makeover.

While MS and Adobe may be supporting (for a fee in MS' case I'm sure) their products on Rosetta, they won't be coming out with their universal binaries until late this year or in early 2007. I think GS is out ahead on this one.

It is a bad idea to run high powered professional software in emulation in any case. No pro Photoshop users are running out to buy Intel Macs yet unless they just can't wait and will still do the heavy lifting on their G5 dualies.

Of course I would be angry myself if AC10 weren't to run native on the 17" MacBook that I hope to order next month (but then I'll probably be installing XP anyway). I've been waiting a long time for an upgrade and I don't want to put it off any longer than I have to.

I am sorry that this caught you unawares, but I really don't think GS have done anything wrong on this score.

[Anonymous]

If one looks at the iMac’s dispassionately they’re essentially a large notebook without any hinges to break (except for the stand) which utilises the Intel “Yonah” mobile processor and as far as I can discover 2.5" SATA drives which allow it to be squeezed into such a neat box behind the screen, the size of which is the only significant difference. 2.5" drives generally have a shorter warranty (probably meaning life expectancy) than 3.5" and as it is really mobile technology I think it would be unwise not to splash out for Apple Care.

According to reviews, the 2.0GHz “Yonah” tested under Windows, is sometimes a bit faster than an Intel D830 3.0GHz but not as fast as an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ but at least it appears to be in the same field.

“Yonah” should be upped from it’s present top speed of 2.16GHz to around 2.33GHz sometime later this year but there’s no saying that Apple will incorporate either version into the iMac as “Yonah” is, in theory, to be replaced by the faster “Merom” mobile chip towards the end of the year and as faster usually means hotter some design change might be required.

According to one Apple supplier somebody in the US (I don’t know who) has noticed the iMac’s resemblance to a laptop and come up with a bag for carting them around, ok so at 15.5lbs (7kg) for the 17" or 22lbs (10kg) for the 20" it’s not the lightest mobile ever but it’s still a lot lighter than my 19" Mitsubishi screen at 57.3lbs (26kg) or my 20" at 65.7lbs (29.8kg), with wireless enabled they should be a breeze to move around the office.

From comments in this forum I gather that ArchiCAD is not working too well under Rosetta so I guess it’s either fork out for a copy of Windows XP2 and download Boot Camp or try the www.parallels.com beta software. The one thing about Boot Camp is that us (former ?) Windows users will/should not have to replace all their Windows programs for Mac versions at once which should spread the cost a bit.

Now the real problem is, how do I convince the real boss that I absolutely need an iMac.

[Anonymous]

Chris,

One small correction. The iMac uses 3.5" drives. While not stated explicitly on the Apple site, the capacities are 160GB & 250GB which rules out the 2.5s.

As I recall the Merom chip is supposed increase performance without much increase in power consumption. Flops per watt (or megaflops per milliwatt or whatever) is Intel's new metric since gigahertz races have gone out of fashion. I guess we'll see.

You are right about the iMac making a pretty nice luggable workstation (not to mention home entertainment system). I need the full convenience and smaller package of the laptop so it is out of the question for me, but I sure see the appeal.

The Mini also makes a very nice home data-music-movie server.

I'll be curious to see what Apple comes up with to replace the aluminum towers. I expect to see some serious multiprocessing horsepower, and the rumors are there will be some major OpenGL advances too.

[Anonymous]

Matthew,

You are correct about the 3.5" drives, Must Have been thinking of the MacBookPro

Can you adjust the resolution on the 17" screen of your MacBook or does it go all blurry, I'm afraid that 1440 x 900 may be too fine for me to see.

[Anonymous]

Chris wrote:
Can you adjust the resolution on the 17" screen of your MacBook or does it go all blurry, I'm afraid that 1440 x 900 may be too fine for me to see.

At 1152x720 (next size down) it does get blurry, kind of like an old CRT monitor. It's pretty good considering it is scaling and anti-aliasing to get it to look OK, but I wouldn't want look at it all day. I am very happy with the quality and crispness of my screen, but I have watchmaker's eyes. (I have to take my glasses off to see fine details.) I am actually looking forward to getting a new laptop which will certainly have higher resolution than my present one.

I guess the only way to tell is to go look at one yourself. If you are near an Apple store you could probably have a go a sitting down and working with the screen for a while.

[Anonymous]

As I have expected over the years, the knowledge of many ArchiCAD users is fearsome. Perhaps I should weigh in again with my meager view: Generally AC 9 performs very well on my MacBook. The curiousity is the changing schemes and other issues. I have dubbed them the "ArchiCAD in the Afternoon" problem. Perhaps it is a memory management issue: I don't know, but it seems that a restart gives ArchiCAD a fresh perspective on the work to be done. Who is at fault: Graphisoft, Apple or me? I am just an energetic user who gets frustrated when an old friend lets me down.

[Anonymous]

Craig,

When it is working would you say it is as fast running under Rosetta as it was on your PowerBook? (Assuming that's what you upgraded from.) If so it seems pretty impressive.

Has anyone out there tried running AC9 with XP on a Mactel? If so... What's it like? (I am reminded of the old Monty Python sketch - wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?)

[Anonymous]

Matt, I had held out for a long while. Iwas using a 667 mHz powerbook and a dp 450 mhz power mac. The macbook pro is quite a bit faster-in some areas it clearly rivals a G5.