Are they seriously saying that dual-core Intel chips multitask better than dual processor G4s or G5s? They just can't be bothered recoding part of the program.

And you're not telling me that even a single-core G5 isn't up to providing video-conferencing. This is so transparent it's ridiculous.

"Are they seriously saying that dual-core Intel chips multitask better than
dual processor G4s or G5s? They just can't be bothered recoding part of the
program. "

"And you're not telling me that even a single-core G5 isn't up to providing
video-conferencing. This is so transparent it's ridiculous."

No one is saying anything like that at all! Where are you getting this from?

More than likely, Intel approached Skype and probably even funded the project. If IBM would approach Skype and offer the same terms as Intel, I'm sure Skype would offer it for Power too.

dynamicv, I agree with your sentiment. I'd rather not see CPU vendors competing by paying off software vendors to make their software CPU dependent at all. This is just dumb.

Our Windows using friends must be asking the same questions as you are regarding AMD CPUs. This has nothing to do with CPU performance. It has to do with sponsorship funds. This reeks, although I'm glad that Apple's choice to move to Intel is getting them "in the game" with these kinds of deals.

Now I know why I virtually never launch Skype. If they can't be bothered to code the application to offer video calls with existing Power PC based Macs then I can't be bothered to use their application. My dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 should easily handle anything they could throw at it. Unfortunately, they are too lazy to code the application for Power PC.

So much for Universal binaries. I guess this is the type of s*** that will get the game companies to make OSX compatible games (that or MS providing DirectX for OSX...sorry, I just lost it there for a minute)

The economic reality is that it is easier no to write code for Intel macs than for Intel PC's and PPC Macs. This is a good thing for those of us who own Intel Macs. if you don't then you will at some point.

This is nothing that Apple hasn't done...

How many programs have they released in recent years that had a "requirement" and wouldn't run on, say, a G3, and "needed" a G4, only to have some hack come out and allow you to run it on a G3, even with perfectly acceptable performance?

If they are hand-optimizing code for the algorithms, then it may make perfect sense to only offer it for Core Duo's. This isn't Mac specific, the way I read the article said that it was going to be the same requirements for the Windows version. If you have time to hand-code G4 and/or G5 specific altivec code or whatever for them, drop 'em a line.

Cool, so you mean until Intel and Apple went downhill, your gonna support this? Tell me, whats wrong with standards? "that apple dont follow" here you complain about microsoft monoplolicing all, whats different with apple and you?

These new feature are all and good but the number one feature I'd like to have is an easy way to record both sides of the conversation like Gizmo does.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Cool, so you mean until Intel and Apple went downhill, your gonna support this? Tell me, whats wrong with standards? "that apple dont follow" here you complain about microsoft monoplolicing all, whats different with apple and you?

^this "sentence" makes my head hurt.

Let's not forget that this is, in large part, free software (you only pay if you make calls to telephones). That stated, development resources need to be allocated efficiently to the best ROI. Not that the PPC can't handle the features or that Skype doesn't know that, but if development for a single processor type covers the vast majority of computers and platforms, then good business dictates its priority.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Now I know why I virtually never launch Skype. If they can't be bothered to code the application to offer video calls with existing Power PC based Macs then I can't be bothered to use their application. My dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 should easily handle anything they could throw at it. Unfortunately, they are too lazy to code the application for Power PC.

From Apple web page any G3 (not a G4 or G5) can participate in a 10 persons iChat audio conference and Skype tell me I need two 2.0 GHz Intel cpu to do the same...Very impressive processor and optimize programming.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/

To initiate a 10 persons conference call you need a 1GHz G4 processor...

To Me they just dont want to write two versions of the same program. Even better the optimisation for intel processor is already done...

Quote

Spider wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Cool, so you mean until Intel and Apple went downhill, your gonna support this? Tell me, whats wrong with standards? "that apple dont follow" here you complain about microsoft monoplolicing all, whats different with apple and you?

^this "sentence" makes my head hurt.

Dude, amen to that

This confuses me. Skype must be developing with XCode, so why wouldn't they use the Accelerate framework? The Accelerate framework supports the vector units on both processors. As the other guest points out, iChat can do the same with less processing power. Where's the optimization?

Skype just lost my support. A****les.

Quote

Guest wrote:
This confuses me. Skype must be developing with XCode, so why wouldn't they use the Accelerate framework? The Accelerate framework supports the vector units on both processors. As the other guest points out, iChat can do the same with less processing power. Where's the optimization?

Well, skype also uses encryption, so conference calls could potentially chew some serious CPU.

But it's nothing a dual G5 can't handle, the current high end powermacs are a lot faster than the Intel iMac.

As others have mentioned, someone's paying them off.

There's no evidence of that - if there is, please present it.

I'm with those who think that Skype/eBay programmers are more familiar with coding for Intel. From my point of view, were the code to be truly universal, it shouldn't make a bar of difference. But then I'm not coding at a low enough level to require it.

And from the end of the year, less and less code, if any, will be written that will be PPC only. In a few years time it'll be the reverse of what it is now.

Oh well.

....there are some pretty heavy restrictions regarding the load even a reasonably-recent and well-equipped G5 can handle gracefully with iChat... I don't pretend Skype is really any different in that regard.

Perhaps some research before assuming foul play is in otder?

Apple's standard is Universal Binaries!! Skype should have followed like anyone else at this time with a UB, not this platform dependent stuff. For sure, I am going to bitch at Skype. I have it, but I will move somewhere else and they can give me my money back. And maybe even set up a domain that explains the Skype crap. It's not the first time they just don't want to deal with the Mac platform appropriately.

Why should they give you your money back? Have they broken their contract with you? No, they patently have not. You don't have a chance.

And why set up a website to complain about it? What good will that do?

Build a bridge…

Skype is required to refund your unused funds. See their terms and conditions. So, yes, I am entitled to a refund. And if we all would do that plus create a more unfriendly environment for Skype, maybe they will listen more to us. Wouldn't be the first time a brand changes their approach. Hey, even Apple did that with the nano and the scratches... (remember?)

Don't forget the last para in the refund section:

Quote

Skype wrote:
6.6 Any abuse by You of the terms relating to refunds hereunder shall lead to the termination of this Agreement.

By setting up a website specifically to sound off about how much you hate Skype would mean that you would be sailing close to the wind.

And also don't forget, in the contract which you entered into and read from top to bottom it says:

Quote

Skype wrote:
2.3 Change of technical features. Skype may change the technical features of the VoIP service in order to keep pace with the latest demands and technological developments, at its own discretion and without any notice to You.

So you can get as upset as you like, but Skype is not required to do anything about it. It will argue, as I'm sure it will, that it is putting its efforts into supporting as many customers as it can as well as it can.

If it were to remove Mac PPC support altogether, you, and I, would be rightly pissed off. But you will in all likelihood not notice any degradation in service. You just won't get the whistles and bells that the Intel-based Mac users will eventually get.

I'm not necessarily defending Skype, but there's not a lot you can do.

This feature was presented by Apple ...

If anyone's got gripes, comments or rumours why not post them at: http://www.skyperumors.com/

According to Apple, hosting a 10 person audio conference with iChat AV requires a "1GHz G4, dual 800 MHz G4 or any G5". Participating in a 10 person audio conference requires "Any G3, G4 or G5 processor"

Quote

Guest wrote:
This is nothing that Apple hasn't done...

How many programs have they released in recent years that had a "requirement" and wouldn't run on, say, a G3, and "needed" a G4, only to have some hack come out and allow you to run it on a G3, even with perfectly acceptable performance?

OK, how many? Can you name, oh, 10? If you're going to make a claim, be ready to back it up with evidence.

As for the whiners who threaten to quit using Skype, WHY? Does this reduce the functionality of your software? You sound like a child whose sibling got a new toy. Pique isn't becoming in children, much less supposed adults.

FWIW, buyers of the Intel Macs are having to put up with all sorts of incompatibilities, especially with peripherals. Here's a partial list of my peripherals that won't work properly/fully with my new Intel iMac (still in the box). The ones with an asterisk will "work," but only like standard devices, with no programmable functions.

- Kensington Expert Mouse trackball*
- Macally iNet keyboard*
- Macally iShock II gamepad
- Griffin Radioshark
- Griffin Rocket FM
- Griffin PowerMate
- Dymo Labelwriter printer
- Harmon-Kardon iSub

Unknown whether it will work in Intel iMac:

- Logitech Wingman Extreme Digital 3D joystick

I may be able to use USB Overdrive with some of those. (Some will not be updated.)

Oh, and you don't want to read through the list of software that probably won't work right away. Many of the developers are working on Universal Binary versions, but not all.

And you complain because you won't be able to use the latest gewgaw from Skype, even though your Skype software and account will continue to work as before.

http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2006/02/08/skype-intel-voip-cx_gl_0208autofacescan06.html

Skype and Intel forming an alliance to advance the state of VoIP. Don't even think for a second that Skype would even have the option of "officially" supporting anything but Intel's processors in Skype 2.0. As has already been discussed there is nothing technically preventing any other processor from doing what Skype 2.0 does. 10 person voice chat? Big deal, I can do that on Apple's iChat with a 1GHz G4 if I want to host it, or I can join one on any G3, G4 or G5. No folks, this is Intel dictating the terms to Skype in exchange for cold, hard cash.

Some of you may be mistaken in your interpretation of the situation. If you read carefully you will see that Skype 2.0 will be a Universal Binary and therefore, will run on a PowerPC. Tim Cox states that Skype 2.0 will function with all Macs, however it will auto-detect core duo processors. This simply means that if you have an Intel Mac with a core duo processor you will be able to host a ten person video chat. Those of us who are still using PowerPC architecture will have to make due with being limited to hosting a five-person videoconference.