Comments on: News.com readers respond to Apple's Intel switch
CNET News.com readers reacted en masse to Apple's decision to use Intel processors.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- AT&T, Luke Wilson try smaller coverage number
January 2, 2010 9:41 AM PST
- For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover
January 2, 2010 6:00 AM PST
- Facebook, Twitter: How we chose to live in public
January 1, 2010 12:16 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
to me that all of you that are whining about Apple's switch to
intel chips have missed an important poin. The biggest and
most important difference is the software(OS). I am assuming
that Apple with a few modification will continue to turn out the
best operating systems for any kind of PC. And think about this.
With OS 10 reworked some what to run on Intel chips. OS 10.4
could and future Mac OS's could really give Microsoft a run for
it's money. Now a windows user who wants to switch won't have
to fork out the big bucks. Just lay down $139.00 for Tiger. I
thin this move makes more sense than most of you realize.
To all of you that fall into this category, I offer you this one thing you can hang on to....
If you like running the under-dog OS, Linux will always be there for you. For those that have spent years evangelizing the laurels of the Mac, Apple finally decided that it's time to pove to the world that we were right. Don't abandon a platform just because it won't make you special anymore. Rejoice in your triumph, because it is the loyal following, that has increased Apple's business, and made it possible for this great migration to occur.
For years, Mac users have screamed "Death to Microsoft". Be glad that Steve Jobs finally heard us all, because this has a chance of making that happen. I say, let the OS war begin. Make Microsoft actually become inventive to stay in the marketplace. Let them see what innovation and competition are all about.
As a final word, I leave you with this thought.
"Think Different"
By thinking different, Steve Jobs has just opened up a world of possibilities for the OS we all love so much, and has sacrificed NOTHING for the Mac users. In fact, I think this will improve the Mac in the light that as the number of users goes up, so will the number of software vendors that will want to make software for us to use. Watching OSX run on the intel computer during his keynote speach, it was as smooth and just as much Mac as any I have owned.
Sun SPARC or an AMD running Linux, Solaris and/or BSD.
between these two large companies that started around the
same time. Just because they have been competative in the past
doesn't mean they should stay on opposite sides forever.
Obviously Apple has done their homework for the past 5 years
and sees merit in switching chips to lower power consumption
which will allow them to create faster and efficient products. For
some reason, all the die hard Apple fanatics are having
emotional problems with this. It's not about going to the dark
side or selling out. I recommend watching the keynote ( http://
stream.apple.akadns.net ) so that you can understand what is
really entailed in the transition. it's not bad. Apple and Intel's
stock is down right now, because emotions of fear and the
unknown are blinding people until they can see what the
outcome actually results. You know it's going to be a bunch of
people eating their words and saying how great the new
machines are. I have grown up with Apple all my life and they
have used all sorts of companies for the guts. It's not as big a
deal as some people make it. Yes I am a fan. Steve Jobs and the
the rest of the Apple team know what they are doing. They have
been thinking about this for a while.. Think about it for a while
machines have suddenly become obsolete. Software developers
can distribute software that runs on both PowerPC and Intel
machines for as long as they see fit. It will certainly take more
than 3-4 years for more than 50% of the Mac market to upgrade
to Intel machines. Until that time a software developer would be
stupid not to support the PowerPC machines, especially
considering how easy it is using XCode. Get a grip people, your
machines will not be obsolute any sooner than they normally
would.
machines well into the next half decade I would estimate. By then
you would want to upgrade your machines and software because
naturally, better hardware and software will prove functionally and
financially more effective
estactic about the hugh market that just opened! Instead I read
doom and gloom from users of the Apple platform for the most
part..really sad.
Personally, I can't wait! Apple is going to take the PC market by
storm and when they do, I will be there! Apple Users - just think
about it, Apple shows microsoft up on their own processor of
choice! What more could you ask for?!
John, Nassau, Bahamas
Here until the end!
OS X has been developed for the last FIVE years to run on Intel
chips is proof that at some point this was going to happen.
As someone stated in a response to a seperate article on this
announcement, the playing field will finally be (almost)
completely level, and it will come down to who can write better
software.
Microsoft may still remain the dominant force simply because
1,000 companies building machines that support your system
will always beat out 1 company. But the market shares and
installed bases should slowly start to get closer together.
coaster ride from the bottom of despair to the heights of
elatement. Is the PowerPC chip a part of the Mac Identity? Yes,
but I think we too quickly forget that PowerPC chips weren't
always so, and given time, these Intel chips will equally become
part of that Identity. As others have said, it's not the CPU that
gives you what you see, it is the OS that does that. It also is
clear to me that Steve Jobs and Apple have been considering this
move for a long time and I've got to believe they have a larger
foundation set up for this than what is currently apparent. It
really doesn't sound like it is going to take all that much to port
current software over to OS X86. I mean with most software
you've already programmed according to the OS and it is the
compiler that translates that into the needed machine code. The
OS isn't changing. The security, the look, the feel, all those
things will stay the same. Change is hard at any age, but I do
expect this change to go smoothly and, for the most part,
transparently. Everyone poo-poohed the OS9 -> OSX switch,
but in the end that was pulled off very, very well, and I believe
Apple can do it again with this chip change.
I switched to a WinTel machine in '97 for Linux and Windows games. Linux was too ugly for me .vs Windows 98 so I played a lot of games. I later built two Windows based machines for gaming and the internet. I probably spent thousands of dollars building and upgrading with new peripherals and components.
While doing this in my PC world, my mother still used her PPC 7100. She finally upgraded last February, that is of '04 folks, to a basic G4. Do you think she cares what is running under the hood? No! She just uses it for email, web and MS Office.
That G4 will last my mom close to the next decade, if not longer, regardless if anyone supports the processor. My mother has the software she needs without the headaches of spyware, viral infections and computer hiccups. Those are things I commonly have to endure with my three year old home built XP running system. I am envious to those who run OS X. If Apple announced that it is no longer selling OS X systems, I would buy one the following day. And ebay this one the next.
have never purchased a Wintel PC and never will. I spend my
hard eraned money on Macs only. Apple's switch to Intel chips
will be very good for the Mac community in the long run and is
absolutely the right decision in my opinion. IBM & Freescale
have disappointed too many times. Now the hardware playing
field will be level and Mac OS X will shine and gain market share.
Microsoft will soon have a much stronger competitor in Apple. I
look forward to the head-to-head competition. I just wish the
switch would happen immediately rather than in 2006-2007. To
the fools who say they will never buy a Mac with an Intel
processor in it, I have to ask what they will be buying instead ...
an Intel PC running Windows?
they "won't buy a Mac ever again" are going to knowingly give
themselves over to the headaches and problems that probably
forced many of them to the Mac side in the first place?
That's like saying you'll never buy a foreign car cause your
Honda Accord got a flat tire. Once. Or you don't like the styling
of the '05. It's retarded.
I dare em. Seriously. If you all out there really do switch (or
switch back) to Windows then you're right to complain about
that platforms weaknesses are hearby revoked.
Booyah!
I can finally chuck that clunky, ugly, "if it weren't for the games" usless Piece of Crap I'm forced to call a Computer, Windows PC.
I wonder how many other people are going to be able to do that? I know my father works at Cisco and they finally got rid of all their Macs (after much protest) and "standardized" on Windows PCs. He's a huge Mac fan but a lot of the applications they use for development are flat out Windows only. Now that Apple's on an Intel chipset, Cisco can (hopefully) start handing out PowerBooks with OS X, Cisco VPN, and Windows in a virtual machine running at 90% speed. If even that, perhaps just have Windows installed anyway and dual boot the damn thing!
reaction.
I'd just like to throw a few quick things out there:
As long as Apple keeps the lines of communication open
between itself and the development community, this transition
should have very few hiccups. If they haven't done this already, I
would recommend they start sending some of their people and
Intel's people to their biggest developers to get them
familiarized with any new dev quirks. If they start this early, by
the time the first Intel-based systems hit the market the
software library should be relatively full.
Since "Classic" will no longer be supported, they should be doing
this same thing with developers of the most-used "Classic"
apps.
Finally, if pricing is an issue, maybe they'll implement some kind
of recycling program, turn in your old PPC system and get some
sort of discount on a new one. They've already started this with
the iPod thanks to a class-action suit, so why not do the same
thing once the new hardware hits the market?
Beyond that pretty much everything I have to say has already
been said, so I'll simply say this:
To the people who've posted who realize that Apple is changing
ONE PART of their machines and that you will still have to buy an
APPLE COMPUTER to run APPLE SOFTWARE, good job on thinking
clearly. Seriously, anyone remember when Apple tried to open
up their hardware platform in the late 80's? The products
sucked and they had to go back to doing everything (basically)
by themselves. YOU WILL NOT BE BUYING A DELL WITH OS X ON
IT. Not now, not ever. The day that happens is the day the
ghost of Steve Jobs comes back and their Cupertino
headquarters turns into the Amityville Horror.
To the people who say Apple is selling out:
Ummm, how? He didn't announce that Apple will start shipping
with XP or Longhorn. All he's done is shown that OS X has been
developed to run on Intel chips as well as IBM, so their work is
pretty much done for them. This fact alone leads me to believe
that this plan was in the works for a long time, if nothing else as
a last resort if things with IBM didn't work out. The only thing
close to "selling out" Apple has done was to partner with
Microsoft and release Office and I.E. for Mac. I've used both of
them and Office runs a whole hell of a lot better on my Mac and
I.E., well, I.E., just sucks on ANY platform.
To the people who say this is the death of Apple as we know it:
How so? Did you guys say the same thing when they switched to
the IBM/Motorola PowerPC chip?
So anyway, thanks for all the level-headed people out there. As
for the rest of you, well, if you want to run out and get a Dell
right now cause Apple's going to crash and burn, then by all
means do so. But by 2008 when we see 5 and 6 GHz
PowerBooks and iBooks, when your laptop battery lasts for
almost 8 hours, when OS X is STILL the most secure and stable
consumer OS out there, when Microsoft has to start thinking
about Bankruptcy proceedings because Apple hardware is finally
priced to really compete, when you start reading that Apple's
installed base has surpassed the 20% mark and their market
share is skyrocketing towards 25 or 30%, you should be banned
from within 50 feet of an Apple Store or Kiosk and you should
not be allowed to buy their products online, plain and simple. In
the meantime though, I'm gonna throw some more RAM into my
PowerBook to keep it relatively current until the Intel-based G5
Books come out, I'm gonna spend probably $200 or maybe even
as much as $400 less on the next one, and I'm gonna sleep the
same every night between now and then.
developers having open communication.. With all of the Software
developers who already know Intel but work on Wintel PC
machines, there are probably already a strong support base and
help groups established which might be a major benefit to the
Developers of Apple Software and even hardware.. Hmm! Just a
little thought...
great move for Apple and its users.
They can just reuse 95% of the parts out of a PPC PowerBook or PowerMac, swap out the mobo, they're all set to sell a refurbished PowerBook or PowerMac at a steal of a price for them and you.
no longer get on line with it as of May 2002 when I bought an
iBook, but that computer sure lives in my classroom. Home for
the summer. My students just use it to type and save
documents. I start a disk on the school issued Dell Laptop and
the MAC takes over. with an adapter, I can read the disk and
email it back to myself at school, or print the document.
By the way, the HP 870cse printer is still in my classroom and
prints as good as ever.
MAC user since mid 80s too
2) The ultra-short-pipeline RISC is not viable for longterm performance, and certainly not if you want broader developer support. Making the pipelines deeper and smarter has paid off for Wintel in more than a few ways.
3) Goodbye "look at how much I can multitask" (especially with multimedia). Without the concurrent AltiVec operations, there will definitely be some performance shock, especially for the first-gens.
4) Money doesn't really matter. As I heard on the radio today, IBM is practically losing money with Apple's pricing, and Apple's total shipments would account for something like 2% of Intel's output.
I think all of the former factors are bearing a lot more weight than the latter.
-Matt
The Useless Information File. No Information is Useless.
keynote speech. What are performance issues?
Besides using low power consumption, Apple still needs to prove
that its Intel-based Mac framework can provide a better
performance than the existing frameworks.
I think the next challenge is about the parallel computation. With
dual-core processors, the operating system can do parallel tasks
to increase the overall system performance. This kind of field is
not fully explored yet. Mac offers 2.0GHz, 2.3GHz, and 2.7GHz
dual-processor models. Speed is increased, but none of them
provides an optimal solution yet. If OS-X can optimally utilize
Intel Dual-Core Processors (Pentium D) to provide a significant
performance jump, I think that Apple fans will be happy.
computers obsolete! It's ridiculous to claim anything of the
sort.
Firstly, since when is any Macintosh model kept around longer
than (maximum) one year? There are speedbumps, G3 -> G4 -
> G5 migrations, enclosure changes, etc. all along the way.
Secondly, why would your PPC be obsolete in 2 years? Most
consumer PC's are on a 3 year upgrade cycle, whereas Mac's can
last up to 5 years (or longer) depending on how you use it. If
you buy a Mac today, you're almost guranteed to get native
PPC's binaries for all of your software through 2008.
Remember, no native Intel software will be out until mid to late
2006, at best! The PPC products will work fine through then.
Thirdly, Apple will probably not replace the PowerMac G5 or
iMac G5 until late 2006 or early 2007 -- they're fast, powerful,
and don't need Intel. On the other hand, Intel is desperately
needed in the eMac, iBook, Powerbook, and Mac Mini. G4's just
aren't cutting it anymore compared to the Pentium M, especially
with the forthcoming dual core chips.
I'm seriously considering an iMac or PowerMac, and this Intel
switch does not sway my purchase one bit. Maybe in late 2006,
it would.
of us devoted Macheads, everyone seems to be missing a huge
part of this controversy.
Apple is switching to intel because the IBM chips, have now
reached thier limitations as to what they are able to perform in
the Mac platform.
FACT- they are running too hot for any future use with any of
Mac's latptop line, not to mention the new power pc's which
need an extensive liquid cooling system to even function
properly.
We are still yet to see a G5 powerbook - and the fact is that this
fatal flaw is going to cause apple to start to lag, and fall behind
intel based systems.
So - all of us that are out bragging that our Mac's are
"technically superior" will in the next few years be making
excuses as to why apple is falling behind intel sysytems are
starting to run circles around your mac, with regards to speed,
and processor power. Its already starting to happen.
Its like having a Ferrari that overheats everytime you step on the
gas - now what use is that?
Mr Jobs, obviously concerned for the future of his company, has
taken this into account. For a company that is so progressive in
thinking, he will be trying to sell computers that are being
outperformed by the competition.
Now I know that you all feel that you are going to loose that nice
geeky feeling you get everyime you open up your shiny titanium
powerbook, but what makes their computers so great is the
whole package, the design, the feel, the nice lighted apple logo
on the back, the software, not just the CPU.
Answer this - if you suddenly found out that by some stroke of
fate that your Mac had been running on an intel chip the whole
time that you had it, would you love it any less? Probably not.
Yes - I know the PPC chip was cool, because it was a whole new
technology, nice and clean, different from everyone else, in a
way it made you feel special because it was different from the
millions of boring dell computers out there. But once again, IBM
has not been able to keep up with apple, and its getting to the
point where the PPC chip is going to hold a very progressive
company back.
Its just a computer chip, apple will still produce a better PC, and
laptop than anyone else around.
I cant wait to get a new Powerbook next year, by the time this
lovely little ibook of mine will need to be replaced.
With the intel chip, it will run faster, cooler, longer and probably
be a little cheaper. But it will still be an Apple.
Now what is so bad about that?
Besides, all this controversy about a silly computer chip is what
makes being a machead a lot of fun.
Same story with Apple, and the new "aircooled engine", haha.
Best
Michael OZ
- Good choice for Apple if the sales don't die between then and now
- by June 11, 2005 12:06 PM PDT
- It's the software, not the platform. I use both PC and Mac regularly--Macs for about three years, PCs for much longer. I'm a video producer/editor and I use Final Cut Pro both at home and the office daily. Work has a dozen or so G5s, I have one, as well as a powerbook. While it is somewhat disconcerting that the G5s are going to be backed away from, I have had strong reservations about the quickly growing speed gap between platforms. I have long secretly wished that Final Cut Pro might be ported to PCs, though I know that is rediculous.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (36 Comments)Or thought it was--hee, hee. FCP is great software--I and the company I work for will go wherever it goes. THough I wonder if my boss will change his short term buying plans for new G5s?