Not me. Eighteen months ago, I wrote that such a deal wouldn't occur because it would potentially allow clone makers to produce cheap Macs and make price comparisons easier between Macs and Windows-based PCs. (I also predicted that IBM services would begin to teeter, so I wasn't a complete bonehead.)
When news of deals began to surface last month, I wrote another article quoting several analysts downplaying any budding relationship. They say animals can sense things early, but I completely ignored the fact that two weeks ago my cat started drinking coffee and fiddling with the band saw.
Read News.com's complete coverage of Apple's dramatic decision to transition to Intel processors.
Still, the predictions weren't that bad. It won't be an easy transition. Sales will likely decline between now and June 2006 when the first Intel-based Macs come out, because few will want to buy a computer out of a product line heading for the tar pits. Clever PC makers and software developers, particularly in emerging markets, will be able to figure out how to put the Mac OS on white-box PCs.
Nonetheless, many decisions are fraught with risk and difficulty. The Austro-Hungarian empire originally didn't enforce its will on the Serbs in 1914 because of the all-consuming importance of the sheep-cheese trade in the Balkans. But fear of losing prestige, worries about Russia and pressure from the Kaiser in Germany all pushed them toward a precarious course of action.
With PowerPC chips, Apple found itself grappling with an ever-widening performance gap. Although PowerPC was somewhat comparable to Intel/Advanced Micro Devices processors in the first part of the decade, those chips began to pull away. Intel and AMD also came out with new, faster, cheaper versions at a faster clip.
The troubles began to come to a head with the G5, the IBM processor that debuted in 2003. Benchmarks from Apple touting the superiority of the G5 were widely questioned.
Apple also began to include a liquid cooling system in its PCs for the processor. Apple fans claimed the cooling system underscored the company's visionary sense of engineering. Dan Hutcheson, CEO of VLSI Research, saw it differently. The liquid system added about $50 to manufacturing costs. Historically, liquid cooling is also a sign that the processor line won't be around for long.
When Apple began to publicly complain about the G5 on conference calls, the companies had entered a danger zone. IBM doesn't cotton well to criticism, particularly from allies. "We invented the cash register! We came up with fractals! We sponsor Christmas specials," is sort of IBM's attitude toward the rest of the world. Big Blue started to hang out with game console makers and listen to old Springsteen records on the car stereo. Divorce suddenly loomed as a possibility.
"As we looked out toward the future, we envisioned the kind of products we'd like to build, but we didn't know how to build (them) with the future of the Power PC road map," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said at the company's developer conference.
Oddly enough, Apple has been gaining market share in the past few quarters despite the G5 issues.
Intel has power consumption problems with the Pentium 4 too, but a shift to dual core cures some of that. Future notebook and desktop chips (Yonah, Merom, Conroe) will further reduce power consumption, which in turn will let Apple come out with sleek, small systems.
There will be other benefits too. Intel increasingly is performing more of the internal engineering work required in getting servers and other computers out the door. It makes reference designs and lines up component manufacturers to adopt certain specs. By taking advantage of some of this work, Apple can likely reduce the delta between its computers--which tends to be about $300--and a similarly configured computer from a PC company.
On the other hand, Apple will have to live with being one of many. The red carpet was unfurled Monday, but a year from now, Apple will be lumped into the same courtesy shuttle as Toshiba, Sony, Gateway and the other "not in the top five" PC makers. Acer sells more computers than Apple and therefore will likely qualify for higher volume discounts.
Apple will also lose one more aspect of its uniqueness, which the company seems to crave, so who knows what will happen next? Feeling a bit dejected, Apple may start casting about again. Look, there's Hector Ruiz of AMD, the company might say to itself. He talks quite a bit about the importance of the emerging market. They're sort of an underdog....
Biography Michael Kanellos is editor at large at CNET News.com, where he covers hardware, research and development, start-ups and the tech industry overseas. He has worked as an attorney, travel writer and sidewalk hawker for a time share resort, among other occupations.
Well it looks like this will be my last APPLE computer. I have been buying Apple Macintosh Computers since the Mac Plus came out, but I won't buy a computer with a INTEL processor ever.
Get over it. It's not the processor that makes a computer, it's the operating system. I don't buy Macs because they have an IBM (btw they make hardware that runs Windows) processor, I buy them because they are the better computing experience. So if that better computing experience can be made a faster and cheaper computing experience because an Intel processor is under the hood I say GREAT.
If you want to deprive yourself of Mac OS and all that's better about it just because the cpu is Intel all I can say is, more fool you...
So it's going to be AMD and Linux for you from now on? I think I'll stick to Apple whatever the processor inside is. I'm, after all, for the operating system and cool design and not so much for the tech inside as long as everything works.
Personally I think this is a good way to go. If IBM didn't drop the ball and would work more on the PPC processors for Apple and not the PPC processors for Sony. We wouldn't need a change. With Windows Software running on a CISC processor and now Apple back on a CISC processor and the same kind of processor Windows uses this would allow for more software to be ported to MacOS much easier.
So if you want to quit just because of an Intel processor you might as well not buy an AMD processor, because AMD started with cloning Intel's processors.
I am sorry, but as much as I can understand the love to Apple, I have to say that all those that say they will stop buying Macs because of Intel is just ridiculous. Apple is a business and has to make money, for this they need a competitive product, and I doubt that Apple took this decision easily, and only made it after it became clear that Apple would not be able to stay competitive with the IBM processor road map. As much as I love my G4 Powerbook, and think the new G5 iMacs are great, this is about the next 10 years.
Do I like this no, but in the end, after the switch to Intel, what will change? I will probably have access to a faster computer (not too bad), probably the Intel processors will allow for new smaller laptops with way better energy management (also not too bad especially when I think of the about 2 hours I get out of my 1.4 year old 12''), and most of all when I look at the screen I will still look at OS X.
The biggest issue here, I think, is that of the "Cult of Mac". It is often said that Mac users are fanatics. I myself have been one for years. Fanatics believe in something, because of experience or whatever it is, but if you look at the propaganda fed to us by Apple's Marketing department over the years there is and has been one blazingly clear recurrence, Mac's are better than anything with Intel inside! Now for Apple to come out and tell us that they are going to put Intel inside our Mac's is like saying that god doesn't exist or never existed at all. Either they have been lying to us for years OR we can all join mediocrity. As a faithful Cult of Mac fanatic this is very distressing to me. I will purchase the fastest G5 they make around the end of 2006 and it will be my last Mac for a very, very long time. It's just too much trouble to deal with these changes in a professional environment when developers will need to recompile all of their apps... again! I hope it's all worked out by 2012 when I look for a new computer though.
The chip Apple uses should have no bearing on your continuing to purchase Macs. But, don't take my word for it. Look what Walt Mossberg has to say about it:
"If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice for you last week, it's still the right choice. Today's PowerPC Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models this year."
If you wish to never buy a computer again you won't. PLease don't overreact as Jobs put it best, "The Heart Of The Mac is the OS". I've been a Mac user for many years and I'm excited.
Well it looks like this will be my last APPLE computer. I have been buying Apple Macintosh Computers since the Mac Plus came out, but I won't buy a computer with a INTEL processor ever.
Get over it. It's not the processor that makes a computer, it's the operating system. I don't buy Macs because they have an IBM (btw they make hardware that runs Windows) processor, I buy them because they are the better computing experience. So if that better computing experience can be made a faster and cheaper computing experience because an Intel processor is under the hood I say GREAT.
If you want to deprive yourself of Mac OS and all that's better about it just because the cpu is Intel all I can say is, more fool you...
So it's going to be AMD and Linux for you from now on? I think I'll stick to Apple whatever the processor inside is. I'm, after all, for the operating system and cool design and not so much for the tech inside as long as everything works.
Personally I think this is a good way to go. If IBM didn't drop the ball and would work more on the PPC processors for Apple and not the PPC processors for Sony. We wouldn't need a change. With Windows Software running on a CISC processor and now Apple back on a CISC processor and the same kind of processor Windows uses this would allow for more software to be ported to MacOS much easier.
So if you want to quit just because of an Intel processor you might as well not buy an AMD processor, because AMD started with cloning Intel's processors.
I am sorry, but as much as I can understand the love to Apple, I have to say that all those that say they will stop buying Macs because of Intel is just ridiculous. Apple is a business and has to make money, for this they need a competitive product, and I doubt that Apple took this decision easily, and only made it after it became clear that Apple would not be able to stay competitive with the IBM processor road map. As much as I love my G4 Powerbook, and think the new G5 iMacs are great, this is about the next 10 years.
Do I like this no, but in the end, after the switch to Intel, what will change? I will probably have access to a faster computer (not too bad), probably the Intel processors will allow for new smaller laptops with way better energy management (also not too bad especially when I think of the about 2 hours I get out of my 1.4 year old 12''), and most of all when I look at the screen I will still look at OS X.
The biggest issue here, I think, is that of the "Cult of Mac". It is often said that Mac users are fanatics. I myself have been one for years. Fanatics believe in something, because of experience or whatever it is, but if you look at the propaganda fed to us by Apple's Marketing department over the years there is and has been one blazingly clear recurrence, Mac's are better than anything with Intel inside! Now for Apple to come out and tell us that they are going to put Intel inside our Mac's is like saying that god doesn't exist or never existed at all. Either they have been lying to us for years OR we can all join mediocrity. As a faithful Cult of Mac fanatic this is very distressing to me. I will purchase the fastest G5 they make around the end of 2006 and it will be my last Mac for a very, very long time. It's just too much trouble to deal with these changes in a professional environment when developers will need to recompile all of their apps... again! I hope it's all worked out by 2012 when I look for a new computer though.
The chip Apple uses should have no bearing on your continuing to purchase Macs. But, don't take my word for it. Look what Walt Mossberg has to say about it:
"If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice for you last week, it's still the right choice. Today's PowerPC Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models this year."
If you wish to never buy a computer again you won't. PLease don't overreact as Jobs put it best, "The Heart Of The Mac is the OS". I've been a Mac user for many years and I'm excited.
"Serbs" and "Serbians" are interchangeable. A Google search yields a wide variety of sites that prefer "Serbians," including CNN and the BBC. The Oxford American Dictionary, nicely supplied with Tiger, defines Serbian as "another term for Serb." You can safely add an "s" to the end of both.
"Serbs" and "Serbians" are interchangeable. A Google search yields a wide variety of sites that prefer "Serbians," including CNN and the BBC. The Oxford American Dictionary, nicely supplied with Tiger, defines Serbian as "another term for Serb." You can safely add an "s" to the end of both.
Despite many peoples wishes that finaly apple computers will be cheaper now. think again!!
Apple has made a business out of selling more expensive computers. If they started selling cheaper computers, people will say, they are not as good as before. If they sold more expensive computers, they will still have their 1 or 2% enthusiasts who will swear how they are stil the best computers in the industry.
When an AMD based PC beats intel based PCs and Macs, the enthusiasts will say 'but its the whole experience, its mac OS, its the fact that there are not enough viruses on the internet for Macs. But then there will be AMD based Machines running MAC OS since the OS X is configured to run on x86 processors. What will the apple computers be left with other than a sleep looking shell? an empty wallet!!
a world where people are buying the Mac OS to put it on their AMD machines sounds like a good one to me. More market share for the Mac OS, even if the machines aren't made by Apple, means more attention from developers and more software. I'll probably still buy Apple hardware.
Compare prices between Apple and Sony or even IBM/Lenovo
Apple still has some really low prices when comparing them to other high end manufacturers. Sure you could buy a dell but come on they are crap. I have a PowerBook and the latest sony vaio S series, I paid the same price for them, but I found that the powerbook's build is a lot better, it surpasses it in leaps and bounds actually. The bottom of my PowerBook is more appealing than the top of my vaio, plus the vaio has all these little buttons (like one for wifi WHY GOD WHY?) The ports are covered by a flimsy plastic latch which is soooo annoying because i need to try and open it to plug something in. the touch pad feels horrible too, I could file my nails on it. But one good thing about it is the screen is quite good. As for software, lets just say that mac os x just pulled microsofts pants down. Sony's Portable would be quite impressive if they ironed out the defects and employed a different operating system. For those wondering why I bought a pc if i'm happy with my mac, Bentley Software (makers of Microstation, CAD app) are too lazy to port a version that runs on OSX natively, eventhough they had one for classic and there was a lot of interest then and a lot of interest now, Nicholas Grimshaw's practice used it, but then had to change because they stopped supporting it.
Despite many peoples wishes that finaly apple computers will be cheaper now. think again!!
Apple has made a business out of selling more expensive computers. If they started selling cheaper computers, people will say, they are not as good as before. If they sold more expensive computers, they will still have their 1 or 2% enthusiasts who will swear how they are stil the best computers in the industry.
When an AMD based PC beats intel based PCs and Macs, the enthusiasts will say 'but its the whole experience, its mac OS, its the fact that there are not enough viruses on the internet for Macs. But then there will be AMD based Machines running MAC OS since the OS X is configured to run on x86 processors. What will the apple computers be left with other than a sleep looking shell? an empty wallet!!
a world where people are buying the Mac OS to put it on their AMD machines sounds like a good one to me. More market share for the Mac OS, even if the machines aren't made by Apple, means more attention from developers and more software. I'll probably still buy Apple hardware.
Compare prices between Apple and Sony or even IBM/Lenovo
Apple still has some really low prices when comparing them to other high end manufacturers. Sure you could buy a dell but come on they are crap. I have a PowerBook and the latest sony vaio S series, I paid the same price for them, but I found that the powerbook's build is a lot better, it surpasses it in leaps and bounds actually. The bottom of my PowerBook is more appealing than the top of my vaio, plus the vaio has all these little buttons (like one for wifi WHY GOD WHY?) The ports are covered by a flimsy plastic latch which is soooo annoying because i need to try and open it to plug something in. the touch pad feels horrible too, I could file my nails on it. But one good thing about it is the screen is quite good. As for software, lets just say that mac os x just pulled microsofts pants down. Sony's Portable would be quite impressive if they ironed out the defects and employed a different operating system. For those wondering why I bought a pc if i'm happy with my mac, Bentley Software (makers of Microstation, CAD app) are too lazy to port a version that runs on OSX natively, eventhough they had one for classic and there was a lot of interest then and a lot of interest now, Nicholas Grimshaw's practice used it, but then had to change because they stopped supporting it.
Clearly he has planned this from the start as he revealed today by saying they've been running OS X on Intel chips SINCE THE VERY FIRST VERSION.
And it's not hard to see his plan either. The iPod was a major part of it-- getting the Apple brand to reach rockstar status and then some, create the demand for an Apple on every desktop. AND THEN:
And then, as Microsoft continued to get black and blue over viruses and spyware vunerabilities in Windows, drop the bomb: Apple will start making x86 compatible machines that run OS X and will be capable of running windows apps flawlessly. Just in time for when? Just in time for consumers to have a REAL choice in 2007 when Longhorn comes out: Upgrade to OS X or upgrade to Longhorn. That will be a great choice for consumers.
Both OSes will be capable of running legacy windows apps, both of which will probably cost the same. Both of which will offer next gen features. Heck even NEW computer buyers will have a competivie choice because Apple's will go down in price, probably will now cost as much as your favorite Dell computer now that Apple has ditched the overpriced Power PC architecture.
So now we'll have cheaper Apple computers. Running windows apps. And you can be sure that Jobs' marketing team will make them hotter then iPods.
The only question that remains now is: Will Microsoft license Windows to Apple so that Apple can provide 100% backwards compatibility?
Only time will tell if this is the beginning of the end for Apple or if its simply the end of the beginning.
I for one welcome a real competition. Bring.it.on.
Apple has been the premium brand in computers, and they are now the premium brand in mp3 players. People are willing to pay more for premium brands because of the superior quality and user experience. Why would Apple want to become another company that spits out cheap computers and has to rely on huge sales volumes.
They will simply continue to be the very best, the most creative, and the ultimate trendsetters that they have been. But they will make whatever smart hardware decisions that need to be made in order to retain their position as the premium brand.
Just because Apple will use Intel CPU's, you shouldn't assume that their machines will be x86 compatible and be capable of running Windows. For one thing, Macs use OpenFirmware rather than BIOS. I would expect Apple to continue to use OpenFirmware. It's quite possible that someone will figure out how to get Windows and Linux to boot up on Intel-based mac hardware (you can run Linux on PPC-based Mac hardware today) but I seriously doubt that anyone will get Mac OS X to run on a Dell machine.
Clearly he has planned this from the start as he revealed today by saying they've been running OS X on Intel chips SINCE THE VERY FIRST VERSION.
And it's not hard to see his plan either. The iPod was a major part of it-- getting the Apple brand to reach rockstar status and then some, create the demand for an Apple on every desktop. AND THEN:
And then, as Microsoft continued to get black and blue over viruses and spyware vunerabilities in Windows, drop the bomb: Apple will start making x86 compatible machines that run OS X and will be capable of running windows apps flawlessly. Just in time for when? Just in time for consumers to have a REAL choice in 2007 when Longhorn comes out: Upgrade to OS X or upgrade to Longhorn. That will be a great choice for consumers.
Both OSes will be capable of running legacy windows apps, both of which will probably cost the same. Both of which will offer next gen features. Heck even NEW computer buyers will have a competivie choice because Apple's will go down in price, probably will now cost as much as your favorite Dell computer now that Apple has ditched the overpriced Power PC architecture.
So now we'll have cheaper Apple computers. Running windows apps. And you can be sure that Jobs' marketing team will make them hotter then iPods.
The only question that remains now is: Will Microsoft license Windows to Apple so that Apple can provide 100% backwards compatibility?
Only time will tell if this is the beginning of the end for Apple or if its simply the end of the beginning.
I for one welcome a real competition. Bring.it.on.
Apple has been the premium brand in computers, and they are now the premium brand in mp3 players. People are willing to pay more for premium brands because of the superior quality and user experience. Why would Apple want to become another company that spits out cheap computers and has to rely on huge sales volumes.
They will simply continue to be the very best, the most creative, and the ultimate trendsetters that they have been. But they will make whatever smart hardware decisions that need to be made in order to retain their position as the premium brand.
Just because Apple will use Intel CPU's, you shouldn't assume that their machines will be x86 compatible and be capable of running Windows. For one thing, Macs use OpenFirmware rather than BIOS. I would expect Apple to continue to use OpenFirmware. It's quite possible that someone will figure out how to get Windows and Linux to boot up on Intel-based mac hardware (you can run Linux on PPC-based Mac hardware today) but I seriously doubt that anyone will get Mac OS X to run on a Dell machine.
I would have tought it was built on Linux, hence my post saying APPLE = RED HAT. I meant that OS X would then be only an interface layer over Linux hence just like RED HAT is Linux with a bunch of proprietary utility.
Once you have an INTEL CPU and Linux (or SOLARIS), would you not have an INTEL chipset then a PCI EXPRESS slot. In the end, a good old PC.
It bring us back to the IBM PC and their failure to protect their market from the clone makers.
I wonder what legal and technical device Apple will use to keep the clone builders away. Or maybe they will let people buy OS X and put it on a standard PC. Same strategy as RED HAT.
I would have tought it was built on Linux, hence my post saying APPLE = RED HAT. I meant that OS X would then be only an interface layer over Linux hence just like RED HAT is Linux with a bunch of proprietary utility.
Once you have an INTEL CPU and Linux (or SOLARIS), would you not have an INTEL chipset then a PCI EXPRESS slot. In the end, a good old PC.
It bring us back to the IBM PC and their failure to protect their market from the clone makers.
I wonder what legal and technical device Apple will use to keep the clone builders away. Or maybe they will let people buy OS X and put it on a standard PC. Same strategy as RED HAT.
Obviously this is going to mean one Microsoft Office version, for both PC and the Wintel Mac, since even if the OS differs the apps will be less so when all Macs have Intel inside.
This new WinMac will thus lose one of the big factors that make Macs appealing to their over-earning price-insensitive value-indifferent owners: The feeling that the Mac is special and even needs its own software.
One has to wonder if the real sub-text driving the switch to Intel is the possibility that Microsoft itself might have told Apple that Mac Office would soon be toast.
Will the WinMac really appeal to those who just have to spend more to be different? Will they want to be spend extra money on a WinMac just to be faux different and not really different?
I think not. Buy those G5 boat anchors while you can, Macintoshers, as soon the glory days will be past.
Microsoft already stated today that they would continue to develop Office for Mac. In fact, they promised to release the next version for both PPC and Intel-based Macs.
The rest of your comments show a lack of understanding about how computers work and how software is developed. Office for Windows will never run directly on a Mac because the software is written for the Windows OS. Software has to be written for Mac OS X to run on that platform. The difference required to develop for an Intel-based Mac or a PPC-based Mac is a lot smaller than the difference between an intel-based Windows machine and an Intel-based Mac because most of the effort is in coding to the OS API's and using the unique libraries for that platform.
This may come as a shock, MS Office is not the beginning and end of computing. There's all kinds of other nifty things people do with their computers. Not to mention several viable cheap (even free) alternatives to the MS Office suite.
2. So does that mean I can install Office on my Linux partition? After all, it is installed in the same computer as windows.
The underlining hardware is important when compiling software, but the OS is equally important. You could write a program and compile it on XP, and it will run on most flavors of windows provided you didn't use any XP specific API's. You could also write a program on any OS, and provided you stuck to the language standard, and was very careful when you had to use a non-standard language library and that program could be used on any OS, BUT you would still have to compile it for each OS, so no, you will never get a single executable that will run natively(ie with no emulators or anything of that nature) on multiple OS's, and the hardware has nothing to do with it.
Obviously this is going to mean one Microsoft Office version, for both PC and the Wintel Mac, since even if the OS differs the apps will be less so when all Macs have Intel inside.
This new WinMac will thus lose one of the big factors that make Macs appealing to their over-earning price-insensitive value-indifferent owners: The feeling that the Mac is special and even needs its own software.
One has to wonder if the real sub-text driving the switch to Intel is the possibility that Microsoft itself might have told Apple that Mac Office would soon be toast.
Will the WinMac really appeal to those who just have to spend more to be different? Will they want to be spend extra money on a WinMac just to be faux different and not really different?
I think not. Buy those G5 boat anchors while you can, Macintoshers, as soon the glory days will be past.
Microsoft already stated today that they would continue to develop Office for Mac. In fact, they promised to release the next version for both PPC and Intel-based Macs.
The rest of your comments show a lack of understanding about how computers work and how software is developed. Office for Windows will never run directly on a Mac because the software is written for the Windows OS. Software has to be written for Mac OS X to run on that platform. The difference required to develop for an Intel-based Mac or a PPC-based Mac is a lot smaller than the difference between an intel-based Windows machine and an Intel-based Mac because most of the effort is in coding to the OS API's and using the unique libraries for that platform.
This may come as a shock, MS Office is not the beginning and end of computing. There's all kinds of other nifty things people do with their computers. Not to mention several viable cheap (even free) alternatives to the MS Office suite.
2. So does that mean I can install Office on my Linux partition? After all, it is installed in the same computer as windows.
The underlining hardware is important when compiling software, but the OS is equally important. You could write a program and compile it on XP, and it will run on most flavors of windows provided you didn't use any XP specific API's. You could also write a program on any OS, and provided you stuck to the language standard, and was very careful when you had to use a non-standard language library and that program could be used on any OS, BUT you would still have to compile it for each OS, so no, you will never get a single executable that will run natively(ie with no emulators or anything of that nature) on multiple OS's, and the hardware has nothing to do with it.
OK, I am a die hard Apple evangelist. The rumors leading up to this announcement had my brain in a twist.
While one of the primary reasons I have always been a Mac loyalist, has been Apples' decision to find the architecture that will deliver their vision of personal computing, I find myself questioning my personal angst.
This is not any different than Apple has done all along. They simply turned to the future and asked themselves, "what's next?", as they have always done. No one can imagine the firestorm of controversy and internal consternation this created. But the bottom line was where is the future, and what archictecture will allow them to continue on that path? The G5 is an awesome chip, but without further development, who cares?! A G5 mac is still a treasure, and will continue to be for a couple of years, but without development/improvement that will pass.
I watched the keynote, on my Mac-mini, with QT7 and Tiger, and experienced the best streamed wide screen video ever. I felt my stomach twist on the Intel announcement. But then it was revealed that the Mac Steve was running the demo on was a Pentium 4 based computer. Next came the announcement of XCode 2.1 and unverisal binaries.
In the end, I realized it was a matter of conception. Apple wasn't selling out. Apple wasn't giving up their control on designs. Apple was looking for future **********, and who was going to deliver it. Strangely enough, and quite so ironic, it turned out to be Intel. Damn, I still can't believe it. But there you go. Maybe I will be able to afford a Dual G5 XServe at the end of the year now.
By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know when we aren't on the inside.
"By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know when we aren't on the inside."
One expert said the exciting stuff Intel showed Apple was not only speed (which AMD has in desktop chips), but also the next CPU in the gate has some hush-hush "content protection" software. They don't want hackers to get hold of the schematics, so it's all under the radar... but, if Stevie Boy wants to start up a movie iPod type service to download movies, this would help ensure the video stays with the owner and doesn't end up on P2P file sharing. Speed (well good enough speed -- better than PowerPC, not quite as good as AMD), copyright protection features, full range of products (desktop and mobile -- AMD lacks mobile), and good rep for shipping products on time (AMD has had problems getting their chips out the door in mass quantity. For that reason, Dell uses Intel, but won't touch AMD) -- all these are reasons Intel was chosen.
Intel is the logical choice for Apple because of its need for low power processors for PowerBooks. I prefer to use AMD processors -- mostly because I worked as a designer for AMD on the Am7990 LANCE chip way back when; but also because AMD offers better performance, and then there's also the rebel factor. The "Establishment" falls for Intel marketing BS, so I go with AMD, if for nothing else, to give Intel the proverbial finger.
Processor zealotry, like platform zealorty, is largely an exercise in wasting time. Use the best technology solution that makes sense for the problem at hand.
OK, I am a die hard Apple evangelist. The rumors leading up to this announcement had my brain in a twist.
While one of the primary reasons I have always been a Mac loyalist, has been Apples' decision to find the architecture that will deliver their vision of personal computing, I find myself questioning my personal angst.
This is not any different than Apple has done all along. They simply turned to the future and asked themselves, "what's next?", as they have always done. No one can imagine the firestorm of controversy and internal consternation this created. But the bottom line was where is the future, and what archictecture will allow them to continue on that path? The G5 is an awesome chip, but without further development, who cares?! A G5 mac is still a treasure, and will continue to be for a couple of years, but without development/improvement that will pass.
I watched the keynote, on my Mac-mini, with QT7 and Tiger, and experienced the best streamed wide screen video ever. I felt my stomach twist on the Intel announcement. But then it was revealed that the Mac Steve was running the demo on was a Pentium 4 based computer. Next came the announcement of XCode 2.1 and unverisal binaries.
In the end, I realized it was a matter of conception. Apple wasn't selling out. Apple wasn't giving up their control on designs. Apple was looking for future **********, and who was going to deliver it. Strangely enough, and quite so ironic, it turned out to be Intel. Damn, I still can't believe it. But there you go. Maybe I will be able to afford a Dual G5 XServe at the end of the year now.
By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know when we aren't on the inside.
"By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know when we aren't on the inside."
One expert said the exciting stuff Intel showed Apple was not only speed (which AMD has in desktop chips), but also the next CPU in the gate has some hush-hush "content protection" software. They don't want hackers to get hold of the schematics, so it's all under the radar... but, if Stevie Boy wants to start up a movie iPod type service to download movies, this would help ensure the video stays with the owner and doesn't end up on P2P file sharing. Speed (well good enough speed -- better than PowerPC, not quite as good as AMD), copyright protection features, full range of products (desktop and mobile -- AMD lacks mobile), and good rep for shipping products on time (AMD has had problems getting their chips out the door in mass quantity. For that reason, Dell uses Intel, but won't touch AMD) -- all these are reasons Intel was chosen.
Intel is the logical choice for Apple because of its need for low power processors for PowerBooks. I prefer to use AMD processors -- mostly because I worked as a designer for AMD on the Am7990 LANCE chip way back when; but also because AMD offers better performance, and then there's also the rebel factor. The "Establishment" falls for Intel marketing BS, so I go with AMD, if for nothing else, to give Intel the proverbial finger.
Processor zealotry, like platform zealorty, is largely an exercise in wasting time. Use the best technology solution that makes sense for the problem at hand.
You're right on both accounts. I didn't know that was proper. I normally look things like that up, but this is an idea I had for a long time, so I thought I was right. I just prefer "Serbs" because it's closer to "Srbi", in Serbian, and to differentiate between the people, the adjective, and the language.
You're right on both accounts. I didn't know that was proper. I normally look things like that up, but this is an idea I had for a long time, so I thought I was right. I just prefer "Serbs" because it's closer to "Srbi", in Serbian, and to differentiate between the people, the adjective, and the language.
every developer knows that he's just saying that. then why upgrade to the new Xcode. Steve felt left out with IBM. IBM won't deal with him like how they currently deal with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. The profit vs. quantity ratio is just not there to begin with (Steve asked IBM to lower it's asking price).
every developer knows that he's just saying that. then why upgrade to the new Xcode. Steve felt left out with IBM. IBM won't deal with him like how they currently deal with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. The profit vs. quantity ratio is just not there to begin with (Steve asked IBM to lower it's asking price).
Is name of this game, the trouble with most people is that they do no think past the first five minutes of everything, now th e trouble with CEOs is that they need to think ahead in terms of years, its a neuro-linguistic technique in which you need to question "where or what would i be in 5 or 10 years?" when you finally guess you need to trace your steps backwards to see how you Will get there, its like mental reverse-ingeniering, As a CEO Steve Jobs needs to think like this, have a slab of humble pie and finally take the best option that in the long run will seem best for the company and future customers, regardless of the chip wars or what people think is best for now, thats why most of us are not CEOs of nothing because this type of long term style of thinking is NOT for everyone and it is a skill that needs to be developed and harnessed (see Star Wars Jedi thinking)if the G5 ran HOT! now at 2.7Ghz how hotter will it run 2 years from now at propably 3.0? enough to hook up the fridge to it! I dont want to stand on that audience of WWDC and explain that you need to hook up a hose from the freezer to the powermac in order for you to look at email and surf the web, its just pure nonsense while Intel (the former enemy) has stuff running nicely at 3.4,3.8 etc for people to play their wasteful and entertaining games, its just nonsense, we are never going to escape the myth of the Ghz so to level the playing field lets use intel and see what happens, well sorry to burst your bubble by telling you that the star of the show here is Mac OSX and not the chips, the chips are just the branches that make the trunk of the OS be operational, as wild as that metaphor is, in these times we are running an OS war and not chip wars anymore, the flags have changed so we need to pick sides lest we hurt our own people.
Is name of this game, the trouble with most people is that they do no think past the first five minutes of everything, now th e trouble with CEOs is that they need to think ahead in terms of years, its a neuro-linguistic technique in which you need to question "where or what would i be in 5 or 10 years?" when you finally guess you need to trace your steps backwards to see how you Will get there, its like mental reverse-ingeniering, As a CEO Steve Jobs needs to think like this, have a slab of humble pie and finally take the best option that in the long run will seem best for the company and future customers, regardless of the chip wars or what people think is best for now, thats why most of us are not CEOs of nothing because this type of long term style of thinking is NOT for everyone and it is a skill that needs to be developed and harnessed (see Star Wars Jedi thinking)if the G5 ran HOT! now at 2.7Ghz how hotter will it run 2 years from now at propably 3.0? enough to hook up the fridge to it! I dont want to stand on that audience of WWDC and explain that you need to hook up a hose from the freezer to the powermac in order for you to look at email and surf the web, its just pure nonsense while Intel (the former enemy) has stuff running nicely at 3.4,3.8 etc for people to play their wasteful and entertaining games, its just nonsense, we are never going to escape the myth of the Ghz so to level the playing field lets use intel and see what happens, well sorry to burst your bubble by telling you that the star of the show here is Mac OSX and not the chips, the chips are just the branches that make the trunk of the OS be operational, as wild as that metaphor is, in these times we are running an OS war and not chip wars anymore, the flags have changed so we need to pick sides lest we hurt our own people.
The worst part of it? Just wait until someone load Windows on the Mac
Because that's what Apple has doomed itself too - a "me too" architecture that will run Windows, Linux and oh yeah... OS X. Why didn't Jobs aim a little higher and go with AMD chips. Talk about efficient design, there's a company that realized clock cycles didn't mean performance. Apple just got rid of the only reason I was thinking of jumping ship. Thanks - I guess I'll keep my current WinAMD box.
... to the announcement. It's a Mac/Intel computer, not a PC/Intel computer. May use the same processor, but it's a radically different motherboard. In fact, the Mac motherboard just might be a model for what the PC motherboard should have been. And maybe, the PC manufacturers may decide to revamp the PC motherboard.
Google creates an animated doodle that features a boy, a girl, Google's search engine, and a jump rope. But might there be darker, more analytical, more troubling interpretations to this tale?
Data gathered by several companies publishing news readers for both iPhone and iPad suggest that there is a clear difference in when users check out articles via those devices. And anyone wanting to build apps for both devices should heed those lessons.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
%20expectations%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/Apple-fails-to-meet-a-columnists-expectations/2010-1071_3-5734187.html&x_breadcrumb=12:1071&x_arw_bkts=MAD:high_wireless_switcher){kind=small}
buying Apple Macintosh Computers since the Mac Plus came out,
but I won't buy a computer with a INTEL processor ever.
Bye Bye APPLE it was nice knowing you
If you want to deprive yourself of Mac OS and all that's better about it just because the cpu is Intel all I can say is, more fool you...
Intel wasn't the one who lost the Antitrust lawsuit, that was
Microsoft, not Intel.
What's your beef with Intel?
I think I'll stick to Apple whatever the processor inside is.
I'm, after all, for the operating system and cool design and not
so much for the tech inside as long as everything works.
Cheers,
D
So if you want to quit just because of an Intel processor you might as well not buy an AMD processor, because AMD started with cloning Intel's processors.
No no you say, AMD..right, big difference. Enjoy!
have to say that all those that say they will stop buying Macs
because of Intel is just ridiculous. Apple is a business and has to
make money, for this they need a competitive product, and I
doubt that Apple took this decision easily, and only made it after
it became clear that Apple would not be able to stay competitive
with the IBM processor road map.
As much as I love my G4 Powerbook, and think the new G5
iMacs are great, this is about the next 10 years.
Do I like this no, but in the end, after the switch to Intel, what
will change? I will probably have access to a faster computer (not
too bad), probably the Intel processors will allow for new smaller
laptops with way better energy management (also not too bad
especially when I think of the about 2 hours I get out of my 1.4
year old 12''), and most of all when I look at the screen I will still
look at OS X.
often said that Mac users are fanatics. I myself have been one
for years. Fanatics believe in something, because of experience
or whatever it is, but if you look at the propaganda fed to us by
Apple's Marketing department over the years there is and has
been one blazingly clear recurrence, Mac's are better than
anything with Intel inside! Now for Apple to come out and tell us
that they are going to put Intel inside our Mac's is like saying
that god doesn't exist or never existed at all. Either they have
been lying to us for years OR we can all join mediocrity. As a
faithful Cult of Mac fanatic this is very distressing to me. I will
purchase the fastest G5 they make around the end of 2006 and
it will be my last Mac for a very, very long time. It's just too
much trouble to deal with these changes in a professional
environment when developers will need to recompile all of their
apps... again! I hope it's all worked out by 2012 when I look for
a new computer though.
to purchase Macs. But, don't take my word for it. Look what Walt
Mossberg has to say about it:
"If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice
for you last week, it's still the right choice. Today's PowerPC
Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the
market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models
this year."
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html" target="_newWindow">http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html</a>
buying Apple Macintosh Computers since the Mac Plus came out,
but I won't buy a computer with a INTEL processor ever.
Bye Bye APPLE it was nice knowing you
If you want to deprive yourself of Mac OS and all that's better about it just because the cpu is Intel all I can say is, more fool you...
Intel wasn't the one who lost the Antitrust lawsuit, that was
Microsoft, not Intel.
What's your beef with Intel?
I think I'll stick to Apple whatever the processor inside is.
I'm, after all, for the operating system and cool design and not
so much for the tech inside as long as everything works.
Cheers,
D
So if you want to quit just because of an Intel processor you might as well not buy an AMD processor, because AMD started with cloning Intel's processors.
No no you say, AMD..right, big difference. Enjoy!
have to say that all those that say they will stop buying Macs
because of Intel is just ridiculous. Apple is a business and has to
make money, for this they need a competitive product, and I
doubt that Apple took this decision easily, and only made it after
it became clear that Apple would not be able to stay competitive
with the IBM processor road map.
As much as I love my G4 Powerbook, and think the new G5
iMacs are great, this is about the next 10 years.
Do I like this no, but in the end, after the switch to Intel, what
will change? I will probably have access to a faster computer (not
too bad), probably the Intel processors will allow for new smaller
laptops with way better energy management (also not too bad
especially when I think of the about 2 hours I get out of my 1.4
year old 12''), and most of all when I look at the screen I will still
look at OS X.
often said that Mac users are fanatics. I myself have been one
for years. Fanatics believe in something, because of experience
or whatever it is, but if you look at the propaganda fed to us by
Apple's Marketing department over the years there is and has
been one blazingly clear recurrence, Mac's are better than
anything with Intel inside! Now for Apple to come out and tell us
that they are going to put Intel inside our Mac's is like saying
that god doesn't exist or never existed at all. Either they have
been lying to us for years OR we can all join mediocrity. As a
faithful Cult of Mac fanatic this is very distressing to me. I will
purchase the fastest G5 they make around the end of 2006 and
it will be my last Mac for a very, very long time. It's just too
much trouble to deal with these changes in a professional
environment when developers will need to recompile all of their
apps... again! I hope it's all worked out by 2012 when I look for
a new computer though.
to purchase Macs. But, don't take my word for it. Look what Walt
Mossberg has to say about it:
"If you need a new computer and the Mac was the right choice
for you last week, it's still the right choice. Today's PowerPC
Macs are, in my view, the best consumer computers on the
market, and Apple plans to roll out additional PowerPC models
this year."
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html" target="_newWindow">http://ptech.wsj.com/ptech.html</a>
a wide variety of sites that prefer "Serbians," including CNN and
the BBC. The Oxford American Dictionary, nicely supplied with
Tiger, defines Serbian as "another term for Serb." You can safely
add an "s" to the end of both.
a wide variety of sites that prefer "Serbians," including CNN and
the BBC. The Oxford American Dictionary, nicely supplied with
Tiger, defines Serbian as "another term for Serb." You can safely
add an "s" to the end of both.
Apple has made a business out of selling more expensive computers. If they started selling cheaper computers, people will say, they are not as good as before. If they sold more expensive computers, they will still have their 1 or 2% enthusiasts who will swear how they are stil the best computers in the industry.
When an AMD based PC beats intel based PCs and Macs, the enthusiasts will say 'but its the whole experience, its mac OS, its the fact that there are not enough viruses on the internet for Macs. But then there will be AMD based Machines running MAC OS since the OS X is configured to run on x86 processors.
What will the apple computers be left with other than a sleep looking shell? an empty wallet!!
machines sounds like a good one to me. More market share for the
Mac OS, even if the machines aren't made by Apple, means more
attention from developers and more software. I'll probably still buy
Apple hardware.
other high end manufacturers. Sure you could buy a dell but
come on they are crap. I have a PowerBook and the latest sony
vaio S series, I paid the same price for them, but I found that the
powerbook's build is a lot better, it surpasses it in leaps and
bounds actually. The bottom of my PowerBook is more appealing
than the top of my vaio, plus the vaio has all these little buttons
(like one for wifi WHY GOD WHY?) The ports are covered by a
flimsy plastic latch which is soooo annoying because i need to
try and open it to plug something in. the touch pad feels
horrible too, I could file my nails on it. But one good thing about
it is the screen is quite good. As for software, lets just say that
mac os x just pulled microsofts pants down. Sony's Portable
would be quite impressive if they ironed out the defects and
employed a different operating system. For those wondering why
I bought a pc if i'm happy with my mac, Bentley Software
(makers of Microstation, CAD app) are too lazy to port a version
that runs on OSX natively, eventhough they had one for classic
and there was a lot of interest then and a lot of interest now,
Nicholas Grimshaw's practice used it, but then had to change
because they stopped supporting it.
Apple has made a business out of selling more expensive computers. If they started selling cheaper computers, people will say, they are not as good as before. If they sold more expensive computers, they will still have their 1 or 2% enthusiasts who will swear how they are stil the best computers in the industry.
When an AMD based PC beats intel based PCs and Macs, the enthusiasts will say 'but its the whole experience, its mac OS, its the fact that there are not enough viruses on the internet for Macs. But then there will be AMD based Machines running MAC OS since the OS X is configured to run on x86 processors.
What will the apple computers be left with other than a sleep looking shell? an empty wallet!!
machines sounds like a good one to me. More market share for the
Mac OS, even if the machines aren't made by Apple, means more
attention from developers and more software. I'll probably still buy
Apple hardware.
other high end manufacturers. Sure you could buy a dell but
come on they are crap. I have a PowerBook and the latest sony
vaio S series, I paid the same price for them, but I found that the
powerbook's build is a lot better, it surpasses it in leaps and
bounds actually. The bottom of my PowerBook is more appealing
than the top of my vaio, plus the vaio has all these little buttons
(like one for wifi WHY GOD WHY?) The ports are covered by a
flimsy plastic latch which is soooo annoying because i need to
try and open it to plug something in. the touch pad feels
horrible too, I could file my nails on it. But one good thing about
it is the screen is quite good. As for software, lets just say that
mac os x just pulled microsofts pants down. Sony's Portable
would be quite impressive if they ironed out the defects and
employed a different operating system. For those wondering why
I bought a pc if i'm happy with my mac, Bentley Software
(makers of Microstation, CAD app) are too lazy to port a version
that runs on OSX natively, eventhough they had one for classic
and there was a lot of interest then and a lot of interest now,
Nicholas Grimshaw's practice used it, but then had to change
because they stopped supporting it.
And it's not hard to see his plan either. The iPod was a major part of it-- getting the Apple brand to reach rockstar status and then some, create the demand for an Apple on every desktop. AND THEN:
And then, as Microsoft continued to get black and blue over viruses and spyware vunerabilities in Windows, drop the bomb: Apple will start making x86 compatible machines that run OS X and will be capable of running windows apps flawlessly. Just in time for when? Just in time for consumers to have a REAL choice in 2007 when Longhorn comes out: Upgrade to OS X or upgrade to Longhorn. That will be a great choice for consumers.
Both OSes will be capable of running legacy windows apps, both of which will probably cost the same. Both of which will offer next gen features. Heck even NEW computer buyers will have a competivie choice because Apple's will go down in price, probably will now cost as much as your favorite Dell computer now that Apple has ditched the overpriced Power PC architecture.
So now we'll have cheaper Apple computers. Running windows apps. And you can be sure that Jobs' marketing team will make them hotter then iPods.
The only question that remains now is: Will Microsoft license Windows to Apple so that Apple can provide 100% backwards compatibility?
Only time will tell if this is the beginning of the end for Apple or if its simply the end of the beginning.
I for one welcome a real competition. Bring.it.on.
They will simply continue to be the very best, the most creative, and the ultimate trendsetters that they have been. But they will make whatever smart hardware decisions that need to be made in order to retain their position as the premium brand.
Give me that and I'll dump MS like a hot rock.
And it's not hard to see his plan either. The iPod was a major part of it-- getting the Apple brand to reach rockstar status and then some, create the demand for an Apple on every desktop. AND THEN:
And then, as Microsoft continued to get black and blue over viruses and spyware vunerabilities in Windows, drop the bomb: Apple will start making x86 compatible machines that run OS X and will be capable of running windows apps flawlessly. Just in time for when? Just in time for consumers to have a REAL choice in 2007 when Longhorn comes out: Upgrade to OS X or upgrade to Longhorn. That will be a great choice for consumers.
Both OSes will be capable of running legacy windows apps, both of which will probably cost the same. Both of which will offer next gen features. Heck even NEW computer buyers will have a competivie choice because Apple's will go down in price, probably will now cost as much as your favorite Dell computer now that Apple has ditched the overpriced Power PC architecture.
So now we'll have cheaper Apple computers. Running windows apps. And you can be sure that Jobs' marketing team will make them hotter then iPods.
The only question that remains now is: Will Microsoft license Windows to Apple so that Apple can provide 100% backwards compatibility?
Only time will tell if this is the beginning of the end for Apple or if its simply the end of the beginning.
I for one welcome a real competition. Bring.it.on.
They will simply continue to be the very best, the most creative, and the ultimate trendsetters that they have been. But they will make whatever smart hardware decisions that need to be made in order to retain their position as the premium brand.
Give me that and I'll dump MS like a hot rock.
I would have tought it was built on Linux, hence my post saying APPLE = RED HAT. I meant that OS X would then be only an interface layer over Linux hence just like RED HAT is Linux with a bunch of proprietary utility.
Once you have an INTEL CPU and Linux (or SOLARIS), would you not have an INTEL chipset then a PCI EXPRESS slot. In the end, a good old PC.
It bring us back to the IBM PC and their failure to protect their market from the clone makers.
I wonder what legal and technical device Apple will use to keep the clone builders away. Or maybe
they will let people buy OS X and put it on a standard PC. Same strategy as RED HAT.
I am getting all confused now.
I would have tought it was built on Linux, hence my post saying APPLE = RED HAT. I meant that OS X would then be only an interface layer over Linux hence just like RED HAT is Linux with a bunch of proprietary utility.
Once you have an INTEL CPU and Linux (or SOLARIS), would you not have an INTEL chipset then a PCI EXPRESS slot. In the end, a good old PC.
It bring us back to the IBM PC and their failure to protect their market from the clone makers.
I wonder what legal and technical device Apple will use to keep the clone builders away. Or maybe
they will let people buy OS X and put it on a standard PC. Same strategy as RED HAT.
I am getting all confused now.
This new WinMac will thus lose one of the big factors that make Macs appealing to their over-earning price-insensitive value-indifferent owners: The feeling that the Mac is special and even needs its own software.
One has to wonder if the real sub-text driving the switch to Intel is the possibility that Microsoft itself might have told Apple that Mac Office would soon be toast.
Will the WinMac really appeal to those who just have to spend more to be different? Will they want to be spend extra money on a WinMac just to be faux different and not really different?
I think not. Buy those G5 boat anchors while you can, Macintoshers, as soon the glory days will be past.
The rest of your comments show a lack of understanding about how computers work and how software is developed. Office for Windows will never run directly on a Mac because the software is written for the Windows OS. Software has to be written for Mac OS X to run on that platform. The difference required to develop for an Intel-based Mac or a PPC-based Mac is a lot smaller than the difference between an intel-based Windows machine and an Intel-based Mac because most of the effort is in coding to the OS API's and using the unique libraries for that platform.
There's all kinds of other nifty things people do with their computers. Not to mention several viable cheap (even free) alternatives to the MS Office suite.
2. So does that mean I can install Office on my Linux partition? After all, it is installed in the same computer as windows.
The underlining hardware is important when compiling software, but the OS is equally important. You could write a program and compile it on XP, and it will run on most flavors of windows provided you didn't use any XP specific API's.
You could also write a program on any OS, and provided you stuck to the language standard, and was very careful when you had to use a non-standard language library and that program could be used on any OS, BUT you would still have to compile it for each OS, so no, you will never get a single executable that will run natively(ie with no emulators or anything of that nature) on multiple OS's, and the hardware has nothing to do with it.
This new WinMac will thus lose one of the big factors that make Macs appealing to their over-earning price-insensitive value-indifferent owners: The feeling that the Mac is special and even needs its own software.
One has to wonder if the real sub-text driving the switch to Intel is the possibility that Microsoft itself might have told Apple that Mac Office would soon be toast.
Will the WinMac really appeal to those who just have to spend more to be different? Will they want to be spend extra money on a WinMac just to be faux different and not really different?
I think not. Buy those G5 boat anchors while you can, Macintoshers, as soon the glory days will be past.
The rest of your comments show a lack of understanding about how computers work and how software is developed. Office for Windows will never run directly on a Mac because the software is written for the Windows OS. Software has to be written for Mac OS X to run on that platform. The difference required to develop for an Intel-based Mac or a PPC-based Mac is a lot smaller than the difference between an intel-based Windows machine and an Intel-based Mac because most of the effort is in coding to the OS API's and using the unique libraries for that platform.
There's all kinds of other nifty things people do with their computers. Not to mention several viable cheap (even free) alternatives to the MS Office suite.
2. So does that mean I can install Office on my Linux partition? After all, it is installed in the same computer as windows.
The underlining hardware is important when compiling software, but the OS is equally important. You could write a program and compile it on XP, and it will run on most flavors of windows provided you didn't use any XP specific API's.
You could also write a program on any OS, and provided you stuck to the language standard, and was very careful when you had to use a non-standard language library and that program could be used on any OS, BUT you would still have to compile it for each OS, so no, you will never get a single executable that will run natively(ie with no emulators or anything of that nature) on multiple OS's, and the hardware has nothing to do with it.
this announcement had my brain in a twist.
While one of the primary reasons I have always been a Mac
loyalist, has been Apples' decision to find the architecture that
will deliver their vision of personal computing, I find myself
questioning my personal angst.
This is not any different than Apple has done all along. They
simply turned to the future and asked themselves, "what's
next?", as they have always done. No one can imagine the
firestorm of controversy and internal consternation this created.
But the bottom line was where is the future, and what
archictecture will allow them to continue on that path? The G5
is an awesome chip, but without further development, who
cares?! A G5 mac is still a treasure, and will continue to be for a
couple of years, but without development/improvement that will
pass.
I watched the keynote, on my Mac-mini, with QT7 and Tiger,
and experienced the best streamed wide screen video ever. I felt
my stomach twist on the Intel announcement. But then it was
revealed that the Mac Steve was running the demo on was a
Pentium 4 based computer. Next came the announcement of
XCode 2.1 and unverisal binaries.
In the end, I realized it was a matter of conception. Apple wasn't
selling out. Apple wasn't giving up their control on designs.
Apple was looking for future **********, and who was going to
deliver it. Strangely enough, and quite so ironic, it turned out to
be Intel. Damn, I still can't believe it. But there you go. Maybe I
will be able to afford a Dual G5 XServe at the end of the year
now.
By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn
exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs
mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their
partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know
when we aren't on the inside.
exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs
mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their
partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know
when we aren't on the inside."
One expert said the exciting stuff Intel showed Apple was not only speed (which AMD has in desktop chips), but also the next CPU in the gate has some hush-hush "content protection" software. They don't want hackers to get hold of the schematics, so it's all under the radar... but, if Stevie Boy wants to start up a movie iPod type service to download movies, this would help ensure the video stays with the owner and doesn't end up on P2P file sharing. Speed (well good enough speed -- better than PowerPC, not quite as good as AMD), copyright protection features, full range of products (desktop and mobile -- AMD lacks mobile), and good rep for shipping products on time (AMD has had problems getting their chips out the door in mass quantity. For that reason, Dell uses Intel, but won't touch AMD) -- all these are reasons Intel was chosen.
Processor zealotry, like platform zealorty, is largely an exercise in wasting time. Use the best technology solution that makes sense for the problem at hand.
this announcement had my brain in a twist.
While one of the primary reasons I have always been a Mac
loyalist, has been Apples' decision to find the architecture that
will deliver their vision of personal computing, I find myself
questioning my personal angst.
This is not any different than Apple has done all along. They
simply turned to the future and asked themselves, "what's
next?", as they have always done. No one can imagine the
firestorm of controversy and internal consternation this created.
But the bottom line was where is the future, and what
archictecture will allow them to continue on that path? The G5
is an awesome chip, but without further development, who
cares?! A G5 mac is still a treasure, and will continue to be for a
couple of years, but without development/improvement that will
pass.
I watched the keynote, on my Mac-mini, with QT7 and Tiger,
and experienced the best streamed wide screen video ever. I felt
my stomach twist on the Intel announcement. But then it was
revealed that the Mac Steve was running the demo on was a
Pentium 4 based computer. Next came the announcement of
XCode 2.1 and unverisal binaries.
In the end, I realized it was a matter of conception. Apple wasn't
selling out. Apple wasn't giving up their control on designs.
Apple was looking for future **********, and who was going to
deliver it. Strangely enough, and quite so ironic, it turned out to
be Intel. Damn, I still can't believe it. But there you go. Maybe I
will be able to afford a Dual G5 XServe at the end of the year
now.
By the way, Intel must have showed Apple some pretty damn
exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs
mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their
partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know
when we aren't on the inside.
exciting stuff for this to happen in the first place, barring IBMs
mis-steps. I would have thought AMD would have been their
partner, but that only illustrates what the rest of us don't know
when we aren't on the inside."
One expert said the exciting stuff Intel showed Apple was not only speed (which AMD has in desktop chips), but also the next CPU in the gate has some hush-hush "content protection" software. They don't want hackers to get hold of the schematics, so it's all under the radar... but, if Stevie Boy wants to start up a movie iPod type service to download movies, this would help ensure the video stays with the owner and doesn't end up on P2P file sharing. Speed (well good enough speed -- better than PowerPC, not quite as good as AMD), copyright protection features, full range of products (desktop and mobile -- AMD lacks mobile), and good rep for shipping products on time (AMD has had problems getting their chips out the door in mass quantity. For that reason, Dell uses Intel, but won't touch AMD) -- all these are reasons Intel was chosen.
Processor zealotry, like platform zealorty, is largely an exercise in wasting time. Use the best technology solution that makes sense for the problem at hand.
then why upgrade to the new Xcode.
Steve felt left out with IBM. IBM won't deal with him like how they currently deal with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.
The profit vs. quantity ratio is just not there to begin with (Steve asked IBM to lower it's asking price).
then why upgrade to the new Xcode.
Steve felt left out with IBM. IBM won't deal with him like how they currently deal with Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.
The profit vs. quantity ratio is just not there to begin with (Steve asked IBM to lower it's asking price).
do no think past the first five minutes of everything, now th e
trouble with CEOs is that they need to think ahead in terms of
years, its a neuro-linguistic technique in which you need to
question "where or what would i be in 5 or 10 years?" when you
finally guess you need to trace your steps backwards to see how
you Will get there, its like mental reverse-ingeniering, As a CEO
Steve Jobs needs to think like this, have a slab of humble pie and
finally take the best option that in the long run will seem best
for the company and future customers, regardless of the chip
wars or what people think is best for now, thats why most of us
are not CEOs of nothing because this type of long term style of
thinking is NOT for everyone and it is a skill that needs to be
developed and harnessed (see Star Wars Jedi thinking)if the G5
ran HOT! now at 2.7Ghz how hotter will it run 2 years from now
at propably 3.0? enough to hook up the fridge to it! I dont want
to stand on that audience of WWDC and explain that you need to
hook up a hose from the freezer to the powermac in order for
you to look at email and surf the web, its just pure nonsense
while Intel (the former enemy) has stuff running nicely at 3.4,3.8
etc for people to play their wasteful and entertaining games, its
just nonsense, we are never going to escape the myth of the Ghz
so to level the playing field lets use intel and see what happens,
well sorry to burst your bubble by telling you that the star of the
show here is Mac OSX and not the chips, the chips are just the
branches that make the trunk of the OS be operational, as wild
as that metaphor is, in these times we are running an OS war
and not chip wars anymore, the flags have changed so we need
to pick sides lest we hurt our own people.
do no think past the first five minutes of everything, now th e
trouble with CEOs is that they need to think ahead in terms of
years, its a neuro-linguistic technique in which you need to
question "where or what would i be in 5 or 10 years?" when you
finally guess you need to trace your steps backwards to see how
you Will get there, its like mental reverse-ingeniering, As a CEO
Steve Jobs needs to think like this, have a slab of humble pie and
finally take the best option that in the long run will seem best
for the company and future customers, regardless of the chip
wars or what people think is best for now, thats why most of us
are not CEOs of nothing because this type of long term style of
thinking is NOT for everyone and it is a skill that needs to be
developed and harnessed (see Star Wars Jedi thinking)if the G5
ran HOT! now at 2.7Ghz how hotter will it run 2 years from now
at propably 3.0? enough to hook up the fridge to it! I dont want
to stand on that audience of WWDC and explain that you need to
hook up a hose from the freezer to the powermac in order for
you to look at email and surf the web, its just pure nonsense
while Intel (the former enemy) has stuff running nicely at 3.4,3.8
etc for people to play their wasteful and entertaining games, its
just nonsense, we are never going to escape the myth of the Ghz
so to level the playing field lets use intel and see what happens,
well sorry to burst your bubble by telling you that the star of the
show here is Mac OSX and not the chips, the chips are just the
branches that make the trunk of the OS be operational, as wild
as that metaphor is, in these times we are running an OS war
and not chip wars anymore, the flags have changed so we need
to pick sides lest we hurt our own people.
Their heads are literally turn red. I think.
with open arms!
Their heads are literally turn red. I think.
with open arms!
Why didn't Jobs aim a little higher and go with AMD chips. Talk about efficient design, there's a company that realized clock cycles didn't mean performance.
Apple just got rid of the only reason I was thinking of jumping ship. Thanks - I guess I'll keep my current WinAMD box.
computer. May use the same processor, but it's a radically different
motherboard. In fact, the Mac motherboard just might be a model
for what the PC motherboard should have been. And maybe, the PC
manufacturers may decide to revamp the PC motherboard.