August 4, 2005 3:26 PM PDT

Much ado over Apple-Intel developer box

Apple Computer fans are upset over a security chip found in a special x86-based PowerMac--a chip designed to prevent people from loading the company's new Intel-centered OS onto non-Apple machines.

Apple supplied the Intel-fitted PowerMac to members of its Apple Developer Connection, a group for software programmers. The PowerMac includes a microcontroller known as the Trusted Platform Module--TPM for short--that contains a digital signature necessary in order to install the Mac OSX operating system onto the box.

An ADC member, who asked not to be identified, confirmed the microcontroller's existence to CNET News.com.

Trusted Platform Module (TPM1.2)
Credit: Infineon Technologies

Representatives of Apple and Intel declined to comment on the inclusion of the TPM chip in the PowerMac.

The ADC source reported being able to install other operating systems like Windows and Linux onto the test box. But it was impossible, the source said, to install software from the DVD containing the Intel-configured Mac OS onto similar x86-based PCs that lacked a TPM.

Some Mac fans disagree with Apple's desire to prevent the loading of its Intel-based OS on non-Mac boxes. Another issue for some is that the TPM could compromise the privacy of users because of the identifying number built into the chip. The technology could also restrict the use of some digital media by enforcing digital rights management technologies.

Reactions on the OSx86 Forum, Slashdot and other fan sites ran the gamut from annoyance to just plain resentment against Apple for joining Microsoft, Advanced Micro Devices, Hewlett-Packard and Lenovo in support of the technology.

"The 'bru ha ha' is that it won't just be the ADC people that have to deal with TPM. Everyone that buys a new Mac will. That's what the big deal is. No one wants to deal with the TPM," said an OSx86 Forum moderator known as Mashugly.

One fan threatened to remove his Apple tattoo should the company include the security chip in its new Macintosh products, which are expected to be on sale by next summer.

Those overly concerned with the issue may have short memories. During the announcement back in June, Apple said its machines would not support other operating systems outside of the Mac OSX, but the company also said it would not be able to prevent underlying software from Microsoft or a Linux distribution from being installed.

Apple is currently transitioning its computers to Intel processors from the PowerPC chips made by IBM. In addition to hardware, Apple is supplying software and other resources as part of its Developer Transition Kit.

A representative with Apple did say that the computers shipped to developers are the same as the one Apple CEO Steve Jobs used during a demo onstage at the company's developer conference in June.

Participating developers received a PowerMac that runs on an Intel D915GUX motherboard powered by a Pentium 4 660 Prescott that reaches top speeds of 3.60GHz, the ADC source said.

The existence of the TPM chip, manufactured by Infineon Technologies, is no guarantee that Apple will be using it in the final Macintosh products shipping next year. But industry analyst Pete Glaskowsky says it is highly likely, considering that Apple has the controller installed now.

"Apple does not want just anybody that has the right Intel motherboard to install the beta version of its software."

Glaskowsky also surmised that Apple developers will come across more surprises as they familiarize themselves with the new Mac architecture.

The ADC source said one welcome surprise was that the combination of Intel chips and the Mac OSX seems to have led to the ability to perform tasks and play games incredibly fast.

172 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Uhhh, o.k. You're surprised?
Did anyone really expect Apple to allow rampant copying of their
OS onto non-Apple hardware? Seriously. Like they want to deal
with tech support calls from some chip-monkey who built their
own POS box with the cheapest crap they could find. They want
to take advantage of the advances Intel is promising, not lower
the bar on the Mac platform to include just anything...

Their consumer models are plenty affordable if you're nickle and
diming. Plus they're well made and mostly problem free.
There's a reason Apple's customer service and computers get
top marks from Consumer Reports and the like.
Posted by shanewalker (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't Worry, Shane
The PC apologists will point to this issue as some sort of failure on
Apple's part rather than a quality control issue. Something PC mfg's
are not familiar with, quality control.
Posted by cjohn17 (268 comments )
Link Flag
Bingo
"They want to take advantage of the advances Intel is promising, not lower the bar on the Mac platform to include just anything..."

It is so simply just that, why the commotion?
Posted by (5 comments )
Link Flag
Only the dumb are surprised.
Apple stated this fact months ago when the Intel direction was
announced. It would be a foolish business decision to allow every
Intel-box-maker to run OS X. And if Apple wanted to allow that,
they would have released the Intel port years ago.

It's just common sense.

Instead of griping, people should be happy the Intel Macs will
natively boot to Linux or Windows if needed. That's a first!
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
That is not it
Problem is not that we can't install Apple version of UNIX on other
PC I don't think anywone really cares about that, its a chip that can
be used for so many things, its an ID chip, means that it just does
not stop when the OS checks to make sure the computer is an
apple, its more than than, and can be missused but then most
people may not care, after all, what is freedom, you can't miss it if
your whole life you have not really had it.
Posted by (35 comments )
Link Flag
Microsoft should take note!
It's old news, Apple has been doing this for years on their own hardware. But I suppose it's new to Wintel users. Come to think of it when do you suppose Microsoft will com ith a 'write once ROM chip'. in New mother boards.
Posted by Albertv (92 comments )
Link Flag
Uhhh, o.k. You're surprised?
Did anyone really expect Apple to allow rampant copying of their
OS onto non-Apple hardware? Seriously. Like they want to deal
with tech support calls from some chip-monkey who built their
own POS box with the cheapest crap they could find. They want
to take advantage of the advances Intel is promising, not lower
the bar on the Mac platform to include just anything...

Their consumer models are plenty affordable if you're nickle and
diming. Plus they're well made and mostly problem free.
There's a reason Apple's customer service and computers get
top marks from Consumer Reports and the like.
Posted by shanewalker (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Don't Worry, Shane
The PC apologists will point to this issue as some sort of failure on
Apple's part rather than a quality control issue. Something PC mfg's
are not familiar with, quality control.
Posted by cjohn17 (268 comments )
Link Flag
Bingo
"They want to take advantage of the advances Intel is promising, not lower the bar on the Mac platform to include just anything..."

It is so simply just that, why the commotion?
Posted by (5 comments )
Link Flag
Only the dumb are surprised.
Apple stated this fact months ago when the Intel direction was
announced. It would be a foolish business decision to allow every
Intel-box-maker to run OS X. And if Apple wanted to allow that,
they would have released the Intel port years ago.

It's just common sense.

Instead of griping, people should be happy the Intel Macs will
natively boot to Linux or Windows if needed. That's a first!
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
That is not it
Problem is not that we can't install Apple version of UNIX on other
PC I don't think anywone really cares about that, its a chip that can
be used for so many things, its an ID chip, means that it just does
not stop when the OS checks to make sure the computer is an
apple, its more than than, and can be missused but then most
people may not care, after all, what is freedom, you can't miss it if
your whole life you have not really had it.
Posted by (35 comments )
Link Flag
Microsoft should take note!
It's old news, Apple has been doing this for years on their own hardware. But I suppose it's new to Wintel users. Come to think of it when do you suppose Microsoft will com ith a 'write once ROM chip'. in New mother boards.
Posted by Albertv (92 comments )
Link Flag
Who's to say the Apple Intel Machines will be the same?
I think its too early to say if the final Apple / Intel machines will
even support windows.. Considering that Apple and Intel
engineering is working together on this venture. I would think that
the final result will be something far superior to the piles of
commodity crapola that the various PC resellers are selling. Mac
OSX is so reliable because software and hardware are designed by
the same company.. Its the same with Sun and HP (UNIX) hardware
as well.
Posted by (24 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple Did.
Quote from cnet article:
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there
are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They
probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people
run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not
allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,"
he said."
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
I agree
This is so true. I am afraid the real market is for people that do
not want to have a strong technical background in computers.
Geeks are quite happy to support themselves whch is fine, but
the average user just wants to use their computer. So this leaves
them with a choice, purchase an Apple or other branded
machine, which they can take back if it doesn't work, or learn
how computers work, how to support windows or linux. Apple is
strong in this way, why not support your own operating system,
which is better than the competition, more user friendly and
largely far more stable. Who else provides this control over end
user hardware? My predictin for the future with OS 11 or XI, it
will probably run natively Unix/Linux apps seamlessly, even PS3
is tipped to run Tiger, so when your OS goes wrong, you can talk
to Apple, but take adantage of the non-proprietary open source
world, and move away from Micrsoft, who truly isn't really
anybody's friend (malware, virus, adware, genuine advantage
etc. etc)
Brand loyalty and iPod success, very smart, system ease of use is
what people want, Apple excel at delivering this.
Posted by mister dog (13 comments )
Link Flag
Who's to say the Apple Intel Machines will be the same?
I think its too early to say if the final Apple / Intel machines will
even support windows.. Considering that Apple and Intel
engineering is working together on this venture. I would think that
the final result will be something far superior to the piles of
commodity crapola that the various PC resellers are selling. Mac
OSX is so reliable because software and hardware are designed by
the same company.. Its the same with Sun and HP (UNIX) hardware
as well.
Posted by (24 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Apple Did.
Quote from cnet article:
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there
are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They
probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people
run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not
allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,"
he said."
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Link Flag
I agree
This is so true. I am afraid the real market is for people that do
not want to have a strong technical background in computers.
Geeks are quite happy to support themselves whch is fine, but
the average user just wants to use their computer. So this leaves
them with a choice, purchase an Apple or other branded
machine, which they can take back if it doesn't work, or learn
how computers work, how to support windows or linux. Apple is
strong in this way, why not support your own operating system,
which is better than the competition, more user friendly and
largely far more stable. Who else provides this control over end
user hardware? My predictin for the future with OS 11 or XI, it
will probably run natively Unix/Linux apps seamlessly, even PS3
is tipped to run Tiger, so when your OS goes wrong, you can talk
to Apple, but take adantage of the non-proprietary open source
world, and move away from Micrsoft, who truly isn't really
anybody's friend (malware, virus, adware, genuine advantage
etc. etc)
Brand loyalty and iPod success, very smart, system ease of use is
what people want, Apple excel at delivering this.
Posted by mister dog (13 comments )
Link Flag
Macs Run Windows
The fact that special technology is required to prevent Apple's OS from being installed on standard PCs, along with the fact that Windows and Linux are being successfully loaded on Apple computers affirms my previous statements. Steve Jobs is moving his company into the mainstream PC market. Those who said that technical hurdles would make it impossible to run Windows on Macintosh hardware are now wiping egg from their faces.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=dbad4003-5b93-430c-87e1-313f766c04c3" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=dbad4003-5b93-430c-87e1-313f766c04c3</a>
Posted by William Squire (151 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Please...
... quit trying to pump your personal web page. Just write what you
mean here. Maybe then it will get read.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Also....
The fact that special technology is required to prevent Apple's
OS from being installed on standard PCs, along with the fact that
Windows and Linux are being successfully loaded on Apple
computers affirms my previous statements.
&gt;&gt; Not hardly. The TMP chip is designed to let an X86 install OS
X. That TMP chip has nothing to do with any PC

Steve Jobs is moving his company into the mainstream PC
market. Those who said that technical hurdles would make it
impossible to run Windows on Macintosh hardware are now
wiping egg from their faces
&gt;&gt; No egg at all. There never has been a fundamental barrier to
running Wndows on an Mac - look at Virtual PC as an example
of how to do it with an x86 emulator. In the MscTel, the x86
processor is already there, no emulation required. All that really
is required is a change in Windows code to possibly accept a
virtual BIOS and other ancient artifacts of the PC platform.

Please, research your material better next time.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
What are you talking about?
Apple has already said that while they would prevent people
from running OS X on the average Dell, they wouldn't do
anything to prevent people from installing Windows. Linux
already runs on the Mac.

Quote from cnet article:
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there
are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They
probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people
run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not
allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,"
he said."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.cbsi.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with" target="_newWindow">http://news.cbsi.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with</a>
+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html
Posted by macnut222 (12 comments )
Link Flag
Is this Spam?
Sir, if you have something to say, I believe we readers are quite capable of reading it here without being spammed to your web page.

I know not if your post counts as Spam, but I do know that I for one will not venture a visit to your blog.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Link Flag
Macs Run Windows
The fact that special technology is required to prevent Apple's OS from being installed on standard PCs, along with the fact that Windows and Linux are being successfully loaded on Apple computers affirms my previous statements. Steve Jobs is moving his company into the mainstream PC market. Those who said that technical hurdles would make it impossible to run Windows on Macintosh hardware are now wiping egg from their faces.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=dbad4003-5b93-430c-87e1-313f766c04c3" target="_newWindow">http://www.inaniloquent.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=dbad4003-5b93-430c-87e1-313f766c04c3</a>
Posted by William Squire (151 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Please...
... quit trying to pump your personal web page. Just write what you
mean here. Maybe then it will get read.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
Also....
The fact that special technology is required to prevent Apple's
OS from being installed on standard PCs, along with the fact that
Windows and Linux are being successfully loaded on Apple
computers affirms my previous statements.
&gt;&gt; Not hardly. The TMP chip is designed to let an X86 install OS
X. That TMP chip has nothing to do with any PC

Steve Jobs is moving his company into the mainstream PC
market. Those who said that technical hurdles would make it
impossible to run Windows on Macintosh hardware are now
wiping egg from their faces
&gt;&gt; No egg at all. There never has been a fundamental barrier to
running Wndows on an Mac - look at Virtual PC as an example
of how to do it with an x86 emulator. In the MscTel, the x86
processor is already there, no emulation required. All that really
is required is a change in Windows code to possibly accept a
virtual BIOS and other ancient artifacts of the PC platform.

Please, research your material better next time.
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Link Flag
What are you talking about?
Apple has already said that while they would prevent people
from running OS X on the average Dell, they wouldn't do
anything to prevent people from installing Windows. Linux
already runs on the Mac.

Quote from cnet article:
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller
addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there
are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They
probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people
run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not
allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,"
he said."

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.cbsi.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with" target="_newWindow">http://news.cbsi.com/Apple+throws+the+switch,+aligns+with</a>
+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html
Posted by macnut222 (12 comments )
Link Flag
Is this Spam?
Sir, if you have something to say, I believe we readers are quite capable of reading it here without being spammed to your web page.

I know not if your post counts as Spam, but I do know that I for one will not venture a visit to your blog.
Posted by R. U. Sirius (745 comments )
Link Flag
It's not the TMP...
... it's that PC's don't have the necessary architecture to install OS
X. ANd OS X can't be tweaked to run on a PC without destroying
most of the OS X functions. Sorry PC owners, but it ain't going to
happen....
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
necessary architecture?
And what necessary architecture would that be? I have read nothing that shows that the new Intel based Apple's will be anything other than a glorified PC. They may use higher end hardware than your average VAR, but, with the obvious exception of the TPM chip, I'm sure I could build an equivalent PC if I wanted to spend a little more.

I do not mean to imply I disagree with TPM, but how is the architecture different than that of your run of the mill PC?
Posted by keschrich (10 comments )
Link Flag
Fine again.
Jobs won't get my business then. Not that you probably care, but there are a lot of people out there just like me that would like to try OSX but not have to deal with Jobs vision or style.
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Link Flag
It's not the TMP...
... it's that PC's don't have the necessary architecture to install OS
X. ANd OS X can't be tweaked to run on a PC without destroying
most of the OS X functions. Sorry PC owners, but it ain't going to
happen....
Posted by Earl Benser (4310 comments )
Reply Link Flag
necessary architecture?
And what necessary architecture would that be? I have read nothing that shows that the new Intel based Apple's will be anything other than a glorified PC. They may use higher end hardware than your average VAR, but, with the obvious exception of the TPM chip, I'm sure I could build an equivalent PC if I wanted to spend a little more.

I do not mean to imply I disagree with TPM, but how is the architecture different than that of your run of the mill PC?
Posted by keschrich (10 comments )
Link Flag
Fine again.
Jobs won't get my business then. Not that you probably care, but there are a lot of people out there just like me that would like to try OSX but not have to deal with Jobs vision or style.
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Link Flag
Gasp!
Apple did exactly what they said they were going to do: not let the
OS run on non-Apple equipment.

So, people are upset they can't install a *pirated* copy of the OS X
for Intel beta on a generic box. I feel for them . . .
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Pirated?
Who said anything about pirated copy of OSX? I was planning on buying it. Not so now.
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Link Flag
Gasp!
Apple did exactly what they said they were going to do: not let the
OS run on non-Apple equipment.

So, people are upset they can't install a *pirated* copy of the OS X
for Intel beta on a generic box. I feel for them . . .
Posted by Thrudheim (306 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Pirated?
Who said anything about pirated copy of OSX? I was planning on buying it. Not so now.
Posted by Sboston (498 comments )
Link Flag
Alas vale apple
So this is what apple thinks of all its customers! To those who purchased this obsolete boat anchor! Ha Ha!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Boat anchor
Refering to an anchor, what do you mean by that statement? As
in the software being compatible or as in the hardware?
Posted by MidniteRaider (94 comments )
Link Flag
Alas vale apple
So this is what apple thinks of all its customers! To those who purchased this obsolete boat anchor! Ha Ha!
Posted by heystoopid (691 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Boat anchor
Refering to an anchor, what do you mean by that statement? As
in the software being compatible or as in the hardware?
Posted by MidniteRaider (94 comments )
Link Flag
This just in: sometimes Apple users gripe! Stop the press!
A handful of people don't want Apple to tie their OS to a ROM. However, EVERYONE knew they would - except, apparently, CNet.
Posted by M C (598 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This just in: sometimes Apple users gripe! Stop the press!
A handful of people don't want Apple to tie their OS to a ROM. However, EVERYONE knew they would - except, apparently, CNet.
Posted by M C (598 comments )
Reply Link Flag
MacIntel or IntelMac
Following history, we should expect Apple's hardware to be exclusive to Apple's software and Mac compatible products.

Thus, MacIntel (Mac before Intel business philosophy) is more likely.

An IntelMac (Intel before Mac business philosophy) model should suggest that Apple quits the hardware business and focus on software... like Microsoft...

Think about it.
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Reply Link Flag
MacIntel or IntelMac
Following history, we should expect Apple's hardware to be exclusive to Apple's software and Mac compatible products.

Thus, MacIntel (Mac before Intel business philosophy) is more likely.

An IntelMac (Intel before Mac business philosophy) model should suggest that Apple quits the hardware business and focus on software... like Microsoft...

Think about it.
Posted by Mendz (519 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Citizen Gates is a drop out...
FACT: Citizen Gates &#38; his hencemen all dropped out of Ivy
League Colleges to form Microsith.

FACT: Apple recent Quartly Report way surpassed expectations
in the COMPUTER Sales &#38; their market share is 5% &#38; counting.

FACT: Not all PC's sold with Microsith monopoly OS REMAIN
loaded with that XP teletubbie crap...dump that &#38; load Linux
instead is a growing trend...LINUX NOT counted in the PC market
share of computers preinstalled with MS-OS-POS.

Q: *** are you doing on this page anyway...?
Posted by Llib Setag (951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Citizen Gates is a drop out...
FACT: Citizen Gates &#38; his hencemen all dropped out of Ivy
League Colleges to form Microsith.

FACT: Apple recent Quartly Report way surpassed expectations
in the COMPUTER Sales &#38; their market share is 5% &#38; counting.

FACT: Not all PC's sold with Microsith monopoly OS REMAIN
loaded with that XP teletubbie crap...dump that &#38; load Linux
instead is a growing trend...LINUX NOT counted in the PC market
share of computers preinstalled with MS-OS-POS.

Q: *** are you doing on this page anyway...?
Posted by Llib Setag (951 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oh, come on!
I thought everybody knew Jobs would stop you from running OSX on a pc. You could argue his choice of Intel over AMD (imho), but he sure is right about this. Apple is about the total package software AND hardware.

This is not to be confused with the possibillity to run Windows on a mac. There's an opportunity there: it will make the switch for many windows users easier when they can switch back to windows on their knew apple hardware or even run them both.
Posted by huddie klein (70 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oh, come on!
I thought everybody knew Jobs would stop you from running OSX on a pc. You could argue his choice of Intel over AMD (imho), but he sure is right about this. Apple is about the total package software AND hardware.

This is not to be confused with the possibillity to run Windows on a mac. There's an opportunity there: it will make the switch for many windows users easier when they can switch back to windows on their knew apple hardware or even run them both.
Posted by huddie klein (70 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is great...!
I love this last remark:
"The ADC source said one welcome surprise was that the combination of Intel chips and the Mac OSX seems to have led to the ability to perform tasks and play games incredibly fast".
Oh, really? What about years of (now obviously false) claims that the PowerPC was MUCH better than anything Intel could do, even at lower speeds?
Well, it does not matter, because ANYTHING Apple does is OK for Apple fans. After all, who needs a mind of his own when we can just simply wait for what Steve Jobs has to say? ;-)
Posted by aemarques (162 comments )
Reply Link Flag
you have the information backward
the new PPC are faster than Intel Pentium 4, AMD are faster than
Pentium 4 and in some ways Pentium 3 are faster, this stuff is all
over the net so I will not go into it here. The PPC is still a great
CPU that can do some really nice stuff with graphics, the
problem has never been the CPU, its been the OS itself, not
optimized for games. Now from what you can read all over the
internet is that the Pentium M are not only very good with heat
and power but they are also faster than Pentium 4 CPU, no
kidding everything seems to be faster with Pentium 4. Its not
Apple was lying its just that GAMES are not the only thing that
people do on computers. As for me I welcome the change over,
and hope for Dual Core to become standard on all dam MAC's so
things don't stop working just because I opened a Microsoft
program and it hoged all the CPU.
Posted by (35 comments )
Link Flag
Steve Ballmer poster on your wall?
Reminder; Apple has the stellar press, the lauded product
design, solid OS, and loyal fans. MS has tons of negative press,
severe OS issues, and that icon of foolishness Steve Ballmer.

Our loyalty nothing to do with what Jobs has to say - it's an
entire product line that causes our affection for him and the
company. I pity a person who mocks success and is blinded by
their own dysfunctional choices.

Do you have a Steve Ballmer poster on your wall?
Posted by cjohn17 (268 comments )
Link Flag
This is great...!
I love this last remark:
"The ADC source said one welcome surprise was that the combination of Intel chips and the Mac OSX seems to have led to the ability to perform tasks and play games incredibly fast".
Oh, really? What about years of (now obviously false) claims that the PowerPC was MUCH better than anything Intel could do, even at lower speeds?
Well, it does not matter, because ANYTHING Apple does is OK for Apple fans. After all, who needs a mind of his own when we can just simply wait for what Steve Jobs has to say? ;-)
Posted by aemarques (162 comments )
Reply Link Flag
you have the information backward
the new PPC are faster than Intel Pentium 4, AMD are faster than
Pentium 4 and in some ways Pentium 3 are faster, this stuff is all
over the net so I will not go into it here. The PPC is still a great
CPU that can do some really nice stuff with graphics, the
problem has never been the CPU, its been the OS itself, not
optimized for games. Now from what you can read all over the
internet is that the Pentium M are not only very good with heat
and power but they are also faster than Pentium 4 CPU, no
kidding everything seems to be faster with Pentium 4. Its not
Apple was lying its just that GAMES are not the only thing that
people do on computers. As for me I welcome the change over,
and hope for Dual Core to become standard on all dam MAC's so
things don't stop working just because I opened a Microsoft
program and it hoged all the CPU.
Posted by (35 comments )
Link Flag
Steve Ballmer poster on your wall?
Reminder; Apple has the stellar press, the lauded product
design, solid OS, and loyal fans. MS has tons of negative press,
severe OS issues, and that icon of foolishness Steve Ballmer.

Our loyalty nothing to do with what Jobs has to say - it's an
entire product line that causes our affection for him and the
company. I pity a person who mocks success and is blinded by
their own dysfunctional choices.

Do you have a Steve Ballmer poster on your wall?
Posted by cjohn17 (268 comments )
Link Flag
Okay...moving on
So Apple gets a few headlines to interrupt the tons of virus
warnings, security issues and the latest delays in Longhorn/
Vista/What MS will call it in the next year or two OS, who cares?
In a few hours this bit of news will be overshadowed by some
flaws in Windows. Let the "few" of us enjoy our news, about our
Macs and the Apple.
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Okay...moving on
So Apple gets a few headlines to interrupt the tons of virus
warnings, security issues and the latest delays in Longhorn/
Vista/What MS will call it in the next year or two OS, who cares?
In a few hours this bit of news will be overshadowed by some
flaws in Windows. Let the "few" of us enjoy our news, about our
Macs and the Apple.
Posted by (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oh, WELL...
What can ya do? The PC/clone market was waiting for Apple to break down &#38; make OS X available for the rest of the marketshare. Instead, Apple has found a way to circumvent the usual data pathways to secure the OS X datastream for exclusive use in THEIR computers. Now THAT'S INNOVATION! Oh, well. I guess the rest of the marketshare (that's 95%, by the way), is either going to have to either wait for the KDE clone called "Vista", start using Linux, Sun, BSD, etc., or GAAAASP! Buy an APPLE! The dream of legitimate OS X operations on a standard run-of-the-mill PC box is fading into the sunset. Will iTunes &#38; Quicktime for Windows do the same? I guess we'll just have to wait &#38; see. Now, does anyone know when the Mac Mini will have a Intel chip installed? Did someone once say "2007"?
Posted by Jon N. (182 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.