Get Smart about Business SpendingNews.com readers who follow Apple Computer are a loyal, knowledgeable and passionate bunch--which is reflected in their comments regarding the company's decision to use Intel processors. Here's a sampling of their comments. What's your opinion? Join in the discussion in our TalkBack forum.
well there goes mac
Posted by: John Bresnahan
man o man
Bad news...
Posted by: Pablo Mardones
Story: Jobs confirms Apple switch to Intel
This totally sucks... not that's only Apple's fault, but it still sucks. This shows how vulnerable is Apple as a company, one chip maker decides it's not profitable to provide chips to Apple any more, move into game consoles and that's it for Steve. Now it's all up to Intel for Apple's survival...and it seemed they were doing so good.
Now I get why Steve dressed in black for the keynote. RIP Apple Computer, Inc.
Not really
Posted by: X T
i don't think apple is going anywhere. i'm almost certain apple will do even better than before. what could be better than a cheaper pc that's more stable (w/Tiger) than the current line of pc's dominated by MSFT.
the price/value for my money kept me away from apple for all these years. well if they are willing to meet the consumer half way, then i would be willing to make that purchase now. and more importantly, i'm hoping i can customize my pc like i currently do, an option i don't have now with apple's current structure.
Pity the poor retailers...
Posted by: John Courcoul
Story: Jobs confirms Apple switch to Intel
Now that the Mactel story has hit the mass media, I pity the poor dealers suckered into selling Mac computers, now stuck with equipment that was officially declared obsolete, or at least that's how Mom and Pop will read it.
And I can see the Redmond spin machine having a field day, what with Longhorn launching just when Apple will be trying to get its Intel stuff right.
On the plus side, it will be a wonderful time to pick up great PPC Mac deals...
I think I'll avoid buying a Mac until the switch is over...
Posted by: Allen Velasquez
It seems to happen every time that Apple makes a dramatic change in their systems, it's a nail in the coffin for their previous systems' longevity. Sure, they're developing concurrently with PPC/x86, but look where they'll be two years from now.
First, they will support your system entirely. Then, slowly they will release some new application (or applications) which are dependent on the platform (Wired Magazine discussed some of the potential DRM/media control uses of the new Intel chips). Then, they will eventually lock out the 'old' PPC systems when it is no longer profitable to support them, which in Mac years is far before the system actually ceases to be useful. This was the case with the 68k-to-PPC transition and the OS9/OSX transition. I figure people will give up in disgust and install Linux on it.
TWO WORDS
Posted by: Dennis Roberson
I say that TWO WORDSare the main reason Apple is going INTEL........DELL COMPUTERS!
apple sales to zero until new intel machines out
Posted by: Vviron Papadopoulos
This announcement from Apple is telling people do NOT bye any products from me for the next 12 months, wait for the new models to come out.
IT'S JUST THE CPU, CALM DOWN!
Posted by: David Thomas
I can't believe that so many of you obviously didn't at least watch the keynote conference. The only way to find out what is up is to get it straight from the horses mouth.
Apple is NOT getting out of the hardware business. Apple is NOT going generic. Apple IS changing the heart of their CPUs from a G5 to an undisclosed Intel chip. Apples OS DOES run on an Pentium just fine.
It is JUST the CPU, not the architectural design, not the casing not anything but the CPU. They did this because IBM has not been able to deliver on the promise of the G5. In the mean time, Intel has made strides to cover their past mis-steps, and MORE than likely demonstrated a chip design that blew past what IBM has promised.
my two cents
Posted by: Jay Reynolds
As a user of both platforms, I disagree that PPC is a better platform. Although RISC may be a better design, a CISC chip running more than twice the speed is still going to give you better performance. And the chips these days are not actually true CISC, they haven't been for sometime. They combine CISC and RISC technologies, as well as different technologies all together. As for Intel having to had showed Apple something amazing, that's unlikely. They already have the fastest processors in the world. I think it's obvious that Apple got an amazing deal on exclussivity that will most likely keep AMD from ever powering their systems (even though AMD chips are better in my opinion). I wanted to add one last comment about speed... The "MHz myth" has always been a marketing thing... There's a lot of other factors that contribute to speed much more than the processor. You have your bus speed, memory, video and hard drive speed. These are the true variables for performance... I think know that Apple has made the switch you will see significant performance boosts that will leave the PPC lovers singing an Intel tune.
Strange, Ironic, a Definite Twist of Fate
Posted by: David Thomas
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 horespower, 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.
Apple's shift to Intel
Posted by: Demetrio D'ambrosi
So now Apple can start leveraging all the Linux\Unix work without PPC binaries - they loose the RISC advantage but they gain all that work for free - also, major Software companies had started ditching the Mac (see Adobe) because the second OS environment was not Mac anymore but Linux - now the Mac can get back in the saddle.
Apple's turned back to tech leadership
Posted by: Karl Roebling
Story: It's official: Apple will switch to Intel
In 1984 my Apple Lisa sported a true 32-bit processor (as did every Mac, subsequently.) Intel's state-of-the-art chip was 16-bit and many 8-bit "Intel-insides" were still around. Then the Apple's graphical interface and 16-times faster processor and the bundled Office-like software suite blew everyone else away and Microsoft's only today catching up, reliability-wise.
Yesterday's announcement that Apple would switch to Intel chips hid the bigger, gloomier message--Apple was spurning AMD's 64-bit retail leadership as well as Sun's rock-solid, Unix-proven 64-bit technology.
Today's gloomy for tech-heads but it looks like the marketing fluffers will be busy massaging the truth out of this story in their special way.
very bad move
Posted by: Lord Skydiver
I cannot believe that this has actually happened! How can you seperate the software and the equipment in a mac? I want to believe that OS X will be only running on macs otherwise mac will be a commodity just like Dell! However since architecture is the same someone will find a way to do that. I guess Steve just slipped to the dark side of the force folks!!!
On the lighter side...Hopefully this won't herald
Posted by: Filip Remplakowski
Hopefully this won't herald the start of apple ads with the annoying intel tune, or the bloody blue man group and no intel stickers or start up logos on my mac please. Actually this move is pretty smart especially since intel do make good mobile chips (and notebooks are becomming really popular) and we can now get better graphics cards too. Once all the work is done and intel and apple keep on progressing this will be a golden age.
Concerns wrongfully bundled
Posted by: Bryan Elliott
In order to ally your fears:
The processor that an OS runs under has very little to do with its security. Keep in mind that Linux also runs on x86, and still has better security in many distributions than OS X.
Indeed, none of the concerns I've read in the replys to this story are valid for a processor switch. Intel x86 processors - and their supporting circuitry - are generally lower priced than those for PowerPCs (check prices for PPC for Amiga boards vs. Intel boards), and get comparable or better performance (depending on factors such as time of the year, phase of the moon, benchmarking utility used, mood of the reviewer, company that owns the reviewer, what the reviewer had with his beef chow mein at lunch last thursday, etc).
I bet you're waiting for me to say more about Intel processors. That's it. Price and speed. That's ALL that matters.
Ok, one other thing matters: Fault frequency. The number of uncaught errors that occur per successful instruction processed. IBM's PPC has a fault frequency of 2 faults per 100 trillion instructions. Intel's x86 has a fault frequency of... 2 faults per 100 trillion. AMDs have an FF of 4 faults per 100 trillion. (aren't you glad they went with Intel?)
For all intents and purposes, Apple made a lateral move in terms of price and performance (the marginal cost of porting software - anywhere from 2 manhours to 40 manhours per major third-party application - will initially cancel out the initial savings of using a less expensive processor and logic set). So why move?
I believe Apple is positioning themselves to actually compete with Microsoft. Yes, I assume that OS-X will be locked to Apple hardware initially, but it won't last. Jobs likely knows this: Within a week of the first release of OS-X, x86 edition, there will be a patch that will allow a user to run OS-X on arbitrary x86 hardware, with full driver support.
My guess is that it'll be just a little more complicated than swapping out the OS-X kernel for the Darwin kernel - just like that which has been done in order to run OS-X on arbitrary Amiga hardware.
Darwin, being open source and meant for consumption computers, has a range of device drivers rivaling that of linux, which is to say, incomplete, but only slightly.
Jobs will appear, then, to "give in to the masses" and release x86 for the generic PC, using the Darwin driver set.
Why go through all this trouble?
A couple of reasons. One, Apple is trying to sneak up on Microsoft. MS is a behemoth, and can and will crush Apple with any number of false accusations, surreptitious lies, supposed patent violations, and about as much legal crap as they can land on Apple. If Apple is to compete with Microsoft, they have to sidestep into a position where it's feasible.
Second, Apple does NOT want to leave it's loyalists in the cold. If all else fails, they need their 16% install base. Rest assured, OS-X and the applications you love will not stop being built for PowerPC just because they're finally releasing Marklar. (Yes, Marklar. It was the code name for OS-X x86, and if you didn't know that, it would explain why you're scared.) Apple also doesn't want the purchasers of its hardware to think they've been gypped as PC users just plop OS-X on their bad-ass $1100 PCs. The way Apple's doing it, the bad-ass $1100 Mac will be availble before OS-X for the generic x86 is availble.
Anyways, thank you for not paying attention, as is the wont of these forums.
One additional item...
Posted by: Earl Benser
... as previously reported, Apple's move to Intel may have very much to do with securing video distribution rights just like Apple did with music via the iPod. Check the other articles, and wait for what OS X will be able to do inthe near future. This could make Windows Media look like a total waste of time and effort.
oh deaaar god.
Posted by: Andy Asdasda
No really, this is not good. Undoubted long term, core strategic error. God, he could at least have gone with the opteron. It trounces xeon in graphics heavy arenas. The nasty sound is the reality distortion field around cupertino cracking. This strips away one of the core elemnents of the macintosh's alternative ethos. Bugger it. I knew this era was too good to last. I think jobs has fundamentally misjudged the delicate psychology of apple's position in the buying public's mind. The one thing you cannot say about this decision is that it represents the much espused virtue of thinking different. Rather, it strikes you strongly of capitulation to the seeming banal realities of apples position. Whatever figleaf remained is now gone; the mac is now an enclosure, good fabrication and a well regarded unix variant os. Demmit, Jobs, what were you thinking of?
This is great. I think I will have WINE with that
Posted by: Paul Swansson
I am so happy about this. My kids brand new iMac G5 will not benefit but in less than 2 years I will be able to buy a brand new Pent based Powerbook with maybe even the new Mac OS X 5. Wow. Not only is this great because I love the Mac OS but because I bet my order time will be nothing like the one I just expereinced with my iMac. It took more than 2 months to get to me and then it had a faulty Mainboard and Processor which means I am still waiting for it to be repaired.
But the REALLY GREAT thing about change is that I would put money on someone porting the Linux based WINE project to MAC OS X for Intel really quickly. Plus I am betting that the Xwine (Direct X Linux library) will also be ported. I will be running all the games I want on my new Powerbook with Intel CPU... and I bet they run just as good as if they were on Windoz coz Mac just sings no matter where it is.
Hehe. Jut thought about the Perl Project which ran the Power PC version of Mac OS X on Intel architecture. But you guys are not doing much today.
Mixed emotions...
Posted by: Onizuka
I love Apple. I lvoe its products. I love the speed of the processors and the architecture. I love the apps,t he GUI, the total experience.
I'm just a little angry that this shift will end up costing us some money (consumers). I'm a bit relieved that this news came before I could by a powerbook, which, would have lasted me 3-4 years, but wouldn't be supported at the end of that time. I'm a bit confused because I've seen that AMD processors out perform Intel chips. I'm also confused because X86 as we know it today, running Windows is just a slower architecture.
Will this be good? Well, I don't see how games will be any better as they still use .exe files and OS X does not (thank God). But, I use a console for games so that doesn't matter much to me (though it amtters a lot to some people.)
I just don't know. I think I'm more confused and distraught than anything else. But, Steve hasn't made many bad decisions thus far... Maybe this WILL pan out.
My Last APPLE computer
Posted by: Roy Clarke
Story: Apple fails to meet (a columnist's) expectations
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.
Bye Bye APPLE it was nice knowing you
to me that all of you that are whining about Apple's switch to
intel chips have missed an important poin. The biggest and
most important difference is the software(OS). I am assuming
that Apple with a few modification will continue to turn out the
best operating systems for any kind of PC. And think about this.
With OS 10 reworked some what to run on Intel chips. OS 10.4
could and future Mac OS's could really give Microsoft a run for
it's money. Now a windows user who wants to switch won't have
to fork out the big bucks. Just lay down $139.00 for Tiger. I
thin this move makes more sense than most of you realize.
Sun SPARC or an AMD running Linux, Solaris and/or BSD.
between these two large companies that started around the
same time. Just because they have been competative in the past
doesn't mean they should stay on opposite sides forever.
Obviously Apple has done their homework for the past 5 years
and sees merit in switching chips to lower power consumption
which will allow them to create faster and efficient products. For
some reason, all the die hard Apple fanatics are having
emotional problems with this. It's not about going to the dark
side or selling out. I recommend watching the keynote ( http://
stream.apple.akadns.net ) so that you can understand what is
really entailed in the transition. it's not bad. Apple and Intel's
stock is down right now, because emotions of fear and the
unknown are blinding people until they can see what the
outcome actually results. You know it's going to be a bunch of
people eating their words and saying how great the new
machines are. I have grown up with Apple all my life and they
have used all sorts of companies for the guts. It's not as big a
deal as some people make it. Yes I am a fan. Steve Jobs and the
the rest of the Apple team know what they are doing. They have
been thinking about this for a while.. Think about it for a while
machines have suddenly become obsolete. Software developers
can distribute software that runs on both PowerPC and Intel
machines for as long as they see fit. It will certainly take more
than 3-4 years for more than 50% of the Mac market to upgrade
to Intel machines. Until that time a software developer would be
stupid not to support the PowerPC machines, especially
considering how easy it is using XCode. Get a grip people, your
machines will not be obsolute any sooner than they normally
would.
estactic about the hugh market that just opened! Instead I read
doom and gloom from users of the Apple platform for the most
part..really sad.
Personally, I can't wait! Apple is going to take the PC market by
storm and when they do, I will be there! Apple Users - just think
about it, Apple shows microsoft up on their own processor of
choice! What more could you ask for?!
John, Nassau, Bahamas
Here until the end!
coaster ride from the bottom of despair to the heights of
elatement. Is the PowerPC chip a part of the Mac Identity? Yes,
but I think we too quickly forget that PowerPC chips weren't
always so, and given time, these Intel chips will equally become
part of that Identity. As others have said, it's not the CPU that
gives you what you see, it is the OS that does that. It also is
clear to me that Steve Jobs and Apple have been considering this
move for a long time and I've got to believe they have a larger
foundation set up for this than what is currently apparent. It
really doesn't sound like it is going to take all that much to port
current software over to OS X86. I mean with most software
you've already programmed according to the OS and it is the
compiler that translates that into the needed machine code. The
OS isn't changing. The security, the look, the feel, all those
things will stay the same. Change is hard at any age, but I do
expect this change to go smoothly and, for the most part,
transparently. Everyone poo-poohed the OS9 -> OSX switch,
but in the end that was pulled off very, very well, and I believe
Apple can do it again with this chip change.
I switched to a WinTel machine in '97 for Linux and Windows games. Linux was too ugly for me .vs Windows 98 so I played a lot of games. I later built two Windows based machines for gaming and the internet. I probably spent thousands of dollars building and upgrading with new peripherals and components.
While doing this in my PC world, my mother still used her PPC 7100. She finally upgraded last February, that is of '04 folks, to a basic G4. Do you think she cares what is running under the hood? No! She just uses it for email, web and MS Office.
That G4 will last my mom close to the next decade, if not longer, regardless if anyone supports the processor. My mother has the software she needs without the headaches of spyware, viral infections and computer hiccups. Those are things I commonly have to endure with my three year old home built XP running system. I am envious to those who run OS X. If Apple announced that it is no longer selling OS X systems, I would buy one the following day. And ebay this one the next.
have never purchased a Wintel PC and never will. I spend my
hard eraned money on Macs only. Apple's switch to Intel chips
will be very good for the Mac community in the long run and is
absolutely the right decision in my opinion. IBM & Freescale
have disappointed too many times. Now the hardware playing
field will be level and Mac OS X will shine and gain market share.
Microsoft will soon have a much stronger competitor in Apple. I
look forward to the head-to-head competition. I just wish the
switch would happen immediately rather than in 2006-2007. To
the fools who say they will never buy a Mac with an Intel
processor in it, I have to ask what they will be buying instead ...
an Intel PC running Windows?
reaction.
I'd just like to throw a few quick things out there:
As long as Apple keeps the lines of communication open
between itself and the development community, this transition
should have very few hiccups. If they haven't done this already, I
would recommend they start sending some of their people and
Intel's people to their biggest developers to get them
familiarized with any new dev quirks. If they start this early, by
the time the first Intel-based systems hit the market the
software library should be relatively full.
Since "Classic" will no longer be supported, they should be doing
this same thing with developers of the most-used "Classic"
apps.
Finally, if pricing is an issue, maybe they'll implement some kind
of recycling program, turn in your old PPC system and get some
sort of discount on a new one. They've already started this with
the iPod thanks to a class-action suit, so why not do the same
thing once the new hardware hits the market?
Beyond that pretty much everything I have to say has already
been said, so I'll simply say this:
To the people who've posted who realize that Apple is changing
ONE PART of their machines and that you will still have to buy an
APPLE COMPUTER to run APPLE SOFTWARE, good job on thinking
clearly. Seriously, anyone remember when Apple tried to open
up their hardware platform in the late 80's? The products
sucked and they had to go back to doing everything (basically)
by themselves. YOU WILL NOT BE BUYING A DELL WITH OS X ON
IT. Not now, not ever. The day that happens is the day the
ghost of Steve Jobs comes back and their Cupertino
headquarters turns into the Amityville Horror.
To the people who say Apple is selling out:
Ummm, how? He didn't announce that Apple will start shipping
with XP or Longhorn. All he's done is shown that OS X has been
developed to run on Intel chips as well as IBM, so their work is
pretty much done for them. This fact alone leads me to believe
that this plan was in the works for a long time, if nothing else as
a last resort if things with IBM didn't work out. The only thing
close to "selling out" Apple has done was to partner with
Microsoft and release Office and I.E. for Mac. I've used both of
them and Office runs a whole hell of a lot better on my Mac and
I.E., well, I.E., just sucks on ANY platform.
To the people who say this is the death of Apple as we know it:
How so? Did you guys say the same thing when they switched to
the IBM/Motorola PowerPC chip?
So anyway, thanks for all the level-headed people out there. As
for the rest of you, well, if you want to run out and get a Dell
right now cause Apple's going to crash and burn, then by all
means do so. But by 2008 when we see 5 and 6 GHz
PowerBooks and iBooks, when your laptop battery lasts for
almost 8 hours, when OS X is STILL the most secure and stable
consumer OS out there, when Microsoft has to start thinking
about Bankruptcy proceedings because Apple hardware is finally
priced to really compete, when you start reading that Apple's
installed base has surpassed the 20% mark and their market
share is skyrocketing towards 25 or 30%, you should be banned
from within 50 feet of an Apple Store or Kiosk and you should
not be allowed to buy their products online, plain and simple. In
the meantime though, I'm gonna throw some more RAM into my
PowerBook to keep it relatively current until the Intel-based G5
Books come out, I'm gonna spend probably $200 or maybe even
as much as $400 less on the next one, and I'm gonna sleep the
same every night between now and then.
no longer get on line with it as of May 2002 when I bought an
iBook, but that computer sure lives in my classroom. Home for
the summer. My students just use it to type and save
documents. I start a disk on the school issued Dell Laptop and
the MAC takes over. with an adapter, I can read the disk and
email it back to myself at school, or print the document.
By the way, the HP 870cse printer is still in my classroom and
prints as good as ever.
MAC user since mid 80s too
2) The ultra-short-pipeline RISC is not viable for longterm performance, and certainly not if you want broader developer support. Making the pipelines deeper and smarter has paid off for Wintel in more than a few ways.
3) Goodbye "look at how much I can multitask" (especially with multimedia). Without the concurrent AltiVec operations, there will definitely be some performance shock, especially for the first-gens.
4) Money doesn't really matter. As I heard on the radio today, IBM is practically losing money with Apple's pricing, and Apple's total shipments would account for something like 2% of Intel's output.
I think all of the former factors are bearing a lot more weight than the latter.
-Matt
The Useless Information File. No Information is Useless.
keynote speech. What are performance issues?
Besides using low power consumption, Apple still needs to prove
that its Intel-based Mac framework can provide a better
performance than the existing frameworks.
I think the next challenge is about the parallel computation. With
dual-core processors, the operating system can do parallel tasks
to increase the overall system performance. This kind of field is
not fully explored yet. Mac offers 2.0GHz, 2.3GHz, and 2.7GHz
dual-processor models. Speed is increased, but none of them
provides an optimal solution yet. If OS-X can optimally utilize
Intel Dual-Core Processors (Pentium D) to provide a significant
performance jump, I think that Apple fans will be happy.
computers obsolete! It's ridiculous to claim anything of the
sort.
Firstly, since when is any Macintosh model kept around longer
than (maximum) one year? There are speedbumps, G3 -> G4 -
> G5 migrations, enclosure changes, etc. all along the way.
Secondly, why would your PPC be obsolete in 2 years? Most
consumer PC's are on a 3 year upgrade cycle, whereas Mac's can
last up to 5 years (or longer) depending on how you use it. If
you buy a Mac today, you're almost guranteed to get native
PPC's binaries for all of your software through 2008.
Remember, no native Intel software will be out until mid to late
2006, at best! The PPC products will work fine through then.
Thirdly, Apple will probably not replace the PowerMac G5 or
iMac G5 until late 2006 or early 2007 -- they're fast, powerful,
and don't need Intel. On the other hand, Intel is desperately
needed in the eMac, iBook, Powerbook, and Mac Mini. G4's just
aren't cutting it anymore compared to the Pentium M, especially
with the forthcoming dual core chips.
I'm seriously considering an iMac or PowerMac, and this Intel
switch does not sway my purchase one bit. Maybe in late 2006,
it would.
of us devoted Macheads, everyone seems to be missing a huge
part of this controversy.
Apple is switching to intel because the IBM chips, have now
reached thier limitations as to what they are able to perform in
the Mac platform.
FACT- they are running too hot for any future use with any of
Mac's latptop line, not to mention the new power pc's which
need an extensive liquid cooling system to even function
properly.
We are still yet to see a G5 powerbook - and the fact is that this
fatal flaw is going to cause apple to start to lag, and fall behind
intel based systems.
So - all of us that are out bragging that our Mac's are
"technically superior" will in the next few years be making
excuses as to why apple is falling behind intel sysytems are
starting to run circles around your mac, with regards to speed,
and processor power. Its already starting to happen.
Its like having a Ferrari that overheats everytime you step on the
gas - now what use is that?
Mr Jobs, obviously concerned for the future of his company, has
taken this into account. For a company that is so progressive in
thinking, he will be trying to sell computers that are being
outperformed by the competition.
Now I know that you all feel that you are going to loose that nice
geeky feeling you get everyime you open up your shiny titanium
powerbook, but what makes their computers so great is the
whole package, the design, the feel, the nice lighted apple logo
on the back, the software, not just the CPU.
Answer this - if you suddenly found out that by some stroke of
fate that your Mac had been running on an intel chip the whole
time that you had it, would you love it any less? Probably not.
Yes - I know the PPC chip was cool, because it was a whole new
technology, nice and clean, different from everyone else, in a
way it made you feel special because it was different from the
millions of boring dell computers out there. But once again, IBM
has not been able to keep up with apple, and its getting to the
point where the PPC chip is going to hold a very progressive
company back.
Its just a computer chip, apple will still produce a better PC, and
laptop than anyone else around.
I cant wait to get a new Powerbook next year, by the time this
lovely little ibook of mine will need to be replaced.
With the intel chip, it will run faster, cooler, longer and probably
be a little cheaper. But it will still be an Apple.
Now what is so bad about that?
Besides, all this controversy about a silly computer chip is what
makes being a machead a lot of fun.
- Good choice for Apple if the sales don't die between then and now
- by June 11, 2005 12:06 PM PDT
- It's the software, not the platform. I use both PC and Mac regularly--Macs for about three years, PCs for much longer. I'm a video producer/editor and I use Final Cut Pro both at home and the office daily. Work has a dozen or so G5s, I have one, as well as a powerbook. While it is somewhat disconcerting that the G5s are going to be backed away from, I have had strong reservations about the quickly growing speed gap between platforms. I have long secretly wished that Final Cut Pro might be ported to PCs, though I know that is rediculous.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (36 Comments)Or thought it was--hee, hee. FCP is great software--I and the company I work for will go wherever it goes. THough I wonder if my boss will change his short term buying plans for new G5s?