PDA

View Full Version : Will you buy a Mac AFTER they switch to Intel processors?


GodBless
Jun 8, 2005, 09:30 PM
Also what are the deciding factors? Did you only stay with Apple for PPC, are you a mad developer who doesn't like all the headaches Apple has caused with the many transitions that make your applications unusable until you update them, are you going to be happy to dual boot windows or will you be happy to have a processor with a faster clock speed? Tell me what you think.

(This poll is not to get confused with MacRumors' "Will you buy a Mac BEFORE they switch to Intel processors?" poll.)

GodBless
Jun 8, 2005, 09:34 PM
Definitely option 1.

How can you find a better way to prove that OS X runs faster and smoother than Windows without tests being on the same system?

feakbeak
Jun 8, 2005, 09:37 PM
I just bought a Mac mini a few months ago, my first Mac. I've used them before quite a bit in college though, so I wasn't a complete newb. By the time I will need/want to replace my Mac mini the dust should be settling from the transition to x86 and I'll buy one then.

i like Windows and OS X, so I really don't care too much about the configurations. I'd be willing to run OS X on non-Apple hardware if allowed or if it could be easily hacked and didn't have too many driver issues. I'd also be willing to buy Apple hardware if I liked the design, performance and cost of the machine. I'm not a cheap Wintel fanboy, but I am reasonable. I have my Mac mini out in my living area with an LCD because it looks nice there. The loud beige box is in the bedroom with the monsterous CRT... it doens't look pretty, so I hide it away. Still, I'd be willing to run either OS on either machine and/or dual-boot one or more of them. The more options the better, IMO.

cooknwitha
Jun 8, 2005, 09:42 PM
Option 2.

I use Macs because I loathe Windows. Changing to Intel won't change that.

mad jew
Jun 8, 2005, 09:43 PM
Option 2.

Isn't Option 1 unsupported?

Capt Underpants
Jun 8, 2005, 09:45 PM
I will always have a mac laptop and a PC desktop. For me, it is the best combination :)

GodBless
Jun 8, 2005, 09:49 PM
Option 2.

Isn't Option 1 unsupported?

No, I read an AppleInsider article that quoted Schiller for saying "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," and other articles claim that the test 3.6 G4 Intel developer transition rental machines that Apple gave out at WWDC run XP fine.

GodBless
Jun 8, 2005, 09:50 PM
I will always have a mac laptop and a PC desktop. For me, it is the best combination :)
Why not get a mac desktop that can dual boot OS X and Windows?

mad jew
Jun 8, 2005, 09:50 PM
No, I read an AppleInsider article that quoted Schiller for saying "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," and other articles claim that the test 3.6 G4 Intel developer transition rental machines that Apple gave out at WWDC run XP fine.


I'm not saying it's unfeasible, but I'm pretty sure neither Apple nor Microsoft will help you if any problems arise, let alone condone it.

Cooknn
Jun 8, 2005, 09:51 PM
2. But when depends on what they offer with the PPC before the Intel rollout. I'm partial to the PowerPC. If it hit's the magic number, I'm going to have a hard time not pulling the trigger :o

Westside guy
Jun 8, 2005, 10:30 PM
I wlll buy an Intel Mac - heck, at this point I won't be buying another Mac for sure until they've switched over. :D

Dual-booting is annoying. I used to do it back when I was primarilly using Linux as my desktop OS. However Windows is nice for games - I still borrow my wife's PC sometimes to play Moonbase Commander ;) - so if VMware or Virtual PC runs well, then I'll have a virtual disk.

Heck, that's one advantage of going to the x86 processor right there - just maybe VMware will produce an OS X version. My experience with it is a couple years out of date now, but I'd much rather use VMware than Virtual PC.

dotdotdot
Jun 8, 2005, 10:32 PM
option 2

HiRez
Jun 8, 2005, 10:33 PM
Will you buy a Mac AFTER they switch to Intel processors?:

4. No - PCI don't like the #4 option. It implies someone would not buy a Mac simply because it happens to use Intel CPUs instead of IBM. If you can't even tell what's inside, why do you care? No one realized Steve was running a Mac with Intel Inside™ until he told them he was. OS X should be just the same, plus with a lot less waiting on chip backorders and the possibility of being able to buy off-the-shelf PC GPU cards instead of waiting for and paying extra for Mac special editions, I don't see why anyone would mind.

GodBless
Jun 8, 2005, 10:37 PM
I wlll buy an Intel Mac - heck, at this point I won't be buying another Mac for sure until they've switched over. :D

Dual-booting is annoying. I used to do it back when I was primarilly using Linux as my desktop OS. However Windows is nice for games - I still borrow my wife's PC sometimes to play Moonbase Commander ;) - so if VMware or Virtual PC runs well, then I'll have a virtual disk.

Heck, that's one advantage of going to the x86 processor right there - just maybe VMware will produce an OS X version. My experience with it is a couple years out of date now, but I'd much rather use VMware than Virtual PC.
Something like wine (which is currently only made for Linux (well there's Darwine for OS X but that's another story)) for OS X would be nice too.

GoCubsGo
Jun 8, 2005, 10:40 PM
I think so. Did you watch the Keynote?

GodBless
Jun 8, 2005, 10:52 PM
I think so. Did you watch the Keynote?
Of course. I just wanted to see other people's views on this topic.

katie ta achoo
Jun 8, 2005, 11:04 PM
Number Two definitely.
I like Apple for the OS.

Why would I desecrate something as fabulous as a Mac with Windows? :p

tech4all
Jun 8, 2005, 11:11 PM
1. Yes - Mac - Dual boot Tiger/Leopard and Windows XP/Longhorn
2. Yes - Mac - OS X only
3. Undecided
4. No - PC

Definitely #2, provided OS X is just as secure (if not more) that it is now.


Question: If someone did run Windows with an Intel-based Mac, could a (Windows) virus infect the whole computer?

ravenvii
Jun 8, 2005, 11:29 PM
I think leaving the Mac platform just because it's no longer PPC is retarded. It's just a CPU. Who gives a **** which CPU it is, as long as it's fast?

I got a Mac mini a few months ago too. I planned for it to last 1.5-2 years. And that happens to fall perfectly into the transition period. Hurray me, my next Mac shall be a lightning-fast Mac! Which just so happens to have an Intel CPU in it.

GFLPraxis
Jun 8, 2005, 11:51 PM
Will you buy a Mac AFTER they switch to Intel processors?:

1. Yes - Mac - Dual boot Tiger/Leopard and Windows XP/Longhorn
2. Yes - Mac - OS X only
3. Undecided
4. No - PC

Also what are the deciding factors? Did you only stay with Apple for PPC, are you a mad developer who doesn't like all the headaches Apple has caused with the many transitions that make your applications unusable until you update them, are you going to be happy to dual boot windows or will you be happy to have a processor with a faster clock speed? Tell me what you think.

(This poll is not to get confused with MacRumors' "Will you buy a Mac BEFORE they switch to Intel processors?" pole.)

1 - Yes. Who switches for the processor? I care about the operating system. While I prefer PowerPC, I will buy the Intel Macs. Not the first generation ones, as they won't be fully supported by developers, but I eventually will.

If WINE runs Windows apps just as well as Windows itself, then count me on for #2. Otherwise I'll go with #1.

Windows for games and all my old software. Mac for everything else. I can finally throw my PC away.

GFLPraxis
Jun 8, 2005, 11:53 PM
Definitely #2, provided OS X is just as secure (if not more) that it is now.


Question: If someone did run Windows with an Intel-based Mac, could a (Windows) virus infect the whole computer?

It would affect the Windows install. Not the Mac.

Viruses are just software, you know.

Unless you get a virus that formats your hard drive (very rare), there's no way it would affect Mac OS X. Just like getting a Windows virus doesn't affect my Linux partition (I have a dual boot).

barneygumble
Jun 8, 2005, 11:54 PM
i have decided to hold of until they release one! and then i will only use mac OS X on it, i will be keep my other box for gaming becasue it has all the goodies on it and will not be connected to the internet

GFLPraxis
Jun 8, 2005, 11:54 PM
Number Two definitely.
I like Apple for the OS.

Why would I desecrate something as fabulous as a Mac with Windows? :p

Simple reason why I would.

Right now I have to have a PC and a Mac.

Now I can toast the PC (muwahaha! Burn, baby, burn!) and use my Mac for EVERYTHING.

Dr. Dastardly
Jun 8, 2005, 11:55 PM
Definitely #2, provided OS X is just as secure (if not more) that it is now.


Question: If someone did run Windows with an Intel-based Mac, could a (Windows) virus infect the whole computer?
I dont think so, it will just affect the windows side. For example I could send a windows virus to you on your Mac but it wont be able to do anything because everything is different on the Mac. File extensions, Program folders, everything. So I doubt anyone will have to worry if they put Windows and OSX on the same system.

Oh yeah and #1, Have to use Windows for work. :(
At least I dont have to worry about finding a way to hide that stupid PC tower anymore. :p

Xtremehkr
Jun 8, 2005, 11:57 PM
Option 2.

I am hoping to get about 5 years out of my current iMac though. Though only reason I replaced my old one sooner than I intended was because of the size of the monitor. The old iMacs had a puny 14.1" and it was driving me nuts.

Ok. Aside from that, I think it is going to benefit Apple because it will open up options that were not available before. More hardware options and more software options will help the company in the long run. Or for as long as Intel outperform PPC and are the best option to go with.

absolut_mac
Jun 9, 2005, 12:00 AM
Will you buy a Mac AFTER they switch to Intel processors?

What type of question is that to pose to a Mac fan???

Of course I'm going to buy one. And I'm not even going to wait for a second generation one either.

I know that some of you guys are big AMD fans, but I'm not one of them. No, I've never owned an AMD based computer, but I worked with quite a few guys who built computers on the side for friends and family, and they never had much luck with AMD. Sooner or later there were always hardware related problems, problems that never appeared in the first place when they used Intel.

Personally, I've always had good solid performance from my Intel chips. I just wish that I could say the same about Windows.

Manzana
Jun 9, 2005, 12:05 AM
you left out an option though.

rev b that boots tiger/leopard/win xp/linux !!

why???

why not!

Mr_T
Jun 9, 2005, 12:05 AM
Option #2 for me.

I was hoping to buy a new Mac maybe at the end of this summer or Jan of next year (thinking powermac updates would be announced). But now I think I'll wait till some Intel Macs show up to buy. My Dual 1.25 G4 wind tunnel is plenty fast.

I wouldn't dual boot into Windows because I wouldn't want to give Windows access to my mac files. If I get some crazy windows virus that erases chunks of my hard drive, I don't want to lose some important Mac data. I'd rather use Virtual PC at much higher speeds because then it's restricted to it's little disk image and I still have access to my Mac files. Some people would say to just boot off a second drive into Windows, but then I would still need to mount my Mac drive to get access to those files (thereby opening the Mac drive up to viruses and malicious scripts). Virtual PC seems safer.

~ Mr.T

Nermal
Jun 9, 2005, 12:09 AM
Have a poll :)

Nuc
Jun 9, 2005, 12:31 AM
I definitely like the possibility of using both OS's. I've used an apple for the last 5 years however I've been limited in what I can do with VPC when it comes to engineering apps. So I'll most likely be using mac 95% of the time and windows 5% of the time for when I have to run engineering software.....

I was hesitant at first about the move to intel, but now that I've gotten over the shock it's a good thing.

Also I've got a question. SJ mentioned that apple built OS X independent of what chip it used, so therefore in the future if further PPC development takes off there is no reason that Apple could not use both chips even 10 years down the line. Since Xcode enables universal binaries then what would stop them from using both chips? I believe SJ is frustrated with the PPC chips for laptops so I believe this is the reason for going intel. So then the PPC could still be used in the Powermac while the intel could still be used in the laptops. However, I think intel has something up their sleeve that made SJ move to x86. Who knows what intel may pull out of there butt.

Nuc

iBunny
Jun 9, 2005, 12:45 AM
Hell yeah!

ANd I will run WIndows for sure too. SO I only have to have 1 computer. ANd I will probably Triple boot some custom version of linux too. w000t

I cant wait till my Powermac has a "intel inside" sticker on it.

OWNED

iRachel
Jun 9, 2005, 12:46 AM
I'm the first person to chose undecided - mostly because I've never had a mac before - my first one is currently "being processed" by apple. If I like it (which I'm fairly certain I will, as I've used friends' machines before), then I'll most definitly get another one in two years when it's time to replace my current desktop, regardless of what processer it has inside. If, for some reason, i decide I don't like it, then I'll get myself another dell (unlike many on these boards, I've had a dell for 5 years, and other than a few random visits from the blue screen of death, I've had no problems whatsoever with it).

GodBless
Jun 9, 2005, 12:53 AM
Have a poll :)

Thanks.

I misread Arn's poll. Ironically the way that I misread it was something worth thinking about too so I made a thread about it.

sushi
Jun 9, 2005, 01:18 AM
Will you buy a Mac AFTER they switch to Intel processors?:
I will buy my next Mac when I need a new computer.

I am not sure when that will be. However, I am concerned that I get the Mac experience. I am not concerned so much about the engine that the computer uses.

Although, as an early Apple adopter and developer, I would have rather not seen the switch to Intel just because I grew up in the Intel Outside days.

But Intel has produced good chips in the past and will continue in the future. Sure they've have some false starts such as the P4. But they also had some really cool chips in the early days.

Hopefully, in the next couple of years we will see why the change was made.

So in that light, when I need a new Mac, I will buy what Apple offers regardless if it is pre Intel or after Intel.

I am confident in Apple and the leadership of SJ. We will get through this and in a couple of years probably look back and wonder what the issue was concerning the switch.

Sushi

oldschool
Jun 9, 2005, 01:38 AM
Won't people be able to install a mac OS on say a gateway machine then?

After G
Jun 9, 2005, 01:45 AM
Sure, why not? My iBook should last until I need a new Mac, and if I don't like how Intel has changed the Mac experience, I should be able to run Windows on it ... though there's very little chance that I will. I like OS X a lot. Hopefully, developers like universal binaries.

GFLPraxis
Jun 9, 2005, 01:46 AM
Won't people be able to install a mac OS on say a gateway machine then?

No. They won't.

CmdrLaForge
Jun 9, 2005, 02:15 AM
Isn't Option 1 unsupported?

Yeah - but thats the same with every PC. :eek: :D ;)

I go for 1, because I have some Apps that just don't run on a Mac and maybe to play some games. But I will not install Longschrott. I still have a Win98SE and that will be it (if it works - kind of doubt it)

Cheers

Westside guy
Jun 9, 2005, 02:20 AM
Question: If someone did run Windows with an Intel-based Mac, could a (Windows) virus infect the whole computer?

Technically the answer is no; however...

If these new Macs use a partition table like the ones most x86 machines (Windows or Linux) have now, then the virus could corrupt the partition table and it'd be a bugger to get it back. It can be done though (I've had to do it).

For that matter even though Windows doesn't natively understand HFS+, it does see the partitions and so could be used to wipe them.

But if you're asking if a Windows virus could get to the data files on the Mac partition(s) and mess with them - the answer is no, unless you've got some utility installed that'd give read/write access to HFS+ partitions (i.e. MacDrive).

cube
Jun 9, 2005, 02:26 AM
Where's the option "5. I'll buy a PPC Mac off ebay"?

There's also the option. "6. No - RISC" missing.

And option "7. 5, then 6 or Java machine"

GodBless
Jun 9, 2005, 02:53 AM
I will definitely buy a mac if OS X doesn't run on anything else but a Mac.

If it runs on other PC hardware; why not build what I need?

I know and I read the macrumors.com home page which said "Apple, of course, is not offering Mac OS X for the PC, but instead offering Intel-based Macs" but who says Apple's game plan might change with Leopard?

If Apple wants to run OS X on most standard X86 hardware then they will need many built-in drivers for hardware in Leopard and make many other major and time consuming changes to the OS.

I hope they release a new file system soon without all the annoying invisible .DS_Store files. Maybe they will support NTFS as a standard or something or at least be easily compatible with it so it networks with Windows a lot easier.

They might even do these major changes with a future OS say 10.6 or 10.7 if they want to totally kill Longhorns "revolutionary" features with something twice as good for everything Longhorn has with Leopard. Apple's game plan could change a lot by the time I get another computer so who knows what will happen.

Apple said about a year ago that they had no plan to go with Intel processors. Now they say they have no plan to make OS X run on standard hardware. So why not consider the possibilities?

FadeToBlack
Jun 9, 2005, 03:06 AM
Option #2.

chasingapple
Jun 9, 2005, 03:21 AM
I cant wait until I have an iBook with a dual core Pentium-M in it with some real power. One thing I have missed switching over to Apple computers is the gaming I enjoyed for so many years on PC's. If the Intel switch means PC level gaming in OS X on my Mac then I am just overjoyed! If not then I will probably keep what Macs I have for regular stuff, and get a good Pentium-M based PC notebook with a good videocard to enjoy my gaming again, even if it means using Windows :(

BWhaler
Jun 9, 2005, 04:13 AM
I'd be happy with #1 or #2. It would be nice to have Windows running for those rare moments I need it. (And those moments are rare.)

The key is OSX. As long as I run OS X on state-of-the-art and beautiful and quiet hardware, I couldn't care less about the move to Intel.

And if I get Windows to boot, great. If not, no loss.

Bern
Jun 9, 2005, 04:26 AM
Eventually we will all have to buy a MacTel, however I just got my PowerBook and updated to Adobe CS2 so I won't be buying a new Mac in the next year.

On the other hand I certainly won't buy the first revision of a new MacTel, I'll wait until the bugs are worked out and get a Rev B or C.

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jun 9, 2005, 04:38 AM
Undecided.

I'm not committing to anything before I know what we're talking about. I want to know which architecture they're using, and I want to see more than a couple of developer kits running "in the wild" for a while ( :rolleyes: ).

So we're talking Rev. B iBook/PowerBook before I'm, even potentially, ready to buy anything...

risc
Jun 9, 2005, 04:39 AM
I can't wait for the new Macs, I love my PowerBook and I love my Power Mac but these new Intel boxes should just be amazing, it's a great time. Power Mac Dual Dual-Core Conroe 2.5 GHz (per core) - sounds bloody good to me!

shortyman
Jun 9, 2005, 05:16 AM
I will certainly be getting an Intel-based Mac. Although i was sceptical about the advantages of Apple making the move to Intel, know that it has sunk in, I am getting increasingly excited about it. And I will be due for an uppgrade by the time they are released. Brilliant!

Oh, i'm undecided whether to go with option 1 or 2. Will wait until the time to decide (and see if option 1 is actually possible)

:)

Platform
Jun 9, 2005, 05:23 AM
Option 1. :eek: :eek: Yup.

One computer with the best from both worlds :D :D

robbieduncan
Jun 9, 2005, 05:30 AM
I'll probably have my order in for a PowerBook the day that they are launched (MWSF 2006?). As a laptop is not likely to be a great gaming machine no need for dual boot to windows (and harddrive space tends to be precious on laptops)

BornAgainMac
Jun 9, 2005, 06:21 AM
All my Macs easily have over 2 years of life in them but when it is time to upgrade again then I will want one of those Pentium M Macs. Now I know why Intel calls it the Pentium "M".

I wonder what products Steve was thinking about with the roadmap of Intel processors. iBook Mini? Tablet Book? 20 inch Powerbook? Video iPod mini? Mainframe in your pocket?

zelmo
Jun 9, 2005, 06:49 AM
I picked #1, but #2 would serve even better as long as VPC runs smoothly enough for most Windows apps (aside from games). Two reasons - my wife needs a PC for a lot of the homeschool and EDU software she uses, and it's also prudent to raise our kids with a working knowledge of both platforms. Makes it easier to explain why Daddy hates Windows so much. ;)

It'd be nice to only need one box, and I'd rather use VPC than have to dual boot.

thequicksilver
Jun 9, 2005, 07:39 AM
Option 1.

An amazing thought - I can get a Mac notebook and dual boot between OS X and Windows. Keep OS X for pretty much everything, but mean I can sell my desktop PC, yet still have Windows for the odd occasion where I need it? I am sold.

MacTruck
Jun 9, 2005, 07:41 AM
Nope, only the first choice for me. That way if apple pulls more switching crap I can just say see ya and go back to windows but still be on the nice apple hardware.

aussie_geek
Jun 9, 2005, 08:11 AM
I voted option 1. The only thing I would use Windows for would be games. But on the other hand, the Playstation 3 will be out by then and there may not be any need for games on computers any more!!

Another reason would be so that I could show it off as being faster than a regular PC box. Apple making the new Mac's like this could be good. imagine a Mac that could open pretty much anything!!! ;)

aussie_geek

takao
Jun 9, 2005, 10:51 AM
i voted 1 because i like to game (i could save a screen)
on the other side having a second screen for icq/browsing/listening to music while playing is comfortable

on other side i just bought a mini so i'm save untill summer 2007 (still deciding about apple care next spring)
2,5 years are my estimated period where i'm happy with a computer (the mini wasn't a great performance increase over the amd athlon 2000 but it has superdrive ,wireless and bluetooth..things i really wanted)

next on the list is either a monster tower (insert grunting noises here) or a gaming laptop

wrldwzrd89
Jun 9, 2005, 10:58 AM
I have nothing to prove to myself by running Windows on my future Intel-based Mac. Therefore, I voted option 2.

Eidorian
Jun 9, 2005, 11:02 AM
I just got my iMac G5 last week and I love it. I'll be ready to buy aonther Mac in 3-4 years. I want to get the most out of this one. I just use it to listen to music, web browse, and type. I love the screen and HD space though. I'm not complaining about the switch since I'm happy with the software that's already preinstalled. I'll need to get Office though. That's already known to be well supported on the PPC for Office 12.

kgarner
Jun 9, 2005, 11:48 AM
I'll take the hybrid solution of #1 and #2. I intend to only use Mac OS X, but I hope that VMWare or VPC will be dramatically faster and i can run some few Windows programs (not sure what, but something) in a virtual system. Much more convenient than dual booting.

Flynnstone
Jun 9, 2005, 11:48 AM
OS X is OS X is OS X.
They could run it on a turbo charged 6502 if the performance is there.
With "C" and Unix, the processor is irrelevant. The performance is relevant though.

mac-er
Jun 9, 2005, 12:19 PM
These poll options make no sense.

There will only be two options:
1. Mac with Mac OS X
2. PC

Apple is not going to be selling a PC with Windows on it. (You could install it yourself, but you cannot buy it).

wordmunger
Jun 9, 2005, 12:23 PM
Option 3. I'll have to see what kind of DRM they're packaging into this thing before I decide. If Apple sticks to its relatively open, middle ground position, I'll stick with Apple. If they're not going to let me copy my own files, then I'll probably switch to linux.

dukeblue91
Jun 9, 2005, 12:25 PM
I'll go with option 2
I don't want that filth called Windows on my computer.

As far as the Intel Chips go, where is all that pentium crap coming from?
knowing SJ I would think he'll have some hybrid version coming from Intel.

Angelus
Jun 9, 2005, 12:36 PM
Definitely. The chip they use doesn't bother me since my main motive for being a mac user is Apple's design and OS X. I'm currently using a 667 tibook which i got in 2002 and i intend to get about another year and a half to 2years out of it. By that time we will hopefully have one or two rev B machines going around.

atszyman
Jun 9, 2005, 02:19 PM
I lean towards #1.

Too much of my work software only works on Windows/Linux so I'd have to have it for the occasions when I do work at home/on the road. However if Mentor Graphics, Altera, and/or Xilinx would port some of their tools to OS X I could probably eliminate Windows from my repertoire.

Currently I'm of the Apple Laptop/Windows Desktop frame of mind, since the opposite route leaves you with 2 machines with limited upgrade options since even Windows Laptops aren't that upgradeable. If VPC would be fast enough I'd probably suffer with that, but maybe someone will come up with a nifty application that would somehow let you boot both simultaneously and switch via some sort of fast user switching type interface that would put the unused OS to "sleep" and you could switch almost instantaneously (and be sure to have it default to the other OS when either crashes).

dubbz
Jun 9, 2005, 03:43 PM
#1

As long as dualbooting will be possible, I'll consider buying a Mac instead of building my own system.

FoxyKaye
Jun 9, 2005, 04:02 PM
The Dark Side of the Force is the path to many abilities, some considered to be...un-natural.

I'd be inclined to option 1, but only because it could be done. Goodness knows I can list on one hand the number of apps for which I actually need Windows.

[Edit]: Actually, as I've stated in other threads, I'd also be inclined to pick up a lightweight, ultra-fast laptop once Apple switches to Intel and the Rev. B models come out.

Silver Apple
Jun 9, 2005, 04:09 PM
I will get a Ibook or Powerbook M series (Pentium M) as soon as it's available (I'm betting January 2006)

I have personally built many (over 100) homebrew PCs in the past few years to friends and acquaintances and have "unoficially" presold at least 50 - 70 of them to get an Intel-based Mac as soon as its available!!! About half of them like the idea of a Pentium M Mac Mini or Imac, the other half are interested in the ibook or Pbook. The idea of virus free, spyware free, and stable operating system does it all the time.

Dam! I should be working for Apple!!! and a commission or something!


** I'm going on a limb and say that apple will get quite a few new customers because of this switch ... 10% -15% market share by 2010!!!! ***

P.S. There will be a 64bit Yonah Dual Core Pentium M next year!
I guarantee it!! And It will be on an Apple machine first!

Cheers! :) :) :) :)

cal6n
Jun 9, 2005, 05:34 PM
None of the above.

I doubt the Intel based macs will adequately run my VJ Apps. Quicktime 7 is bad enough. These apps are so optimised to QT 6 it'll take a while for the relatively small software outfits to sort them out let alone port them to x86.

I'll probably be buying the baddest PPC based powerbook and powermac I can before the transition and then relying on Sonnet or Powerlogic (and any "reverse rosetta" translators that will spring up) for as long as possible.

I expect I'll eventually have to ditch PPC but who knows what the future holds? I'd switch to a RISC based alternative in an instant if one was available. Maybe if I give up on the club-scene I'll even go back to Acorn/Castle and RISCOS.

One thing I won't do is run windows except in the most basic way, like I do now with an ancient stinkpad, and I won't use x86 unless very real improvements are made to it's implemenation.

If that makes me a sad old hippy-geek then so be it!

:mad:

Apple
Jun 9, 2005, 05:48 PM
I will probably buy the first revision of the first powerbook that comes out. OS X only.

MyLeftNut
Jun 9, 2005, 07:50 PM
Im so glad I purchased my Powerbook 17 last year (Rev C). Its been great except for a little accident I had dropping it on the floor :( . Anyway, Im so impressed with all the stuff in Tiger and all that, the hardware issue isnt one at all for me...I had always planned to purchase a new Mac 3-4 years from last year so by the time I get around to it there should be a Rev B or C PB available.

Really guys, nothing changes. Keep to your same plans. Look for value where it lies (Mac OS X) and Stevo will take care of you...world domination or not...

GodBless
Jun 9, 2005, 08:19 PM
...maybe someone will come up with a nifty application that would somehow let you boot both simultaneously and switch via some sort of fast user switching type interface that would put the unused OS to "sleep" and you could switch almost instantaneously (and be sure to have it default to the other OS when either crashes).
That sure would be cool. The only problem would be that there would need to be ram allocated for each OS because I think both OSes (or at the mac OS X) still uses the ram while it sleeps. It should work seamlessly though. If only all memory could be sent to virtual memory on the hard drive.

Maybe you could have a switch on the computer (or maybe even the keyboard) that made the computer switch from OS X to Windows or
vise versa that automatically puts one OS to sleep and then wakes up the other.

GodBless
Jun 10, 2005, 03:39 AM
I will probably buy the first revision of the first powerbook that comes out. OS X only.
Yes! Finally a fast(er) PowerBook!