Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Intel Based Mac' Rumor Roundup...
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I agree. If I hadn't bought my G5 last month and this news just came out, I'd simply wait it out a year.
I honestly don't mind this going Intel if that means my next Powerbook will be better/faster than the 1GHz PB I have now.
"A new power is rising!"
Man, the world will be different from now on... And I've just taking my seat in the eye of the tornado right now... I've always wanted a Apple computer and after a lot of years, I JUST ORDERED MY MAC MINI TODAY...
Here we go!
Man, the world will be different from now on... And I've just taking my seat in the eye of the tornado right now... I've always wanted a Apple computer and after a lot of years, I JUST ORDERED MY MAC MINI TODAY...
Here we go!
I think he means worthless because in a few years he won't be able to get any new software for his PPC mac unlike today where my 5 years old G4 at home still runs the latest OS and software.Porchland said:
ADDED: Investing in a new Mac now sure seems like a really bad idea.
Im pretty sure Apple will start to notice this in their sales real soon.
I really can't recommend friends to buy a Mac now with this news coming out and will probably not buy anything new to replace my old G4 either.
Porchland said:
Yeah, save that argument. Worthless means its worth less. Lets see how well these are selling on ebay after this announcement. I predict they won't sell as well at all.
Mac-Xpert said:
Shouldn't be the case. "Universal Binaries", the man said and his word's been good up to now (except for the 3 GHz thing!)
Well I hope your right! I also hope that this doesn't mean bloatware and poor performance on both the PPC and x86 mac.cal6n said:
Mac-Xpert said:
It won't translate into bloatware. The universal binariy will only compose about 10% of even the smaller applications. The binaries will share the package resources. At the size of today's hard drives, the extra heft will not matter at all.
Steven on CNBC
Intel based Mac in market place
IBM roadmap ok but future difficult with IBM
Intel better aligns with Apple roadmap.
Our products today are fine but future is issues.
No comment on roadmap
Takes 2 years for transition
Thats more or less it.
Intel based Mac in market place
IBM roadmap ok but future difficult with IBM
Intel better aligns with Apple roadmap.
Our products today are fine but future is issues.
No comment on roadmap
Takes 2 years for transition
Thats more or less it.
Saw Jobs on MSNBC. Whatever. Everything is a BIG secret with him. All that happens is we get blindsided by this crap.
The "3 GHz in a year" was based upon promises from IBM. Apple does not manufacture the chips. IBM failed. Apple bailed. I'd have loved to see IBM produce 3GHz+ chips for Apple, but they didn't. They are focusing on Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo game consoles. Apparently it's "screw the company that helped bring IBM back on the scene". Apple's 1-2 million chips are year are nothing compared to the 10s of millions of chips used by the gamers. IBM doesn't need Apple anymore. Apple was used to showcase what the PowerPC could do ... now IBM does not need them anymore. Just an opinion.cal6n said:
Well I going home now, feeling very sad, because I really have no faith in a x86 Mac future. I can only hope that Apple reconsiders if IBM starts delivering more powerful PPC. But I'm afraid that's not going to happen, and that we today witnessed the beginning of the end for the Mac platform as we know it and possibly Apple as well.
MacTruck said:
I'm a little surprised at the response -- not this this board is any sort of scientific survey of Mac users.
I would have expected the same people that bitch and moan day in and day out that Mac hasn't delivered a 3.0 PPC and hasn't put the G5 into the PowerBook to be GLAD Apple is looking further down the road.
Instead: More bitching and moaning.
Well, I'm sorry to see PowerPC effectively go, but the truth is, it may be superior architecturely, but it's just not living up to Apple's needs. Or the needs of it's consumers. Nobody panic. Apple would not make a descision this big without a *lot* of research.
Porchland said:
You better believe it. Let me bitch some more, you telling me we get slammed like this and no new product introductions at all? No ipod video or anything. Just as well. Nobody will buy any new macs anyway.
Porchland said:
I agree. Who's to say that Intel doesn't have something up their sleeve? They probably have to be quiet about stuff now instead of boasting about their upcoming processors (for Apple).
I like the G5. I just bought a dual machine last month. I don't expect support to dissipate for at least 3-4 more years. I expected that this machine would last me 5 years anyway. Besides, would you rather have a future with Intel or would you rather bitch about IBM's great 2.8GHz G5 next year.
And the G4.... don't get me started. It's great for my little 12" PB but it has no future in its current design. 1670 MHz running on a 167MHz bus? That is complete crap. I know, I know... what about Freescale? What about them? Their e600 and e700 info has been sitting around forever. They're the only chip company to make IBM look productive.
If Intel proves successful, you can be sure AMD won't be far behind.
Also, Steve will probably keep building for x86/PPC. This keeps the options open almost indefinitely, especially if the code tweaking turns out to be easier than expected.
