mdavey said:
SFF machines are impractical and expensive. Unlike the Mac crowd, most of the industry cares more about what a computer can do than what it look like.
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 Developing Next PowerMac for Apple?
- Thread starter hyperpasta
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
SFF machines are impractical and expensive. Unlike the Mac crowd, most of the industry cares more about what a computer can do than what it look like.
We've been through this before, and I still have no idea why you don't get it .... 
Why is it important where the damn motherboard comes from??!
I believe that this is correct. Intel chips apprently have a higher unit costs than PPCs, so if folk think that Macs are going to suddenly become as cheap as PCs, then I think they're in for a rude surprise come next year. Apple will try its damn hardest to maintain its above average margins on each unit sold. They may even hike the price initially to make a bit off the early adopters.
Yes, and they've made such a HUGE dent in the market selling proprietary machines haven't they?
Now who better to design a motherboard for an Intel chip, than Intel themselves? Apple? I don't think so. One of the other reasons that Macs have lagged behind Windows boxes in terms of performance, is that Apple's motherboards aren't that much.
Apple is pretty much a form factor design house and not much else; farming out the motherboard to Intel is not a surprise, or a bad decision.
Yeah, but as Jobs may have realised, no-one will buy a Mac at all, unless they can run run their existing Windows apps on it. So which is the lesser of the two evils?
The only real advantage that the Mac has, is the OS (and even that is a matter of opinion). without IBM's support, the hardware battle has already been lost. Apple is now preparing the Mac community for the day when MacOSX will run on any Intel machine.
The UI
QuickTime
Cocoa
A framework to connect to Apple's future iPod type devices
What runs underneath it is not really that important any more. If Jobs continues with the NeXTStep/OpenStep plan, then a few years down the line, the MacOSX may be a shell running on top of MS Vista, as well/instead of Unix.
Indeed. And once the sale is made, what folk do with it is their business really.
Why is it important where the damn motherboard comes from??!
shamino said:
I believe that this is correct. Intel chips apprently have a higher unit costs than PPCs, so if folk think that Macs are going to suddenly become as cheap as PCs, then I think they're in for a rude surprise come next year. Apple will try its damn hardest to maintain its above average margins on each unit sold. They may even hike the price initially to make a bit off the early adopters.
shamino said:
Yes, and they've made such a HUGE dent in the market selling proprietary machines haven't they?
Now who better to design a motherboard for an Intel chip, than Intel themselves? Apple? I don't think so. One of the other reasons that Macs have lagged behind Windows boxes in terms of performance, is that Apple's motherboards aren't that much.
Apple is pretty much a form factor design house and not much else; farming out the motherboard to Intel is not a surprise, or a bad decision.
shamino said:
Yeah, but as Jobs may have realised, no-one will buy a Mac at all, unless they can run run their existing Windows apps on it. So which is the lesser of the two evils?
The only real advantage that the Mac has, is the OS (and even that is a matter of opinion). without IBM's support, the hardware battle has already been lost. Apple is now preparing the Mac community for the day when MacOSX will run on any Intel machine.
The UI
QuickTime
Cocoa
A framework to connect to Apple's future iPod type devices
What runs underneath it is not really that important any more. If Jobs continues with the NeXTStep/OpenStep plan, then a few years down the line, the MacOSX may be a shell running on top of MS Vista, as well/instead of Unix.
gnasher729 said:
Indeed. And once the sale is made, what folk do with it is their business really.
uwatec has a Mac app
Software requirements:
Supported dive computers:
(Scubapro-Uwatec makes the Aladin)
http://us.uwatec.com/software/software_jtrak.aspScubaDuc said:How true...my dive computer syncs only via COM port on Windows....Bleah
Anybody knows of a Mac-Friendly NOX dive computer that can handle at least 2 NOX concentrations? I need to change my Aladin
Software requirements:
Operating system: Mac OS X Version 10.2 or higher
Supported dive computers:
Smart Pro, Smart Com, Smart Tec, Smart Z, Aladin Prime and Aladin Tec
(Scubapro-Uwatec makes the Aladin)
Well I didn't want to hijack this thread, but since you're calling me out... when considering the "best motherboards on earth" you have to take into account more things then stability alone. Asus comes to mind as one of the best companies to ever make motherboards. So does Abit, Gigabyte, and DFI. Intel might be in the top 5, but they sure aren't number one. They have stability, but lack in features. These other companies I mentioned all have stability as well as extra features. Asus in particular is probably the best mobo company.wnurse said:
rhashem said:
A vast majority of PCs are cheapos. You get the same hardware features in mid-level PCs and macs. And the prices are essentially the same.
People! People! People!
As I've put in other threads, you're all either getting really mad, or really happy, about a RUMOR from the WORST of all rumor sites by track record, AppleInsider. They haven't been right on any acceptable level since 1999, and mind you you're reading a web site that itself is called MacRumors.
Point being doin't get worked up about any of this as considering the source it's in all likelihood incredibly untrue and exquisite crap!
As I've put in other threads, you're all either getting really mad, or really happy, about a RUMOR from the WORST of all rumor sites by track record, AppleInsider. They haven't been right on any acceptable level since 1999, and mind you you're reading a web site that itself is called MacRumors.
Point being doin't get worked up about any of this as considering the source it's in all likelihood incredibly untrue and exquisite crap!
rayz said:
Ummm, yeah buddy, nobody wants to buy a Mac is why they're actually back up in market share in various polls based on business/consumer models to 5% or even 7% or in Japan where they actually know and give a s*** about computers as the best tool for a job (i.e. NOT a peecee) 30%.
Try again pal, this time with some semblance of what would resemble a clue.
topgunn said:
Oh yea, well I purchased a Gateway desktop (without monitor) with a serial 160 GB drive (just like the Powermacs), 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4 HT, 512MB Ram for $450 brand new including keyboard and mouse and taxes (no shipping). Dell is more expensive. My Powermac spanks it but still it wasn't too expensive.
No way that you get the same hardware for a similar price. You always pay more for a Mac then an equlievent PC. That goes without exception, and it will be proven beyond a doubt once the switch to intel is complete. We will see Macs with the exact same hardware and processors as PCs, except the Macs will be sold at a higher margin. Nothing wrong with that, since Apple is selling a brand name, and I think that the seemless integration between hardware and software is worth the extra money.Passante said:
Randall said:
I disagree. You usually pay more, but not always and not always a lot more.
For instance, perhaps you can point me to a 64bit quad processor PC or workstation with 250GB SATA HDD, DVD burner, PCI-Express, Firewire 800, GeForce 6600 with 256MB cache (or equivilent) graphics card and dual Gigabit Ethernet for under $3300 from one of the other top-ten computer companies?
I don't even think that system exists yet, but if it did, I can guarantee you that it would be cheaper to get the PC. Like I said, it will be easier to compare once the switch to intel is made. Until then, we're still apples and oranges, no pun intended.mdavey said:
Hopefully Intel will design the internals all high tech with green LEDsx900 and blue LEDs on the fans and a lava lamp with laserz powerz, and then Apple can design the case translucent!
OMG!!!
No.
Well, I guess this is nothing amazingly special, then. But I hope "internal" means: as internal as can get!
OMG!!!
No.
Well, I guess this is nothing amazingly special, then. But I hope "internal" means: as internal as can get!
Meh, natural progression. There have been more and more off-the-shelf components in Macs over time, and the one big area Apple continued to do in house -- the system controllers -- was really something they kind of had to do because there were no other mainstream PowerPC desktop vendors.
Really, apart from some kind of odd sentimentality, what would be the advantage to Apple or users in not using commodity components wherever possible? What would a Mac be able to do with custom chips that it couldn't do as well with what's on the open market? It all made a difference 20 years ago when there weren't standard parts to do all that stuff, but things are different now.
Really, apart from some kind of odd sentimentality, what would be the advantage to Apple or users in not using commodity components wherever possible? What would a Mac be able to do with custom chips that it couldn't do as well with what's on the open market? It all made a difference 20 years ago when there weren't standard parts to do all that stuff, but things are different now.
Randall said:
Someone else disagreed. I don't disagree, I call it ********.
Take the Mac Mini: Equivalent PCs are bigger, use more power, make more noise,are ugly, and cost _considerably_ more. They cost so much more that their sales will drop to absolute zero once a MacMini with Intel processor capable of running Windows XP ships.
Take the iMac: You can't get any equivalent PC, not for any amount of money that you might be willing to pay!
Price comparisons with Dell have proved time and time again that Apple beats Dell on price when you compare _equivalent_ PCs and not their loss-leader advertisements - which usually means delving deep into Dell's website and adding a dozen items that come for free with the Macintosh. Even then you don't get the same quality, you don't get the same years of working computer, and you will get no resale value at all with the Dell.
heh. let's see what happens when the hardware goes x86, that way we can do a real head-to-head comparison. you will be dissappointed I guarantee it.gnasher729 said:
I have a feeling this will be remembered by quite a few of us here. For any of us to guarantee what we think will happen concerning anything Apple is just silly. Apple has been using standard parts for quite awhile. Haven't seen any lowering of the bar yet. Don't see why this will suddenly change.Randall said:
But you are guaranteeing it, so we will all witness your confidence soon.
gnasher729 said:
Agreed - The administrator where I work insists on buying those $400 Dells with everything. he doesnt understand how inferior those are to the minis (most of them come with 256mb of SHARED memory, large tower, high power consumption, and ususally within a year or two, we are replacing them because they have crashed so much).
To compare apples to pcs is apples to oranges. If you want a bargain computer, easy to upgrade, fix, and add onto, highly unstable, slow, bad or no support - get a cheapo pc (i have one!). but if you wnat something that is fast, quiet, difficult-to-upgrade, great support machine, buy a mac. I enjoy working in both worlds - but the pc requires annual upgrades to keep it running (no just up to date).
gnasher729 said:
exactly, computers are becoming widespread and prices are down; why do people choose an iPod over another mp3 player with higher quality specs ( check audiophiles forums ) ?
LOOKS and HYPE ( ok, now the iMTS too )
i think computers ( especially laptops ) are going to take the very same road in 2006; you do not want to look ugly because you have a non HYPE or plastic laptop. You do not want to be depressed or give up the extra thrill to boost your creativity when you work on a beautiful machine.
BEAUTY IS EVERYTHING, whether it be good work well done, good marketing well done, belonging to the community ( being hype ) and feeling loved ( beautiful ), inspiration, achievement...
When i put my money where these words are, gratification is the reward ALWAYS.
...obviously, none of the above would matter if we where talking about machines that cannot get the work done, but Apples work migthty good, and any PC in the same category ( choose iMacs, Mac Minis... ) gives roughly the same performance nowadays. Windows on Mac will add even more compatibility for those apps still running on XP only, and people will have computers EASY TO WORK WITH ( general population sales = market share = money ) thanks to OSX.
rayz said:
Uh, yes, they have. They're one of the top few computer makers in the world.
Nobody runs Windows on their Macs now (except maybe, slowly, with VirtualPC), and they sell millions of them. Don't count on Intel Macs booting into Windows...if they use EFI for the firmware, goodbye to XP and everything earlier (unless you use VirtualPC, which will at least be faster, but still won't have hardware acceleration).
--Eric
Kris Kelvin said:
That is wierd. We used tyan boards since years, PIII, Xeon and now Opteron based, never had a problem due to design of the boards. Performance is indeed not on pair with newest "consumer" boards but this is nothing new, those boards are buld for stability, not speed. So is btw performance of intel build server / workstation boards.
We also used many intel server platforms barebones and phased those out slowly in favor of Tyan K8SD based opteron boxes due to very high power consumption and foremost: terrible DB server performance in SMP setup.
Now I do not claim Intel is bad manufacturer I was just answering on question what are examples of several mobo companies who are the "best mobo on earth?".
Object-X said:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-drivers/2005/Jun/msg00020.html
Booga said:
Released after the Apple/Intel partnership was formed. Coincidence?
Seems like a wash to me. You got a faster CPU, bigger hard drive and more memory and I got a nice 17" flat panel. I wasn't saying that Gateway wasn't good and inexpensive. I have bought far more Gateway machines at work than Dell's including the 17" 2.13GHz P-M (1GB RAM, 40GB HD, blah blah) laptop I am typing this on (only $1199).BornAgainMac said:
Dells, like cars, are more expensive if you pay sticker price. And what do you call someone who pays sticker price? A sucker. With online coupons, Dells prices will compete with anybody out there. Nice thing about Gateway, you don't need the coupons.
Peace said:Well it's starting to look like Intel and Apple are really confusing the public leading up to MWSF
Because they've both said so much about the new machines? Huh?
heisetax said:
What makes you think Apple isn't specifying the design of the motherboards? Intel guys can do the VLSI and make it work well.
Think of it like a building - Apple is the Architect, Intel is the General Contractor. The GC is capable of building any building you tell him to build, and if it's a good GC, really well, without any leaky roofs or cracked ceilings.
Intel is Tommy Silva. Apple is Santiago Calatrava. I'm buying.
ClimbingTheLog said:
Nope.
Because I believe both companies are putting out false and misleading "inside info" to certain people..
Pretty simple actually..
And speaking of inside info.I hadn't noticed anyone talking about the bottom part of that appleinsider article :
"An analyst told Apple Insider of indications that the two companies may be developing a custom processor that will be made available only to Apple systems."
RBR2 said:
Eh? I've used FW CD-R, hard drives, and video cameras on the B&W without issue. Ditto any number of 3rd-party IDE drives. There was a 128GB limit though.
Until Panther. Then everything went flakey with Firewire. Booting back to Jaguar was fine.
The same stack of gear worked great on a new iBook with the same version of Panther. So if the Firewire PHY was out of spec then the Jaguar engineers knew how to program around it. I'll bet you a donut one of the lead OSX Firewire engineers was eliminated or just hired away with the Zayante acquisition. Or he got a real bad crack habit. I still have gear that works in Jaguar and not in 10.3.9 (prolific chipsets especially).