Intel switch. 4 years later.

[bkap16]

At least it had the instruction set. Guess memory sizes were probably too small for 64 bit code.

I don't know if it is very common to have an universal binary with both 32bit and 64 bit. As well as ppc and intel.

Nope. I was wondering about that myself. If you want to see what something is, open up a terminal and run the command "file <whatever>". So, for instance:

$ file /mach_kernel
/mach_kernel: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/mach_kernel (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386
/mach_kernel (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc

There are a few things that with all 4 architectures, but there aren't many of them.

$ file /Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode
/Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode: Mach-O universal binary with 4 architectures
/Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode (for architecture ppc7400): Mach-O executable ppc
/Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode (for architecture ppc64)Mach-O 64-bit executable ppc64
/Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode (for architecture i386):Mach-O executable i386
/Developer/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/MacOS/Xcode (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64

 

[Hrududu]

The PowerPC days are over.... Give it up... x86 has won and frankly it's the less expensive and better solution for us consumers.

Please explain how the x86 has made things less expensive for the consumer?? If anything, Intel Macs are MORE expensive than the PPC Mac were. This comment makes no sense.

G4 Mac Mini: $499 Intel Mini: $599
Powermac G5: $1999 Mac Pro: $2499

and all others are the same, minus the recent price cut in iMac.

 

[snouter]

Please explain how the x86 has made things less expensive for the consumer?? If anything, Intel Macs are MORE expensive than the PPC Mac were. This comment makes no sense.

G4 Mac Mini: $499 Intel Mini: $599
Powermac G5: $1999 Mac Pro: $2499

I have not noticed any real difference in the prices. There were expensive G5 PowerMacs too. Regardless...

The Intel Mini started out as a Core Solo but permanently went Duo soon thereafter.

Intel is delivering regular upgrades even though clock speeds have more or less stalled around 3GHz. G5 never hit 3GHz which Jobs promised in a mad fit to light a fire under PPC.

Intel def saved the laptop lineup.

I liked PPC, I bought into the whole vector thing, RISC thing, etc, but I'm not about to get all sentimental about it. When Pentium 4 was the suck, I was buying Athlon 64 X2. Now I buy Intel again. If AMD returns to competition on anything other than price, I would consider them again.

There are almost no negatives with the Intel switch that I can really think of. Well, maybe the adoption of GMA950 and stuff like that which they did not have to do, but did anyway...

 

[Feng Shui]

Please explain how the x86 has made things less expensive for the consumer?? If anything, Intel Macs are MORE expensive than the PPC Mac were. This comment makes no sense.

G4 Mac Mini: $499 Intel Mini: $599
Powermac G5: $1999 Mac Pro: $2499

and all others are the same, minus the recent price cut in iMac.

Inflation and weak dollar are two obvious reasons. You sure the price of fuel and materials never change?

 

[SkyBell]

I'm just a little worried now that pretty much everything runs on x86 these days. There are still uses for PPC and other architectures, obviously. But it seems the consumer market is pretty much all x86. It's never good to have just one option, IMO... whether it be PPC, or something else, there needs to be a mainstream alternative to x86. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Hrududu]

I have not noticed any real difference in the prices. There were expensive G5 PowerMacs too. Regardless...

The Intel Mini started out as a Core Solo but permanently went Duo soon thereafter.

Intel is delivering regular upgrades even though clock speeds have more or less stalled around 3GHz. G5 never hit 3GHz which Jobs promised in a mad fit to light a fire under PPC.

Intel def saved the laptop lineup.

I liked PPC, I bought into the whole vector thing, RISC thing, etc, but I'm not about to get all sentimental about it. When Pentium 4 was the suck, I was buying Athlon 64 X2. Now I buy Intel again. If AMD returns to competition on anything other than price, I would consider them again.

There are almost no negatives with the Intel switch that I can really think of. Well, maybe the adoption of GMA950 and stuff like that which they did not have to do, but did anyway...

I'm just looking at the base model prices of current systems and the last PPC systems. To me, the price of the Intel Macs is more, and it just doesn't seem right.

 

[sporadicMotion]

I'm just a little worried now that pretty much everything runs on x86 these days. There are still uses for PPC and other architectures, obviously. But it seems the consumer market is pretty much all x86. It's never good to have just one option, IMO... whether it be PPC, or something else, there needs to be a mainstream alternative to x86. Again, just my opinion.

There really is nothing to worry about... processors are just moving into niches. PPC derivatives have found their way into gaming consoles. Keeping the majority of home computers on the same architecture is good for the consumer for compatibility reasons. As far as work goes, I'm SOOO glad Apple ditched PPC. I vastly prefer being able to run both OS' I need from one machine. Choice is good... it's called OS X, Windows and Linux... or Intel and AMD.

 

[macuserx86]

I'm just a little worried now that pretty much everything runs on x86 these days. There are still uses for PPC and other architectures, obviously. But it seems the consumer market is pretty much all x86. It's never good to have just one option, IMO... whether it be PPC, or something else, there needs to be a mainstream alternative to x86. Again, just my opinion.

I'm curious as to why you like PPC? This isn't meant to be mean or flame-war educing, I'm just curios. Is it nostalgia? Do you actually belive that PPC is better?

I know personally, PPC (especially the G5) will always hold a special place in my heart because it was awesome and defined Macs... at the time. That said, I always hated having to explain why Mac hardware was so rubbish and only updated every other planetary alignment.

 

[chrono1081]

it was the best thing apple did, imo. i think apple's lineup is more popular now then before.

would i have purchased a macbook w/o bootcamp? no.

+1 I was really unsure because of all the "rumors" I heard about macs but I figured since it has boot camp I can fall back on that....


....1 year later after buying my mac I always forget bootcamp is on there. I rarely need anything from the windows side.

 

[Bennieboy©]

Powerpc romps!!, lol

anyways, i think it's cos powerpc's were singular, they had a niche, you found them in cutting edge apple macs, not in games consoles, or much else,

intel's are common place, almost like what microsoft is to the software world,
i vaguely remember hearing a rumour for the new intel based mac's with someone at apple saying they wanted macs to be more like Pc's, i think thats where they started going too mainstream, macs will never be pc, and just as pc's aint trying to be mac, i think mac should stay with what it knows, yeah macs can be daunting sometimes, yeah theyre not as popular as windows based Pc's but what the heck, it shouldnt make much difference,

as for processor speeds, hasnt it been proven more then once that macs at a certain clock speed, absolutely smash similarly specced pc's
everything works for mac without the problems that windows based pc's seem to suffer,
i grew up using a pc, used pc's thru school and college, i've only had a mac for just about 6 months, yeah im on my second one already lol but im not going back to pc anytime soon,
i think apples should stay the way they were, remember what made them great and brilliant, and stop reaching soo much, thats why PPC is great, yeah intel might be a smidge faster, but pfft, unless ya a hardcore gamer or gfx designer, ya dont really need it do ya,

 

[SkyBell]

I'm curious as to why you like PPC? This isn't meant to be mean or flame-war educing, I'm just curios. Is it nostalgia? Do you actually belive that PPC is better?

I know personally, PPC (especially the G5) will always hold a special place in my heart because it was awesome and defined Macs... at the time. That said, I always hated having to explain why Mac hardware was so rubbish and only updated every other planetary alignment.

Part nostalgia, I suppose. I used iMac G3's a lot when I was in elementary school, bought one of my own soon after. But there was something about owning a computer that was pretty much the only one that wasn't a "Wintel" box and had half decent support.

These days, I understand that the PPC chip isn't for consumers anymore. (I think IBM could have made a little more effort in developing at the consumer level, but there's still uses for it.) But I just can't get rid of the feeling that everyone is getting way too dependent on Intel/x86 in general. Setting aside the architecture for a moment, I have to notice that Intel nearly has a monopoly in the consumer processor market, aside from AMD. (who aren't exactly at the top of their game anymore.) If AMD can't catch up, all we'll have is Intel. One source for a widely used item is never a good thing, and competition helps keep the quality in check.

Again, there needs to be a mainstream alternative to x86. What it is doesn't matter to me, honestly. There just needs to be a choice. Maybe I'd actually buy a new Mac if we had one, these old machines are getting a little long in the tooth.

 

[sushi]

I'm just a little worried now that pretty much everything runs on x86 these days. There are still uses for PPC and other architectures, obviously. But it seems the consumer market is pretty much all x86. It's never good to have just one option, IMO... whether it be PPC, or something else, there needs to be a mainstream alternative to x86. Again, just my opinion.

Agree. Variety is good.

The PPC platform had some nice characteristics. Unfortunately, IBM was slow to update the chip.

AMD used to provide some great competition for Intel. Not the same today.

Hopefully Intel keeps cranking out new and more powerful processors.

 

[iSee]

I'm curious as to why you like PPC? This isn't meant to be mean or flame-war educing, I'm just curios. Is it nostalgia? Do you actually belive that PPC is better?

I know personally, PPC (especially the G5) will always hold a special place in my heart because it was awesome and defined Macs... at the time. That said, I always hated having to explain why Mac hardware was so rubbish and only updated every other planetary alignment.

I think that post is more concerned about the problems that might result from an x86 monopoly rather than an endorsement of PPC.

Anyway, to answer the original question: The switch to Intel didn't cause me to switch to Macs, but it did cause me to switch all the way over. Before the switch I had an iBook which I had gotten for a software development project. I loved it. So rather than sell it once the project was over, I decided to keep it. But I really only used it like a netbook. I needed a Windows machine for most of my software development work.

The intel switch was great timing for me. I was shopping around for a new development machine. I *wanted* a Mac, but I needed a Windows machine -- specifically, I was looking for a powerful laptop. Then MBP came out! I ordered mine the very day that guy won the contest to get a MBP to boot to Windows (I had donated $20 to the purse).

Agree. Variety is good.

The PPC platform had some nice characteristics. Unfortunately, IBM was slow to update the chip.

AMD used to provide some great competition for Intel. Not the same today.

Hopefully Intel keeps cranking out new and more powerful processors.

I think as long as AMD doesn't go completely out of business or as long as the PPC hangs around in some form (they're doing great in consoles), the I think we don't have to worry too much.

If Intel stumbles again (and let's face it, they probably will), at least one of those guys will be there to pick up the slack. Well, that's what I hope anyway.

I'll bet that if AMD hadn't been eating Intel's lunch, we'd still be stuck with P4-derived processors -- they'd run at 6GHz, but would be less powerful that Core processors, require liquid cooling and have only one core.

 

[sushi]

I'll bet that if AMD hadn't been eating Intel's lunch, we'd still be stuck with P4-derived processors -- they'd run at 6GHz, but would be less powerful that Core processors, require liquid cooling and have only one core.

Yep, competition is good and keeps all parties on their toes.

Without competition, the edge seems to disappear or decrease considerably.

 

[Full of Win]

Please explain how the x86 has made things less expensive for the consumer?? If anything, Intel Macs are MORE expensive than the PPC Mac were. This comment makes no sense.

G4 Mac Mini: $499 Intel Mini: $599
Powermac G5: $1999 Mac Pro: $2499

and all others are the same, minus the recent price cut in iMac.

We do not know the cost that Apple was facing in licensing a newer version of the PowerPC architecture. It might make the prices you quoted look like a bargain.

 

[Dr.Pants]

Intel def saved the laptop lineup.

I agree . The G5 processor was just too hot to efficiently cool in a laptop and have an FSB that would make it responsive.

Better yet, have a Mac Pro and a Power Mac G6

Running a dual codebase is tiring/hard. However, I am sure the G7 processors would stomp Intel (my opinion, I have *not* seen benchmarks yet, I may eat my words). However, the way the MacPro is going, it would be really nice to have a Mac-only machine that Apple spent some love on instead of getting its x86 derivatives from the lowest bidder. How come?

1 year later after buying my mac I always forget bootcamp is on there. I rarely need anything from the windows side.

I am not for switching the whole line back to PPC chips. In fact, dropping PPC in the iMac, Mini, and laptop lines was probably the best thing Apple could do to increase their quality control and maintain relevance. However, the more Apple goes along with Intel-only, the more focused it has become on maintaining proprietary control rather then workstation quality on the Pro line. Look no farther then soldiered SATA ports and the MDP. Now, to really do work, the end user has to update their graphics card to the nVidia (not out yet) and to bypass the Apple RAID card for their own card, the end user must make an entirely new HDD tray.

I hate to say it, but the MacPro looks like it is becoming more "desktop" then "workstation" with its latest release. Of course, its powerful, it bows my G5 out of the water. In fact, if money had not been a problem, I would be posting from a MacPro rather then my G5.

The thing is, if Apple had a PPC chip in a workstation offering, Apple would get their workstation right. Everyone who wanted to run Windows could do that, everyone who didn't need Windows for their work could then use the other machine. Of course, this is in a perfect world, where Apple happens to give a hoot about the legacy hardware owners instead of a random business executive who de-listx Apple as an important customer.

I guess I have a case of justifying my own hardware For the record, just because I think the '09 MP is a toy doesn't mean I wouldn't buy it for the appropriate price.

 

[macuserx86]

Part nostalgia, I suppose. I used iMac G3's a lot when I was in elementary school, bought one of my own soon after. But there was something about owning a computer that was pretty much the only one that wasn't a "Wintel" box and had half decent support.

These days, I understand that the PPC chip isn't for consumers anymore. (I think IBM could have made a little more effort in developing at the consumer level, but there's still uses for it.) But I just can't get rid of the feeling that everyone is getting way too dependent on Intel/x86 in general. Setting aside the architecture for a moment, I have to notice that Intel nearly has a monopoly in the consumer processor market, aside from AMD. (who aren't exactly at the top of their game anymore.) If AMD can't catch up, all we'll have is Intel. One source for a widely used item is never a good thing, and competition helps keep the quality in check.

Again, there needs to be a mainstream alternative to x86. What it is doesn't matter to me, honestly. There just needs to be a choice. Maybe I'd actually buy a new Mac if we had one, these old machines are getting a little long in the tooth.

Perfectly understandable. I agree, Intel could do with some serious competition, and AMD cannot provide it right now. That said, Intel is still being very aggressive in keeping their lead; it seems like they want to be a monopoly so much, that they're giving us brilliant products by mistake!

 

[grue]

The thing is, if Apple had a PPC chip in a workstation offering, Apple would get their workstation right. Everyone who wanted to run Windows could do that, everyone who didn't need Windows for their work could then use the other machine. Of course, this is in a perfect world, where Apple happens to give a hoot about the legacy hardware owners instead of a random business executive who de-listx Apple as an important customer.

…and all the developers would say "oh screw this" and pick one platform to develop for.

Hint: It'd probably be the Intel.

 

[Dr.Pants]

…and all the developers would say "oh screw this" and pick one platform to develop for.

I take it you missed my "perfect world" remark.

However, I forgot it is not just how an application interacts with the OS. And just to prove your point, let's look at AVCHD; Intel-only conversion to ProRes. In the meantime, I will probably be working with older applications that get the job done. FCS3 for SL may cause the *gasms, but FCS2 is probably adequate. Only thing I am missing out on is Shake (since the successor is supposedly going to be announced, but its about time)

 

[grue]

I take it you missed my "perfect world" remark.

However, I forgot it is not just how an application interacts with the OS. And just to prove your point, let's look at AVCHD; Intel-only conversion to ProRes. In the meantime, I will probably be working with older applications that get the job done. FCS3 for SL may cause the *gasms, but FCS2 is probably adequate. Only thing I am missing out on is Shake (since the successor is supposedly going to be announced, but its about time)

Still waiting for BRD authoring If FCS3 doesn't bring that, I'm going to snap and we'll probably buy a PC for the studio to do blu ray work on. I will then fedex one kilogram of elephant crap to Steve Jobs.

 

[Dr.Pants]

Still waiting for BRD authoring If FCS3 doesn't bring that, I'm going to snap and we'll probably buy a PC for the studio to do blu ray work on. I will then fedex one kilogram of elephant crap to Steve Jobs.

I know the feeling. If Jobs got off his "thin electronics" fetish, the world may be a better place. I guess it all goes back to licensing costs... Apple Financial Analysts believe (or are forced to believe) that Blue-Ray would cost the company something, since BR needs licensing, HDCP I assume would need licensing...

I am not one to get angry, but if the MacPro lineup continues going the way it seems to be going, I will not be amused. If Apple doesn't get rid of the soldiered SATA ports, I would be happy to pay priority shipping on the package, Grue.

 

[grue]

I know the feeling. If Jobs got off his "thin electronics" fetish, the world may be a better place. I guess it all goes back to licensing costs... Apple Financial Analysts believe (or are forced to believe) that Blue-Ray would cost the company something, since BR needs licensing, HDCP I assume would need licensing...

I am not one to get angry, but if the MacPro lineup continues going the way it seems to be going, I will not be amused. If Apple doesn't get rid of the soldiered SATA ports, I would be happy to pay priority shipping on the package, Grue.

I'll pay the damned licensing fee. Make it a $200 option per machine in addition to hardware, I don't give two craps. I need it for work.

I suppose if I was one of those jackasses who buys every new Apple product just to show off how cool and trendy I am, they'd care abotu my opinion. But alas, I'm just one of the people who kept them in business in the 90s when they were overpriced and underpowered.

 

[ziggyonice]

I'm pretty new to macs as far as owning them, but I have used PPC macs and they were horrible. Not talking about speed, but stability. The macs in my elementary and high schools used to freeze and/or crash all the time (several times per class!).

This was not so much a processor issue as it was an OS issue. You and I are from the Y-generation -- we were young when we were first introduced to Macs (during the early to mid 90s), which was basically the worst time to use a Mac.

It is because of that time that there are people from our generation that say they "hate" Macs. It is because our generation experienced those freezing and crashing issues that there are Mac vs. PC arguments all the time. If only the Macs of the mid 90s were as stable as Mac OS X is now... imagine what would have been different.

And that's why, if you look at kids who are younger than you and I, they love Macs. Macs are really, really popular with the younger generation -- because they've grown up seeing Mac OS X. They've found it works great, while Windows doesn't. It's because of this that the exact opposite effect is occurring in the computer technology world. Which is why I'm excited to see what is on the horizon in the years ahead for Apple.

 

[Dr.Pants]

I'll pay the damned licensing fee. Make it a $200 option per machine, I don't give two craps. I need it for work.

I suppose if I was one of those jackasses who buys every new Apple product just to show off how cool and trendy I am, they'd care abotu my opinion. But alas, I'm just one of the people who kept them in business in the 90s when they were overpriced and underpowered.

Some people would be inclined to agree with your historical point at the present time - I am tempted to say myself included, considering the gouge on the current Nehalem Quad line. I know, I'm talking like a PC person, but shraiza, that's too much even if one bought all the components themselves and the MacPro case. For the best power/money, a person really has to buy the highest end. I like excuses

Even then, for my needs the Dell Precision I have does the job fine, minus one #*(@ing big point - it doesn't run Final Cut. Running the audio setup on shoots is fine, I guess... (Note; Balanced audio)

Blue-ray media is something I do not particularly care about; however, Apple's lack of it makes them look supercilious in a time when competing companies will do anything to gain leverage over their competitors. In the case of apple's NLE, the lack is driving users to Windows-based platforms for solutions (in Grue's case), which obviously doesn't bode well for the company as a whole.

So, back on topic, four years later, the amount of complaining is still around, just this time it is less about hardware specs but more how Apple uses it.

You and I are from the Y-generation -- we were young when we were first introduced to Macs (during the mid 90s), which was basically the worst time to use a Mac.

I remember all the kids in 2nd-grade computer lab almost brawling over who got to use the Dell Optiplexes, myself included, then the beige-box Apples (specific model not-rememberable). I probably would have the same opinion if I had never experienced OS 10.4 in my A/V class.

Furthermore, my brother being a PC builder (and a decade older then I) also has a hatred of Macs unfathomable. I keep him away from my equipment. He also belongs to a group of people who think that AMD will always be the best because of the time when they were ahead in processing power, nevermind today's benchmarks

 

[ziggyonice]

I remember all the kids in 2nd-grade computer lab almost brawling over who got to use the Dell Optiplexes, myself included, then the beige-box Apples (specific model not-rememberable). I probably would have the same opinion if I had never experienced OS 10.4 in my A/V class.

Exactly. The days of classrooms full of Performa 550s and Mac LCs pretty much ran the Macintosh brand into the ground. The iMac definitely helped recover much of this image, but it still ran Mac OS 8 -- and that was a problem.

If it weren't for the stability of OS X, who knows if Apple would have made it this far. Thankfully, the younger folks are now growing up with Macs as being the "good computers" and the PCs as "bad computers". Quite the opposite from 10 or 15 years ago.