Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[notjustjay]

I refuse to eat sirloin steak because it's the same kind of animal that they make crappy McDonald's burgers with.

I refuse to spend money because it's the same stuff criminals commit their crimes with/over.

I refuse to drive a Porsche because it's got the same 4-wheel-and-engine design that the POS Ford Pinto was made with.

 

[MontyZ]

The History of Apple is finished.

No, it is ongoing and will continue. Apple has been far worse off than this and survived the storm of doom-and-gloom naysayers who predicted it's demise relentlessly in the press.

Then one day, the iMac arrived.

Then OSX arrived.

Apple isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[tchorta]

Here is a good article to check out, haven’t dug through all 2000+ posts to seeif it has already been linked. Enjoy. Link

 

[GTKpower]

The History of Apple is finished. Perhaps many of you think they made a bad decision almost 30 years ago. Now, they will be nothing but another IBM clone. Exactly what they were trying to prevent. Now, we will have crashes and hiccups in our video and audio editing just like every other x86 piece of ****.

x86 piece of crap?

For LESS than the price of an overheated, fan-riddled G5, you can get . . . .

AMD 64-bit technology cpu. I guess the Athlon series, even the 32-bit, all the way from the Thunderbird right up to the Barton core and beyond, was crap. Yes, I suppose the fact that Apple never produced a cpu that could nearly match a comparable Athlon means nothing. AMD had Intel and Apple smoked for years.

Top-end Radeon and Nvidia cards that are compatible with all cpus. 256mb+ cards with state-of-the art pixel shading, speed, etc. Yes, those are all **** too, I suppose.

A Hyperthreading P4. I guess the fact that it managed to pull off wins over comparable Athlons (not an easy feat) also means nothing.

In terms of hardware performance, Mac users don't have alot of reason to gloat.

The G5 was an expensive, hot-running 64-bit cpu that needed a case full of fans. Something is very wrong with that, when a superior AMD 64-bit chip runs nice and cool in notebooks.

I for one am glad that the G5's days are over.

I certainly hope that with Intel and its resources, Apple can somehow regain the hardware edge it lost years ago.

Let me make it clear, however, that despite the fact that I've been unimpressed by Apple's hardware, I'm a big lover of OS X. I'm glad that ww'll be seeing it running on Intel (and hopefulle AMD) rigs.

 

[bursty]

this has probably been discussed already in this thread, but i just wanna mention that everyone that is having a problem with the switch, go to apple.com and watch the Keynote video. Jobs does a number of demos with Tiger.....ALL on an Intel machine. Just watch the video, i think it will ease your pains.

 

[chatin]

Compiling the Darwin kernel is a no brainer.

The one thing that shocked me the most about the keynote was when Jobs revealed that OSX had been living a double-life for the last 5 years. I was in "shock and awe" at that statement. How did they manage to keep that secret for so long?

Sounds like a few geeks recompiling the Darwin/FreeBSD kernel and watching what happened to the rest of the binaries. I've recomplied the FreeBSD kernel (for superior sound) and it is very easy. No magic here!

The fact that these people were doing this has been floating around for years. But no one ever thought Steve would use it for OS political purposes. I've tried both sides of the argument and feel the move is more political than anything else. (The twelve companies that rule the world have taken the PPC for themselves!!)

IBM gets new consortium behind PPC

 

[abluesky]

The real target is Dell...
(I am sorry if this has already been posted)

http://www.fool.com/news/mft/2005/m...lnk303100&logvisit=y&npu=y&bounce=y&bounce2=y

 

[steeldrivingjon]

I do think Apple had more control over the SW / HW intergration (sp?) w/ PPC and I also think that unless they gain a sizable increase in the market share Intel will lose interest in this development collaboration w/ Apple. .

So what? They've still got AMD breathing down their neck, and Microsoft, HP, Dell, Sony, business users, and countless other vendors with basically the same needs as Apple.

Apple doesn't need a whole lot of hand-holding.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

You have no idea about the history of this OS. OS X has been on Intel longer than PPC. You have no idea what you are talking about. The OS will still be as robust as ever. I suggest you read up on NeXTSTEP and Openstep. All of that stuff you are worrying about comes from Windows and sh*tty manufacturers. The new Mac with Intel chips are gonna be as great as always. You probably wish then stayed on 68k don't 'ya?

I'm not sure - PowerPC might actually have beaten Intel.

NeXT started working on a dual-PowerPC 601 workstation back around 1992 or early 1993. If I'm not mistaken, it's still running in some lab at Apple. The project was canceled, of course, when NeXT stopped making hardware and closed (and sold) the factory.

I'm not sure when they first ported NeXTSTEP to Intel. It might have been first. Hard to say. It's close. NeXTSTEP might have been ported first to the Motorola 88000 or 88100, RISC CPUs that were predecessors of the PowerPC, and were originally going to be used in the dual-CPU workstation which ended up with the 601.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

And I bought this stock 25 years ago. My $100 of Microsoft stock I bought in 1978 isn't doing too bad either.

and $365,000 today, damn fools are born every minute.
Look, now Apples are just going to be typical PC's with OS X on them. It's the hardware that matters. It's the hardware and the software that lets you flawlessly edit video without the hiccups that the x86 processor or even AMD inhibits. Apple has published so many tech articles on how the processor processes so much more information that an Intel and that is why it works so well. I know from experience that it is true. I'm afraid the new Macintels will suck and hiccup unless Intel is going to make cpu's with the same throughtput and memory channels that enable the Macintosh software to work so well. You are looking at is solely on sales, as Apple is too. I just feel like we are getting screwed again. Why would I buy an Apple now when I can just pirate OS X and run it on my home built pc?

First of all, the stock thing is pointless to the discussion, not to mention it sounds like ********. If you really had so much stock, and you're willing to drop it all of a sudden now, you'd have dropped it years ago at the first sign of plummeting before Jobs return.

Secondly, you know nothing of what you speak on the technical side of things. Yes it's hardware and software together that makes OSX run so well, but it's not PPC and software only. Being on x86 won't make a lick of difference as Apple will tightly control both their hardware and software, like they've always done.

Thirdly, why would you buy an Apple instead of pirating OS X? Because as you said yourself you want a machine where the hardware and software work together in a tightly controlled manner, you're not going to get that with some cobbled together machine hacked to run OS X.

 

[GTKpower]

First of all, the stock thing is pointless to the discussion, not to mention it sounds like ********. If you really had so much stock, and you're willing to drop it all of a sudden now, you'd have dropped it years ago at the first sign of plummeting before Jobs return.

Secondly, you know nothing of what you speak on the technical side of things. Yes it's hardware and software together that makes OSX run so well, but it's not PPC and software only. Being on x86 won't make a lick of difference as Apple will tightly control both their hardware and software, like they've always done.

Thirdly, why would you buy an Apple instead of pirating OS X? Because as you said yourself you want a machine where the hardware and software work together in a tightly controlled manner, you're not going to get that with some cobbled together machine hacked to run OS X.

What do you mean by "tightly-controlled manner"?

This sounds rather nebulous to me...... apologies.

 

[~loserman~]

The History of Apple is finished. Perhaps many of you think they made a bad decision almost 30 years ago. Now, they will be nothing but another IBM clone. Exactly what they were trying to prevent. Now, we will have crashes and hiccups in our video and audio editing just like every other x86 piece of ****.

Actually you will be surprised at how much faster OS X will end up being now that they can rip out all the legacy g3 and g4 support from the kernel.
It's current scheduler and memory manager are ridiculously bad.
Did you know that both of those are optimized for the G3?
I fully expect that 10.5 won't support the G3, or G4.

Also many people keep talking about the performance of the PowerMac verses a P4. We can argue all day which is faster.... But don't try to make that argument about a PowerMac versus a dual Xeon because the Xeon wins hands down. Only Apple's marketing believes the PowerMac was faster. The rest of the industry doesn't. IMO the only advantage the 970 chip had was in Double precision floating point because of it fused multiply-add.
If Apple really believed it's current CPUs were superior they wouldn't be switching....
It's as simple as that.

 

[skellener]

If Apple really believed it's current CPUs were superior they wouldn't be switching....
It's as simple as that.

Not really. It's not a superiority issue. Apple wants chips. IBM didn't deliver. Intel will. It's as simple as that.

 

[skellener]

I'm not sure - PowerPC might actually have beaten Intel.

NeXT started working on a dual-PowerPC 601 workstation back around 1992 or early 1993. If I'm not mistaken, it's still running in some lab at Apple. The project was canceled, of course, when NeXT stopped making hardware and closed (and sold) the factory.

I'm not sure when they first ported NeXTSTEP to Intel. It might have been first. Hard to say. It's close. NeXTSTEP might have been ported first to the Motorola 88000 or 88100, RISC CPUs that were predecessors of the PowerPC, and were originally going to be used in the dual-CPU workstation which ended up with the 601.

You are correct. There was a NeXT PPC that was never released. I'm sure some of that code helped with getting Mac OS X out the door.

 

[mox358]

I just want to stand up for the people who are worried about apple's move to intel...i'm one of them.

There are so many people on there that if you asked them Sunday they would have trashed x86 and proclaimed the glory of the G5. Monday afternoon, after Steve worked his magic RDF suddenly the G5 is crap and the future Intel processor that no one outside of Apple knows about is golden and the savior of Apple.

I'm as tired of this whining as anybody else, but dammit some of you need to grow a spine. And here's another news flash - Steve Jobs isn't perfect- this could be a major mistake for Apple.

I'm just so sick of hearing the choir sing the praise of intel when I KNOW that 90% of you would have declared them the worst CPU company in the world before Steve's magical announcement.

Its time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid my friends...

 

[Wonder Boy]

Its time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid my friends...

what flavor is it? cause if it's cherry, i'm not stopping.

enough with the kool-aid remarks. sometimes people need to hear a little logic and common sense to realize what they think is wrong. now, i'll admit some are more impressionable than others, but give others who just don't have enough background information a little more credit.

just for the record, i think the switch is a good idea. i thought so from the very first rumor. cheaper, cooler, more abundant chips? how can that be bad?

hooray for common sense!

 

[Ravenflight]

yes.. what IS the beef against Intel? I still haven't gotten a clear answer to that question.

I think the main problem with Intel is that it's entire line of chips has been made with one goal in mind- backward compatibility with previous architectures that are over 20 years out of date. Whereas the RISC chips like the PowerPC dumped a lot of the garbage that slows down x86 based chips and started with a clean slate. With x86 CISC based architectures you run into bariers that simply don't exist with with the PowerPC. For example the Pentium 4 is 20% LESS eficient than the Pentium 3. Not to mention they are just now starting to think about 64bit processors. I won't even mention the ugly BIOS they use every time you start the computer.

The first Intel processor that Apple is expected to use (Yonah) is still a 32 bit design whereas the G5 is a 64 bit design. So anyone thinking they'll be getting a G5 equivelent in a Powerbook anytime soon is in for a rude awakening. 64 bit laptop Pentiums aren't expected to ship till end 2007/2008- Maybe by then Ibm will have released a 45nm 4Ghz laptop G5 running at 20W so we won't have to finish switching over.

 

[skellener]

I think it's funny that people keep saying PPC this, Intel that. PPC could have the fastest chip in the world and it wouldn't make a lick of difference if they weren't delivering them to Apple. The simple fact is Intel will deliver the chips. IBM blew it. Doesn't matter what the Power4 or 5 do, doesn't matter what the benchmarks are. The chips were not available for the Mac. That's what it comes down to.

 

[GregA]

The History of Apple is finished.

I agree There history is all in the past. The only thing to look forward to is the future! ;-)

Now, they will be nothing but another IBM clone.

Yes, now that they've dumped IBM they'll be "IBM compatible". Talk about confusing history.

I've disliked the Pentium 4 for a while, the only good thing I heard about was the Pentium M.... so I'm pleased that's where Intel is going.

 

[Counter]

I just want to stand up for the people who are worried about apple's move to intel...i'm one of them.

There are so many people on there that if you asked them Sunday they would have trashed x86 and proclaimed the glory of the G5. Monday afternoon, after Steve worked his magic RDF suddenly the G5 is crap and the future Intel processor that no one outside of Apple knows about is golden and the savior of Apple.

I'm as tired of this whining as anybody else, but dammit some of you need to grow a spine. And here's another news flash - Steve Jobs isn't perfect- this could be a major mistake for Apple.

I'm just so sick of hearing the choir sing the praise of intel when I KNOW that 90% of you would have declared them the worst CPU company in the world before Steve's magical announcement.

Its time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid my friends...

Most refreshing post in 106 pages even sans the Kool-Aid.

Every news article and 90% of posts I have seen goes on the Intel move being a choice by Apple. A business move brought about through advanced foresight of roadmaps. I would love my opinion to be changed, but up to now all I see is Apple had *no choice*. IBM shut the door and Apple fell into the Intel bucket. Pimp Intel all you like, make yourself feel more comfortable, rubbish PPC, G5's design, and everything else possibly draggable into it, make yourself feel more comfortable. Fact is there was no decision to be made. Were moving to Intel and were moving fast.

 

[GTKpower]

You won't even notice . . . . . .

Meh . . . . don't worry folks, as long as you'll have OS X, you'll be fine.

Once you fire up OS X Leopard and start configuring your mail, playing with the dock, and searching for all your mis-filed porn with Spotlight, you'll feel right at home.

 

[GTKpower]

I just want to stand up for the people who are worried about apple's move to intel...i'm one of them.

There are so many people on there that if you asked them Sunday they would have trashed x86 and proclaimed the glory of the G5. Monday afternoon, after Steve worked his magic RDF suddenly the G5 is crap and the future Intel processor that no one outside of Apple knows about is golden and the savior of Apple.

I'm as tired of this whining as anybody else, but dammit some of you need to grow a spine. And here's another news flash - Steve Jobs isn't perfect- this could be a major mistake for Apple.

I'm just so sick of hearing the choir sing the praise of intel when I KNOW that 90% of you would have declared them the worst CPU company in the world before Steve's magical announcement.

Its time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid my friends...

Did you JUST join this thread?

It's been said at least 20 times already that Jobs had no choice. There is no "mistake" to speak of. It was about corporate survival. If Apple is fated to die 2 years from now, at least it managed to stave off death by banging on Intel's door when IBM jumped ship.

We had all better sing the praises of Intel. It is where Apple's future is. At least Apple will have a steady supply of chips.

If you G5-lovers keep fawning over your overheating, underperforming, underselling 64-bit cpu, and do not buy the new Intel-Mac rigs, you have only yourself to blame for the demise of your beloved Apple computer. Apple is now dependng on YOU, the core market to stay loyal.

Get used to the future and get VERY comfortable with it. You people have already allowed Apple to overcharge you for less-than-stellar hardware for YEARS. You ALL drank the kool-aid that Steve Jobs was serving, including myself, and never made so much as a peep. You all accepted the fact that for some odd reason, even a mid-range G5's case was riddled with fans, even though a comparable 64-bit AMD cpu ran circles around you and Intel, and ran cool enough to be placed in HP notebooks. Not even a peep from you.

Don't start bitching now. Instead, accept the fact that Blue kool-aid RULES, that OS X will be there for you, that you'll have all your favourite apps . . . . as long as you keep the faith and open you wallet like you've been doing so far.

 

[iGary]

Originally Posted by mox358
I just want to stand up for the people who are worried about apple's move to intel...i'm one of them.

There are so many people on there that if you asked them Sunday they would have trashed x86 and proclaimed the glory of the G5. Monday afternoon, after Steve worked his magic RDF suddenly the G5 is crap and the future Intel processor that no one outside of Apple knows about is golden and the savior of Apple.

I'm as tired of this whining as anybody else, but dammit some of you need to grow a spine. And here's another news flash - Steve Jobs isn't perfect- this could be a major mistake for Apple.

I'm just so sick of hearing the choir sing the praise of intel when I KNOW that 90% of you would have declared them the worst CPU company in the world before Steve's magical announcement.

Its time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid my friends...

As many people on this board know, I am a fanatical Steve Jobs fan, but he's lost a lot of my respect with this move.

I'm not at all happy about the move to Intel, nor to x86. It is a total blow to what is and makes Apple special - being different; not being like every Wintel box out there. First it was switching the "Mac and PC" to "PC and Mac," then the Firewire cables came out of the iPod packaging in favor of USB 2.0 and now Intel processors.

I'm beginning to wonder if Steve gives a **** about Apple anymore. Perhaps he's done. He came back, pulled Apple out of the ashes, andmaybe he's ready to leave his legacy and move on. Let's remember that Steve gets bored easily.

You won't find me praising Intel processors. I wish Apple would have steppe don IBM a little harder before burning that bridge. I'm not happy.

 

[Counter]

Meh . . . . don't worry folks, as long as you'll have OS X, you'll be fine.

Once you fire up OS X Leopard and start configuring your mail, playing with the dock, and searching for all your mis-filed porn with Spotlight, you'll feel right at home.

When somebody develops a breast recognition plugin I'm sold.

 

[GTKpower]

As many people on this board know, I am a fanatical Steve Jobs fan, but he's lost a lot of my respect with this move.

I'm not at all happy about the move to Intel, nor to x86. It is a total blow to what is and makes Apple special - being different; not being like every Wintel box out there. First it was switching the "Mac and PC" to "PC and Mac," then the Firewire cables came out of the iPod packaging in favor of USB 2.0 and now Intel processors.

I'm beginning to wonder if Steve gives a **** about Apple anymore. Perhaps he's done. He came back, pulled Apple out of the ashes, andmaybe he's ready to leave his legacy and move on. Let's remember that Steve gets bored easily.

You won't find me praising Intel processors. I wish Apple would have steppe don IBM a little harder before burning that bridge. I'm not happy.

At least READ THE THREAD, or at least read MY previous post, right above yours.

Jobs had NO CHOICE. IBM was no longer interested in the Apple 64-bit game. Not enough money in it.

Ugh . . . .