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.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
peharri said:
Of course they'll do dual binaries - support costs software companies money, and if the users have paid for a product they expect it to work. If it doesn't, they're hassling the tech support line and burning up the company's money.
Now I know Adobe charges, but for those with unlimited support contracts it sill saves them money to minimize support calls ...
Based on what? People on this board like ~loserman~ have explained in the past that OS-X's memory management is not all that great. Although Apple might improve it in future versions of OS-X, at the moment that is just speculation. Also the OS-X user interface isn't all that fast. If you use a older machine like the G4 -450 MHz that I use at home, you will find that OS-9 is much faster in general use, but OS-X feels smoother. Photoshop on OS-X istdewey said:
not faster than on OS-9.
The only way that the current Mac-OS will be faster is if future versions of windows and linux get slower
which could happen (at least in the windows case)Don't get me wrong, though. I think OS-X is overall the best OS on the planet, and I wouldn't want to switch to Windows or Linux if my life depended on it
but if you look at performance only, then I don't think OS-X is the king.Mac-Xpert said:
Compared to what? Other Unix operating systems? Windows?
The only way that the current Mac-OS will be faster is if future versions of windows and linux get slower
Don't get me wrong, though. I think OS-X is overall the best OS on the planet, and I wouldn't want to switch to Windows or Linux if my life depended on it
Can't speak much about Linux, but I find Windows XP to be rather slow now. I guess we'll just have to wait and see--since neither of us has Mac OS for Intel v. Windows Photoshop numbers to prove our respective points.
IT DOESNT MATTER
Look guys it really doesnt matter what Processor they have in their computers. You have trusted Apple for this long so don't worry about what is going through Steve's head. He knows what he is doing.
And on another note, look the PowerPC chips did not get up to Job's expectations but that is because IBM really doesn't like doing business with them. IBM doesn't make their money from selling their chips (for cents on the dollar). And then Apple turns around and maks millions off of them. I know this because I have a relative that works for IBM. I was also informed that IBM is capable of making a smaller chip (90 nanometers to 120 nanometers) which is what in essence makes the chip have its speed, IBM just doesn't realy want Apple business anymore. IBM has changed their focus from chips and normal consumer products to servers and service(thats where the big money is). Think about it IBM sells Millions of servers, those servers obviously need Technical Support, etc. thats where the money is.
Look guys it really doesnt matter what Processor they have in their computers. You have trusted Apple for this long so don't worry about what is going through Steve's head. He knows what he is doing.
And on another note, look the PowerPC chips did not get up to Job's expectations but that is because IBM really doesn't like doing business with them. IBM doesn't make their money from selling their chips (for cents on the dollar). And then Apple turns around and maks millions off of them. I know this because I have a relative that works for IBM. I was also informed that IBM is capable of making a smaller chip (90 nanometers to 120 nanometers) which is what in essence makes the chip have its speed, IBM just doesn't realy want Apple business anymore. IBM has changed their focus from chips and normal consumer products to servers and service(thats where the big money is). Think about it IBM sells Millions of servers, those servers obviously need Technical Support, etc. thats where the money is.
I have been away from this thread for about 3 weeks and it is nice to see things have cooled down a bit.
A couple of comments...
Think Different?
That seems silly now since other then the OS the Mac box will be the same that is offered across the street by Dell, Gateway, Sony, HP, etc.
I agree with the comments about the PowerPC helping to drive development on the x86 side. Since the competition is gone now, what is going to be the driving force behind continued innovation? If you have one brand of anything progress slows on that product. Don't you think back in the day when Apple was showing the Pentium II on an ad with a snail it drove them to do something to compete with the G3.
I mean really...what is the point of Apple hardware if it is the same as everything else out there? You will look at the Dell specs and then the Apple specs and you will see the exact carbon copy...but guess what...you will be paying way more for the Apple PC. Sure it will run OSX. But will that be enough? At the present, at least it is DIFFERENT and can be marketed highlighting the differences and advantages.
Now there is no longer hardware to market, just software. Honestly you can't say your hardware is better when it is the same thing.
A couple of comments...
Think Different?
That seems silly now since other then the OS the Mac box will be the same that is offered across the street by Dell, Gateway, Sony, HP, etc.
I agree with the comments about the PowerPC helping to drive development on the x86 side. Since the competition is gone now, what is going to be the driving force behind continued innovation? If you have one brand of anything progress slows on that product. Don't you think back in the day when Apple was showing the Pentium II on an ad with a snail it drove them to do something to compete with the G3.
I mean really...what is the point of Apple hardware if it is the same as everything else out there? You will look at the Dell specs and then the Apple specs and you will see the exact carbon copy...but guess what...you will be paying way more for the Apple PC. Sure it will run OSX. But will that be enough? At the present, at least it is DIFFERENT and can be marketed highlighting the differences and advantages.
Now there is no longer hardware to market, just software. Honestly you can't say your hardware is better when it is the same thing.
Abercrombieboy said:
That is a bit short sighted. Think Different isn't about the processor. It is about a better operating system and standard of software and hardware. Think Different will still be just as valid on an Intel based Mac.
pubwvj said:
Maybe, but it seems we always used to complain about PC companies copying Apple in design on the outside of the case and now Apple is copying what is inside the case...a bit ironic that is all.
I will eventually get an Intel mac when it is time to get a new one and that is all they offer. But I won't be in line to get the first one. I can see LEMON written all over that one.
A joke?Lacero said:
For what possible reason would you want to boycott future hardware? Apple saying that the reason they're switching to Intel is because "they can't make the computers they want to" is probably just their polite marketing spin on it, but either way, they will continue to bring quality products to their loyal users, Intel-based or not.
I've been thinking about this a good deal since the announcement, and now that I'm over my initial rage, I probably will get one eventually. I'm torn about first-generation, as I have a first-gen G5 (Dual 2GHz), and it is the best new consumer machine I've ever purchased. Problem-free, stable, and still pleasingly fast even after 1.75 years. I can't really find fault with it.Abercrombieboy said:
Besides, when I get right down to it, I've seen so much change in my career. The rise of Apple, Sun, SGI, Compaq, and others. The fall of DEC, Cray, Apple (in the 90's), SGI (a shadow of what it was), Compaq, and others. The rise and fall of the 680x0, MIPS, and others. I can't even begin to list the technologies I've invested in that no longer exist.
So, things will go on, as they always do. But, each change like this seems to take a little more out of me. Time to go put on my DECUS shirt and fire up a VAX....
Abercrombieboy said:
Here is a twist.
My next Laptop will be an Asus. They currently manufacture Apple's laptops now and in many ways are offering a better laptop.
With the switch to Intel, I'm sure Asus's laptop WILL be Superior to Apple's.
I would even expect you will be able to install OS X on the new Asus as soon as Apple starts to deliver Intel inside.
Mac-Xpert said:
Some truth there.
Apple doesn't break out the numbers of their PowerMac sells, but IDC does.
It is estimated that Apple sells 3 times as many laptops as PowerMacs and Xserves combined. Given that Apple's laptops have been falling behind in performance for the last 2 years it is safe to say Apple needed to do something.
IMO it still goes deeper than what has been reported and speculated so far.
I really think this started with Motorola not being able to deliver. Apple switched to IBM and they couldn't deliver a fast cool CPU for the laptop.
Then came IBM's deals with the game consoles. IBM has commited to delivering 10 million CPU's to Microsoft by OCT and an equal amount of Cell cpus to Sony by Jan. Both of those will clock at 3+ GHZ and IMO this was the last straw for Steve Jobs.
Apple just isn't as important of a customer to IBM as either Sony or Microsoft. Both of those deals are gigantic in comparison to the deal with Apple.
Think about it this way, both the Xbox360 and PS3 will outsell Macs by 20 to 1 over the next 3 years.
So what was Apple to do? Where were they going to turn for CPU's?
They could go back to Moto/Freescale for the e600/e700 but they already left them because of delivery problems. They could choose AMD but AMD would likely put them back into delivery problems too.
So they chose the world's largest CPU supplier INTEL.
michaelrjohnson said:Highly unlikely, on all counts. IMO
Maybe unlikely for OS X but not on the grounds of being a better machine.
Their current line already is faster thiner and more feature rich. IT even closely resembles the Powerbook in design.
Take a look at their current lineup.
Abercrombieboy said:
You are completely missunderstanding hardware design. Just because Apple is going to use an Intel processor does not make the machine a Dell, HP or other "PC" (Windows) computer. There is a _lot_ more to the mother board and even more to the total hardware than the central processor chip or even it's primary support chips.
Add to that the fact that the MacOS is a totally different beast than Windows and you've got a totally different machine. Apple may choose to allow Windows to be run on the Apple Macintosh hardware, or not, but that does not change the fact that it is an Apple machine and hopefully, as in the past, a far superior machine.
The reasons why I think Apple will not be able to compete in the X86 market.
The CPU's will be the same.
The chipsets will be the same.
The Video cards will be the same.
The bus speeds will be the same.
The expansion bus i.e. PCI/PCI-X/PCi-E will be the same.
Apple has always held a 40%+ profit margin on their hardware sales whereas
PC manufactures have 5% profit margins.
Apple sells so many fewer machines than Dell and others they will NOT be able to get the same discounts from video/io accessory card manufactures that other mainstream PC vendors do.
Apple hasn't ever played in this cutthroat market before.
Their only real difference left will be the OS and a pretty box.
The question is will this be enough to justify the added purchase price of a Mac on intel.
Time will tell.
If I was a betting man, I would bet against them
The CPU's will be the same.
The chipsets will be the same.
The Video cards will be the same.
The bus speeds will be the same.
The expansion bus i.e. PCI/PCI-X/PCi-E will be the same.
Apple has always held a 40%+ profit margin on their hardware sales whereas
PC manufactures have 5% profit margins.
Apple sells so many fewer machines than Dell and others they will NOT be able to get the same discounts from video/io accessory card manufactures that other mainstream PC vendors do.
Apple hasn't ever played in this cutthroat market before.
Their only real difference left will be the OS and a pretty box.
The question is will this be enough to justify the added purchase price of a Mac on intel.
Time will tell.
If I was a betting man, I would bet against them
dejo said:
While no one but Apple knows for sure, some quick Googling will get you a long list of people who say its anywhere from 25 to 40%.
One thing you can be assured of, It will be much harder for them to maintain high profit margins when people can directly compare Apple hardware to PC hardware.
Look at it this way.
an example
When Apple and Dell sells a 3.6 Ghz P4 with 512 meg memory 250 meg hard drive with an ATI 9800
Apple won't be able to charge 25 to 40% more money for the same config without being laughed at by consumers.
Some will say that they will be willing to pay the extra 25 to 40% for OS X
But if you think about it that really would be a serious price gouge.
I mean really OS X is a fine OS but is it really worth $500 a copy?
And if it is then why not just sell the OS and forget the hardware business altogether.
poor sony...
Don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but surely Sony has a lot to lose with the Apple switch. Once (well, if) you can run windows on a powerbook, who is going to buy a Vaio? It's already the laptop you buy when you want a powerbook, but have to run windows for whatever reason. Who would buy one over a powerbook though if they could both run windows? That could be a big chunk of market share headed Apple's way.
Don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but surely Sony has a lot to lose with the Apple switch. Once (well, if) you can run windows on a powerbook, who is going to buy a Vaio? It's already the laptop you buy when you want a powerbook, but have to run windows for whatever reason. Who would buy one over a powerbook though if they could both run windows? That could be a big chunk of market share headed Apple's way.
pubwvj said:
I don't think I am missunderstanding anything. What is the point of Apple building a custom board when it has already been done for them? There was a point of making everything specialized when they had PowerPC, with Intel there is no reason. What comes will be a carbon copy of what you can find an any current x86 machine. I would bet money on this. In all honesty Apple would be crazy to spend money on developing hardware now since it has been done for them. Make a pretty box and throw some x86 guts in it for cheap! There is your new Mac.
pubwvj said:
What do you base this on? If you mean the OS, sure OSX is a lot better then Windows. If you mean the case design, I would agree as well. If you are talking the actual hardware, it will be the same. Even now they use the same vendors as the PC companies do. The difference once they go to Intel they will just be using all the same processors and internal boards. It will be the same inside as any PC. Apple will cut their engineering costs however and their profit margin will go way up on these computers. Not all bad if you own Apple stock.
I am suprised that people keep dreaming that this new Mactel is going to be something real special and all new. They think it is going to be something that we have never nor will ever see on the PC side. That is not going to happen because it is pointless. There is no hardware race when this is done. Dell, Gateway, Sony, HP, etc. are not going to sit back and let Intel give all the good stuff to Apple so the Mac can be better then the PC. In fact, I would almost promise the opposite to be true... The PC's will get things before the Mac world does if anyone gets something first. All about marketshare and money and Intel will always take care of their best friends first. Face it, Intel still loves Wintel and Mactel won't do anything to change their mind, just sell a few more chips.
What is even more wild about this move is that back in 1995 when they moved to the RISC PowerPC they dumped the old 68K Moto which was a CISC like the x86. They decided that RISC was the way to go and now they are going back. I understand why they have to do this if there is nothing in the pipeline. Still I can see in a few years PowerPC will make a huge break through and then the Windows world will be jumping at it and Macs will be stuck with x86. Wouldn't that be ironic?
jonwa said:
The Intel Pentium 660, which is what is in the development system, is 64bit capable (Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology).
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/index.htm
Cheers!
- Status