Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Laurent said:
STOP

ROSETTA DOESN'T EMULATE X86 for PPC. That's the bottom line. Microsoft and Adobe had confirmed that they will still support PPC. Adobe updates their software every year, with no real improvement (I currently have no reasons to buy CS2) and Microsoft waits almost 3 years before updating theirs. Why are you panicing? Your system wouldn't be able to support high end software in 4 years flawlessly anyway...
I am talking one or two years not four... Besides if you look around here you will see a lot of people running systems far older than four years.
That has always been a part of the Apple expereince as I see it
 
Nope, it's little endian

Marvy said:
What if the Intel spinoff is a Big Endian chip? That way, it will be difficult to get any "normal" PC software running, and easy to emulate PPC code.

Need to correct myself here. I am just reading the Universal Binary Guidelines you can download at the Apple Developer Site. The x86 chip will definately be Little Endian.

I wonder how Rosetta can get acceptable speeds then...
 
shompa said:
Intel and AMD is SLOWER today than G5.

Intel and AMD is more expensive than G5.

Disagreed.


For RAW horsepower:

Intel is slightly faster than G5 for now. AMD is quite a bit faster than G5. And don't forget Intel's Pentium M...
 
homerjward said:
I'd just rather it not be obsolete in a couple of years.
Any computer will be obsolete in a few years anyway.
My PC will be able to run Longhorn when it comes out :rolleyes: and be faster/cheaper than the Mac I would buy.
What makes you think longhorn will support your PC when it isn't even out yet , and b. why would it be faster?
 
It's just one piece of HW ...

shompa said:
Bill made Intel.
If Bill moved to PPC, Intel would be making PPC or beeing dead.

I really think that Apple should have bought freescale a couple a years ago.

Intels Xeons are more expensive than G5.
Why will this be better for me as a consumer?

It better for Jobs/Apple, but not me.

You could also argue that Intel made MS - that the ever cheaper and better processor cycle made the spectacular growth of the DOS/WIN OS possible.

And why drag Xeons into this? Those are not processors for PC's, but for specialized business HW usage.

Nobody ever complained that Apple shares the same HD's or video cards, or RAM with the Wintel world. Why is everyone getting so worked up, now that we can actually get some new processors to run OS X?
 
Transition to INTEL....

Taken from Cult of Mac (from WIRED Blogs)

As initially reported, there a couple of big problems with Apple moving to Intel.

The biggest is shifting all the Mac software to a new platform.
Apple apparently mulled moving to Intel a few years ago,
when Motorola's chip development fell woefully behind,
but Steve Jobs nixed it because of the massive disruption it would cause developers.

What's new this time is a fast, transparent, universal emulator from Transitive, a Silicon Valley startup.
Transitive's QuickTransit allows any software to run on any hardware with no performance hit, or so the company claims.
The techology automatically kicks in when necessary, and supports high-end 3D graphics.


As posted earlier -

Apple Shifting To Intel, For Hollywood's Sake

Sunday, 5 June 2005: Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents
"unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.

Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will),
that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the Internet.

According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini,
which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.
Ultimatetone
 
afsammie said:
I understand why people are upset, but I've been planning on switching for a long time now, and it's not because of the chip.

I'm going to buy a refurb 2.0 PM. If there's ever a time where we won't get hit with a revised update, it's this next year, which makes the decision much easier. We already know when the next major step is.

Please, tell me if I'm wrong, as I'm relatively new to the mac world, and massively ignorant in the computer world. Am I missing something here?

This seems like a giant step in the evolution of macs. I'm excited.

PS. Does this mean no more Powerbook G5 threads? I hope not. Those were great. I will always look back on those with fondness, reserving a place in my heart.
I wouldnt spend too much money on the existing systems. Don't get me wrong. I love Macs (almost in an unnatural way :p ) but right now I would wait or buy a low end system. Unless you need some serious computing power that is.
 
Redneck1089 said:
What about games and software in the future? Will games and software available two years from now still work on my Powermac G5?


And will these Intel processors be 64 bit still?

:confused:
 
Another thought

That Intel signature ident adverts... an Apple ad, shows a sweet case, the gorgeous OS... then "bling bling bling bling!"...

I feel sick :-(
 
Brian Hickman said:
Too bad the G5 has only made it into the PowerMac and iMac. What about the portable users? They are left out in the cold. Laptops are where the real money is, and Apple had no growth path for their books.

Hickman

You are spot on, this is what it's all about - portable computers.

So we have to face some hard truths today.

There will never be a G5 Powerbook.

Never.

Ever.

But will there ever be a G6?
 
afields said:
I really hope apple updates their website, and sheds some more light on this tranisition.

Not even a mention on "Hot News" yet, over 2 hours after the keynote is over. Apparently they're cowards. I can get used to and accept a major change like this, but not if Apple keeps people in the dark. A short keynote with so many unanswered questions and no information readily available on their website.

You can say I should be patient. They didn't decide this overnight, though. When they have new products to sell, they seem to be able to update their site in a timely fashion. Certainly they could at least post a copy of the press release on Hot News, as is customary after keynotes?

They obviously knew some/many people would react negatively to the change, or would not know what this change would mean exactly. Apparently Apple couldn't come up with anything to allay their fears, or they're just hoping people don't watch or read the news today?

I personally am fairly confident it will all work out in the end and that it was probably in Apple's and consumers' best interests in the long run, but that's thanks to the posts here at Macrumors. What about the poor souls who don't read the forums here??

EDIT: If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of "Hot News," it does list the press release apparently under "Recent Press Releases." Normally after keynotes, important highlights are listed at the top of Hot News, not buried at the bottom.
 
I understand about processors not mattering, but...

Stella said:
Apple betraying us.. ********.

It shouldn't matter WHAT processor apple uses, as long as its fast enough and runs OSX.

I think this is actually a good thing - potentially cheaper machines and more potential user base. I'm ignoring the elitist who think apple shouldn't have a marketshare more than "5, 10%" etc.

If IBM, Moto can't deliver good processors, then Apple have to do something and x86 is the answer. x86 are currently generally faster than PPC processors and have more of a future. I hope you'll be able to run AMD processors.

I wonder if Intel OSX will be able to run on any PC or whether apple will lock them down.. i.e., you have to buy an Apple branded machine.

Additionally, I assume that Apple aren't getting out of computer hardware, i.e., they'll still design machines.

Overall, it is a *GOOD* thing.

Viruses - the processor makes no difference. If OSX got wildly popular on PPC - viruses would be targetted towards PPC based Apple Macs, the same with Intel.

One thing that does worry me, IBM Warp couldn't compete with Windows on Intel.. will the same thing happen with OSX?

There will *never* be a PowerBook G5.

I agree mostly with what you say, but if you are an apple fan (hardware and software,) like I am, ready to buy a new computer, there are many concerns.

First, decent new Apple made machines on any processor are not arriving until a year from now at the earliest. Second, what is the roadmap for the current machines?

I was on the brink of buying an iMac "20, but now I am not sure it is a good idea. I will NEVER go out and buy a PC, but I feel like Apple just said, our future begins in a year. I mean, is software development for PPC G5's really going to thrive over the next two-three years? I don't think it is wrong to hope that a computer you buy today will work for that long.

Sure, people will say I am complaining, but nothing that I've read about the keynote addresses the current customer. I don't expect Apple to work miracles, but I am curious what they do expect the consumer to do now.

Sorry, I'll quit the complaining.

Deflated.
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I am talking one or two years not four... Besides if you look around here you will see a lot of people running systems far older than four years.
That has always been a part of the Apple expereince as I see it
It's in Apple's best business interest for people not to continue to use their old systems for so long... That, and the "but macs have a higher resale value" argument is a direct result of the relatively slow progress in the mac world.
Now we finally do see some progress, and people are complaining? :confused: It's like the black-and-white screen iPod owners getting upset for apple releasing a color iPod.
 
SiliconAddict said:
Yes 47%. What about 53%. We aren't talking about keeping Apple going forever. iPod sales would be a life vest. Enough to keep them going until the trans to x86 is done. Once that happens watch out.
Again I hope you are correct... The problem is that the 47% is probably rather connected to the 53%. if you dont buy a new computer, you will probably not buy iLife, iWork...
But again, I soooooooo hope you are right. ;)
 
Dr.Gargoyle said:
I am talking one or two years not four... Besides if you look around here you will see a lot of people running systems far older than four years.
That has always been a part of the Apple expereince as I see it
I am convinced that 4 years old computers will be able to run all the software they need. People with 4 years old computers don't use the edge of technology software, so I don't see this being a problem for them... Like ruud said, it will be more complicated for programmers to create software exclusively for Intel processors than creating Universal Binairies...
 
homerjward said:
That's it. I'm buying a PC this summer. :mad: I know there's nothing wrong with buying a Power Mac or PowerBook like I was going to, but I'd just rather it not be obsolete in a couple of years. My PC will be able to run Longhorn when it comes out :rolleyes: and be faster/cheaper than the Mac I would buy. Goodbye, temporarily, Apple. I'll see you when I go to college...;:)(
This is exactly what has been spooking me....
 
Bradley W said:
Now a person has no excuse for buying a Mac... if they hate Mac OS X (b/c they are stupid or something) they can put Windows on it...
Putting Windows (exclusively) on an expensive Mac would be the dumbiest thing ever...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.