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
Don't delude yourselves
Eventually most of you will convince yourselves that this is a "good thing." (It's facinating: each successive thread has more "positive" ratings.) And perhaps it is a good thing, in the sense that Apple "had to do it." But it suggests that Apple is very real trouble. Basically, they are blowing the next year or two completely off as far as Mac sales. They are going to lose a lot of business and abandon an innovative 64-bit platform to go mainstream. Regardless of the wisdom of the situation, no company wants to be in this kind of situation.
Whether Apple survives is an open question. I can easily forsee an increasingly desperate Apple taking drastic measures to stay alive, such as adding a Windows compatibility layer and licensing the OS, only to eventually join Amiga in the dustbin of history. I know that MS committed to continuing support for Office on OS X, but for how long? After all, these machines will be able to run Windows, either as dual boot machines, or through an improved "Virtual PC." And what about Quark? Macromedia?
I wasn't there, but my impression from what I have read is that Steve Jobs was putting a happy face on a situation that is clearly pretty gloomy. It's time to face the facts. However much ipod business they are doing, and however great OS X is, Apple has a hard road ahead and they know it. Never again will they have any credibility if they attempt to cite hardware benchmarks. With a standardized "peecee" hardware, it will become harder and harder to justify the cost of Apple products. (Sure, they look nice, but anyone with a iBook G3 or iMac G5 knows that reliability is a real issue for Apple these days.)
I love Apple, and I suspect this was probably a wise decision, but I am starting to the see the writing on the wall. This is not just a question of IBM not delivering, this is years of declining market share and economic realities coming home to roost. Products that are "better in the abstract" do not necessarily win in the market.
I could be wrong, of course. Only time will tell. One thing is clear, however: Steve Jobs has no crystal ball. (If he did, we would not be here, now. We would all be sitting in front of our 3.5 MHz G5s).
Eventually most of you will convince yourselves that this is a "good thing." (It's facinating: each successive thread has more "positive" ratings.) And perhaps it is a good thing, in the sense that Apple "had to do it." But it suggests that Apple is very real trouble. Basically, they are blowing the next year or two completely off as far as Mac sales. They are going to lose a lot of business and abandon an innovative 64-bit platform to go mainstream. Regardless of the wisdom of the situation, no company wants to be in this kind of situation.
Whether Apple survives is an open question. I can easily forsee an increasingly desperate Apple taking drastic measures to stay alive, such as adding a Windows compatibility layer and licensing the OS, only to eventually join Amiga in the dustbin of history. I know that MS committed to continuing support for Office on OS X, but for how long? After all, these machines will be able to run Windows, either as dual boot machines, or through an improved "Virtual PC." And what about Quark? Macromedia?
I wasn't there, but my impression from what I have read is that Steve Jobs was putting a happy face on a situation that is clearly pretty gloomy. It's time to face the facts. However much ipod business they are doing, and however great OS X is, Apple has a hard road ahead and they know it. Never again will they have any credibility if they attempt to cite hardware benchmarks. With a standardized "peecee" hardware, it will become harder and harder to justify the cost of Apple products. (Sure, they look nice, but anyone with a iBook G3 or iMac G5 knows that reliability is a real issue for Apple these days.)
I love Apple, and I suspect this was probably a wise decision, but I am starting to the see the writing on the wall. This is not just a question of IBM not delivering, this is years of declining market share and economic realities coming home to roost. Products that are "better in the abstract" do not necessarily win in the market.
I could be wrong, of course. Only time will tell. One thing is clear, however: Steve Jobs has no crystal ball. (If he did, we would not be here, now. We would all be sitting in front of our 3.5 MHz G5s).
LaMerVipere said:
I don't know I'd call it an "embrace", Steve tried to sound enthusiastic, but I get the clear sense they'd ahve rather stuck with PPC. At any rate, the technology in laptops is ANCIENT, if I have to run a pentium to get decent speed out of my books, I'm all for the switch.
Here is what REALLY happened.
IBMs 970 processor is great and Microsoft and Sony acknowledged that and made agreements with IBM to use them in the upcoming game consoles. Now game consoles use the same speed CPU, same design for years. Lets say 5 yrs or so. Apple wants IBM to update them every 6 months. Apple sells squat compared to game consoles. Now IBM had to make a decision here. Sell tons of 3.2ghz G5s to Microsoft and Sony for years to come or spend tons of R&D to constantly update them with apple. They went with the game consoles. They are the ones to told Apple to take a hike not the other way around. Now intel is in the process of making these chips and we know freescale is way out there so Apple only had one choice. Sure AMD is good but they can use both. They had to go x86, no choice. I should have seen this coming when the new game consoles where announced to use the 970.
As far as apple having a team making OSx for intel all the time, that is bull crud. No way, if they did they could release it today. So, its just a pack of lies. Will the mac be worth a crap with an intel processor, sure. Will business and consumers trust apple in 2 yrs? Probably not. Will programmers want to rehash all their code to work on a x86 mac? Not all of them. Count on the vast OSx software to decipate rapidly. Not all the os9 software came over. It took yrs for programmers to adapt to the OSx framework, not becuase it was hard but because they didn't see a future in apple. Eventually through a few yrs of stability with apple they jumped in and started to develop again. Now will the do it again? I wouldn't. Why program for apples constantly changing architecture when you can program for Windows and know your stuff will be around forever or program for game counsoles. Even Playstation 3 can play original playstation games.
Apple has gone through sooooo many architecture changes that my head is spinning and once again here is another one.
As far as people wanting faster and faster macs, its not our fault. If apple didn't bloat its OS and software (microsoft too) then we would be happy with an older processor. Just seems like no matter how many years pass my machine still boots up the same speed, opens images the same speed, plays video the same speed and games still suck. I say leave HD for TV and leave the computer for programs.
So lets look at the facts.
IBM Thinkpad:
I still have the same thinkpad from 6 yrs ago that works perfectly and is frankly not that slow. It will work for years to come.
Powerbook:
Brand new top of the line bought 2 months ago, obsolete.
Is OSx better than windows? You betcha. Is windows more reliable for long term investment? You better believe it.
IBMs 970 processor is great and Microsoft and Sony acknowledged that and made agreements with IBM to use them in the upcoming game consoles. Now game consoles use the same speed CPU, same design for years. Lets say 5 yrs or so. Apple wants IBM to update them every 6 months. Apple sells squat compared to game consoles. Now IBM had to make a decision here. Sell tons of 3.2ghz G5s to Microsoft and Sony for years to come or spend tons of R&D to constantly update them with apple. They went with the game consoles. They are the ones to told Apple to take a hike not the other way around. Now intel is in the process of making these chips and we know freescale is way out there so Apple only had one choice. Sure AMD is good but they can use both. They had to go x86, no choice. I should have seen this coming when the new game consoles where announced to use the 970.
As far as apple having a team making OSx for intel all the time, that is bull crud. No way, if they did they could release it today. So, its just a pack of lies. Will the mac be worth a crap with an intel processor, sure. Will business and consumers trust apple in 2 yrs? Probably not. Will programmers want to rehash all their code to work on a x86 mac? Not all of them. Count on the vast OSx software to decipate rapidly. Not all the os9 software came over. It took yrs for programmers to adapt to the OSx framework, not becuase it was hard but because they didn't see a future in apple. Eventually through a few yrs of stability with apple they jumped in and started to develop again. Now will the do it again? I wouldn't. Why program for apples constantly changing architecture when you can program for Windows and know your stuff will be around forever or program for game counsoles. Even Playstation 3 can play original playstation games.
Apple has gone through sooooo many architecture changes that my head is spinning and once again here is another one.
As far as people wanting faster and faster macs, its not our fault. If apple didn't bloat its OS and software (microsoft too) then we would be happy with an older processor. Just seems like no matter how many years pass my machine still boots up the same speed, opens images the same speed, plays video the same speed and games still suck. I say leave HD for TV and leave the computer for programs.
So lets look at the facts.
IBM Thinkpad:
I still have the same thinkpad from 6 yrs ago that works perfectly and is frankly not that slow. It will work for years to come.
Powerbook:
Brand new top of the line bought 2 months ago, obsolete.
Is OSx better than windows? You betcha. Is windows more reliable for long term investment? You better believe it.
hmm first adobe buys macromedia, now apple switches to intel...the next few years are going to be very interesting for the design industry.
OK, I'm over it now. Bring on Intel, but please, Steve, market the chip with our own branded name. Please?
Apple's attitude and innovation is definitely good.
Well, I think Apple moving or "switching" is somewhat surprising at first. There seems to be a touch of irony there at first, however they are not switching OS platforms. Also, I am quite certain the computer will still look and perform like an Apple product.
I am glad that Apple is open to other options and innovations. I like that Apple is not locking themselves into one option or path because of a brand name. Or not choosing an available option or path because of a brand name.
This shows me that Apple is still an innovative looking-forward company, always striving for something better, and not resting on its past laurels and successes.
Well, I think Apple moving or "switching" is somewhat surprising at first. There seems to be a touch of irony there at first, however they are not switching OS platforms. Also, I am quite certain the computer will still look and perform like an Apple product.
I am glad that Apple is open to other options and innovations. I like that Apple is not locking themselves into one option or path because of a brand name. Or not choosing an available option or path because of a brand name.
This shows me that Apple is still an innovative looking-forward company, always striving for something better, and not resting on its past laurels and successes.
onlysublime said:
Plus, from reading the same document, it's apparent that porting to Intel isn't just a 'click one checkbox, then it's done' operation. It's not exactly brain surgery, but it's more than enough to be a pain in the ass.
And add in that Apple recommends that everything will need to be tested independently on both CPUs, if your application works on one there is no guarantee it will work on the other. That may add significently to the workload.
This is a good move....
....for the home market. A stable OS on the same CPU as Windows runs. How do you think it will make MS look in most people's eyes? Not us, but just 'regular' folks? If Apple can do it, why can't MS not do it? And that's something very powerfull they will be able to market. For the home/small office market it is a perfect move for the long term.
But, and here's a big but...... and I have not seen any post mentioning it... what will they do with XServe. Hopefully, those machine's will stay on PowerPC. Mhz is not necessarily all that counts in those clusters. And XServe is a great platform, cost efficient and reliable. I just hope they don't move that away from PPC in favor of Intel. Anyone an insight on that?
....for the home market. A stable OS on the same CPU as Windows runs. How do you think it will make MS look in most people's eyes? Not us, but just 'regular' folks? If Apple can do it, why can't MS not do it? And that's something very powerfull they will be able to market. For the home/small office market it is a perfect move for the long term.
But, and here's a big but...... and I have not seen any post mentioning it... what will they do with XServe. Hopefully, those machine's will stay on PowerPC. Mhz is not necessarily all that counts in those clusters. And XServe is a great platform, cost efficient and reliable. I just hope they don't move that away from PPC in favor of Intel. Anyone an insight on that?
eva01 said:
Yes that is the problem. The bottom line is... no new powerbooks for at least one year (maybe more).
I am running a 1.25Ghz 15" Albook. I think I am glad that I bought when I did. This will be the longest I will have ever owned a single powerbook.
MacTruck said:
Obsolete by what? There isn't even going to *be* an Intel-based Mac for more than a year. And do you really think, when that year comes and goes, that Longhorn is going to be satisfactory on the Thinkpad? Unless you're a developer and you're talking purely about the computers' utility as a test platform (for OS X on Intel) then this just doesn't make any sense. There isn't anything immediately or in the near term or in the medium term that will make either of these PCs bad at doing what they're doing today. And considering that Tiger implements so much of what Longhorn is going to, the Apple side of the deal still looks better in my eyes.
A letter to Apple
To whom it nay concern,
Thank Steve on behalf of the Mac community for killing the future of the Macintosh and relegating us all to a dead 32 Bit X86 architecture filled with lackluster hardware with no standardization (ever wonder why Windows crashes a lot). Has he been hanging out with Gil Amelio? If I had wanted OSX on an X86 based PC, I could have just downloaded Darwin X86 and loaded it on my 300 dollar PC. I remained loyal to the Macintosh because of the hardware... Because it was an affordable and stable RISC based architecture for the average consumer. You've also slapped everyone in the face who shelled out big money for their PPC Macs by making our machines instantly obsolete and killing any further development for the platform. Not everyone can afford spending thousands of dollars on a new computer and software every year or two unless your wealthy like Steve and Bill or make high 5 or low 6 digit salaries. We better be happy with our current software versions and hardware.
I've supported the X86 world on a professional level for over a decade. The unreliable X86 hardware and software is what made me a Mac user on a personal level to begin with; take the fact that X86 based hardware tries to cram peripheral cards and components into the first 15 interrupts considering that there are thousands. And you thought the old days of extension conflicts were bad. After a while, considering how small the Macintosh market share and install base is, I can see Adobe and the other mainstream App builders dropping support for the Mac. Why should they continue to build apps. If they were really interested in building Unix based versions of their software for X86, why haven't these companies already developed apps for the existing versions of Unix, the Linux variants and the BSD variants on which OSX is based?
Apple better pull off something really spectacular to keep me on board. I'm sure that there are a lot of other Mac users who feel the same way as I do. A PC is nothing more than a cheap pocket calculator, an appliance. The Mac had class, something that set it above every other computer and made people willing to spend a premium to get it. How will Apple justify that now?
It will be interesting to see how many consumers will pay a premium for X86 based Macs, when a similar PC from Dell, Gateway or any one of thousands of clones will cost half as much. After all I seem to recall Steve killing all the Mac clones in 1996 and buying off Power Computing. I still have a Power Tower Pro running around somewhere. Maybe Apple will just become a software company that sells music and MP3 players. This could be death for Apple. I hope everyone at Cupertino updated their resumes. Maybe Steve can turn the Cupertino campus into low income housing. Good thing he has Pixar.
To whom it nay concern,
Thank Steve on behalf of the Mac community for killing the future of the Macintosh and relegating us all to a dead 32 Bit X86 architecture filled with lackluster hardware with no standardization (ever wonder why Windows crashes a lot). Has he been hanging out with Gil Amelio? If I had wanted OSX on an X86 based PC, I could have just downloaded Darwin X86 and loaded it on my 300 dollar PC. I remained loyal to the Macintosh because of the hardware... Because it was an affordable and stable RISC based architecture for the average consumer. You've also slapped everyone in the face who shelled out big money for their PPC Macs by making our machines instantly obsolete and killing any further development for the platform. Not everyone can afford spending thousands of dollars on a new computer and software every year or two unless your wealthy like Steve and Bill or make high 5 or low 6 digit salaries. We better be happy with our current software versions and hardware.
I've supported the X86 world on a professional level for over a decade. The unreliable X86 hardware and software is what made me a Mac user on a personal level to begin with; take the fact that X86 based hardware tries to cram peripheral cards and components into the first 15 interrupts considering that there are thousands. And you thought the old days of extension conflicts were bad. After a while, considering how small the Macintosh market share and install base is, I can see Adobe and the other mainstream App builders dropping support for the Mac. Why should they continue to build apps. If they were really interested in building Unix based versions of their software for X86, why haven't these companies already developed apps for the existing versions of Unix, the Linux variants and the BSD variants on which OSX is based?
Apple better pull off something really spectacular to keep me on board. I'm sure that there are a lot of other Mac users who feel the same way as I do. A PC is nothing more than a cheap pocket calculator, an appliance. The Mac had class, something that set it above every other computer and made people willing to spend a premium to get it. How will Apple justify that now?
It will be interesting to see how many consumers will pay a premium for X86 based Macs, when a similar PC from Dell, Gateway or any one of thousands of clones will cost half as much. After all I seem to recall Steve killing all the Mac clones in 1996 and buying off Power Computing. I still have a Power Tower Pro running around somewhere. Maybe Apple will just become a software company that sells music and MP3 players. This could be death for Apple. I hope everyone at Cupertino updated their resumes. Maybe Steve can turn the Cupertino campus into low income housing. Good thing he has Pixar.
In other news, Microsoft annouced today that Longhorn will be switching to the PPC platform to compete with Apple.
oh come on...
when gates screwed apple in the early 70's...apple was hard headed and
stuck with their own hardware...the hardware passed them by...they always had a better OS but ran on out of the mainstream hardware...now they are finally getting onboard with up to date hardware and your complainng??????/
WTF...the BEST OS IN THE WORLD ON THE BEST HARDWARE IN THE WORLD...what is it you want that is different??????????
Macmadant said:Apple have betrayed us all never again will i use a mac and no more will they be as pc users flock to buy osx for pentium 4s
when gates screwed apple in the early 70's...apple was hard headed and
stuck with their own hardware...the hardware passed them by...they always had a better OS but ran on out of the mainstream hardware...now they are finally getting onboard with up to date hardware and your complainng??????/
WTF...the BEST OS IN THE WORLD ON THE BEST HARDWARE IN THE WORLD...what is it you want that is different??????????
areyouwishing said:
This is an important point. Right this instance, the G5 is far better than anything Intel has. However, if IBM said they are not taking the G5 anywhere, then sometime in the future Intel will overtake the G5. But, that is probably why they are starting in the low-end and laptops because the G5 will still be the better architecture for awhile.
Still, I would have liked to have seen AMD be the choice, as they are clearly a leader now over Intel. Their duel-core is not a hack-job like Intel's.
I hope it all works out.
granex said:
I am of the opnion if you need a computer buy now. Sell in 2years if you need an iNtel chip. Sell your computer used. By the time this comes about I will have had this powerbook for 3+ years a solid year longer then any other powerbook.
By as your needs are now.
- Status