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
5) easier to convince switchers to come to the Mac world without having to constantly dispell the MHz myth and explain new hardware term
[/QUOTE]
That has to be the number one reason to convince people to switch, people that don't understand computers will think that a 3 ghz pc wipes out a 1.25 ghz emac, theres no time to explain the Mhz myth
[/QUOTE]That has to be the number one reason to convince people to switch, people that don't understand computers will think that a 3 ghz pc wipes out a 1.25 ghz emac, theres no time to explain the Mhz myth
guez said:
Guez, You're right. There were some over simplified gernalizations but I don't think this is the thread to do any in depth analysis. The signal to noise ratio will drown out any rational thoughts. If you're intersted, lets start up a new thread that solely analyses this issue from a business standpoint. WSJ can do this but an analysis coming from MAC fans may add additional value.
Just one point though --- selling to everyone. I didn't say we should do that. I was actually suggesting that we abandon a small non profitable niche to capture a different audience. That's where computing is going. It's becoming a commodity and you need to recognize that fact. It's not the same with automobiles and other luxury items - there are a lot of intangibles as to why people buy a BMW - prestige better design etc. It's still prevalent in computing (face it I bought a powerbook because it looks good and set me apart) but it's a lot less. Several orders of magnitude less.
see where i'm coming from? anyway, i see value in what you said but still feel like i have a valid point. but this isn't the place to debate it. start a new thread, pm me or email me and i would love to continue a MATURE debate based on a business perspective.
I was a marketeer for IBm for 7 years. I also focused in marketing in BSchool. The million dollar question is that when you have a product that is slowly becoming a commodity with not much differentiation, how do you succeed as a company. Marketing non commodities is easy, making a profit in a commodity industry takes skill ... and VISION. Which Steve Jobs has in plenty.
STEVE - PM ME - I'll send you my resume .
Dual Boot?
Thanks for the help, that makes sense, but what about the dual boot question? "I'm wondering if these new Mac-tels will boot Windows and LINX as well as OSX, running all at native speeds?" And will this change to Intel make it easier and more cost effective for developers to use their code for both Mac and windows apps., so we can have more apps. on the Mac?
admanimal said:
Thanks for the help, that makes sense, but what about the dual boot question? "I'm wondering if these new Mac-tels will boot Windows and LINX as well as OSX, running all at native speeds?" And will this change to Intel make it easier and more cost effective for developers to use their code for both Mac and windows apps., so we can have more apps. on the Mac?
kcmac said:
Maybe it's just me but I think there seems to be a little confusion with this type of question and answer on the thread. Jobs showed that Photoshop could run good enough on a PowerMac with a P4 3.6Ghz processor.
He was trying to show that when new Intel Macs come out next year with faster processors, they will still be able to run current Mac applications and will be "fast (enough)".
However it will now be up to the developers to decide if they will still want to support users with PPC Macs, so that they will have to include the appropriate binary(ies) when compiling the application. Obviously most company's will want to release an optimized version for Intel Macs but that will run "perfectly" on PPC Macs. The difference should be something like using a G5-optimized application on a G4 and on a G5 (PPC and Intel, respectively). At least that's what's supposed to happen. I don't dare say that is a fact.
After seeing the keynote, I can't believe that people see this as a negative.
Seriously, what the hell are people worried about? Through the press releases, Job's RDF, and the comments of many users I have complete faith in Apple as a business and its future development for the consumers.
People think this transition is happening overnight when it isn't. Apple has been planning to do this for 5 years (since the first version of OSX) and are siezing the moment when they are at the top of their game (and soon on their way down if they stick with IBM). By "top of their game" I mean a very decent amount of growth in both the software and hardware business.
With Rosetta and Universal Binaries I can only see this as a smooth transition.
Seriously, what the hell are people worried about? Through the press releases, Job's RDF, and the comments of many users I have complete faith in Apple as a business and its future development for the consumers.
People think this transition is happening overnight when it isn't. Apple has been planning to do this for 5 years (since the first version of OSX) and are siezing the moment when they are at the top of their game (and soon on their way down if they stick with IBM). By "top of their game" I mean a very decent amount of growth in both the software and hardware business.
With Rosetta and Universal Binaries I can only see this as a smooth transition.
mandis said:
Far as i know there it seems that apple isn't going to care if you install it on your PC. But lets put it this way. In simplest terms you have a video card, you have a sound card and all the other goodies on your motherboard. These items are designed to work with window, you install OS X and it's possible that the OS does no contain an intructions on how to work with those items. The equivalent would be taking the engine out of a Porsche and installing it in Ford. The two are not just going to sync up and work unless you're lucky. You can hack it and get it to work, but don't expect any help with it
ObsidianIce said:
It won't work because OSX will need the OpenFirmware to install...and only Apple has said OpenFirmware
i_b_joshua said:
Why is everyone assuming that the Intel Macs are going to be cheaper?
There are several different scenero's for the first phase of the transition.
1. the first Intel Macs could be laptops
2. they could be the expensive highend
Don't expect them to be in the mini's or iMacs anytime in 2006.
Whatever!
MacG said:
There has never been a reason why Apple users couldn't do this with PPCs except the closed nature of the architecture and its lack of commodity. Remember the ZIF sockets in the G3 systems and G4 upgrade cards of yore? What's to stop Apple from using an equally un-upgradable design as what they use currently in the G4 and G5 boxes? We know NOTHING about the innards of the future Mac. I'd curb my enthusiam about dropping a new Pentium in your Mac every year until you see it.
MacG said:
Well, since it'll still be a Mac, what difference will it make what processor it uses? Isn't that what everyone is saying? It's the MacOS parents hate, not the processor.
MacG said:3) We can finally rid rumor boards of the useless "PowerBook G5" comments that are made in every thread
I'll give you that one.
MacG said:
I'll wait and see on that one.
MacG said:
I think the mini largely proves nobody cares about any of that.
MacG said:
Maybe. Maybe not. It really depends on drivers, mobo designs, etc. We'll have to wait and see.
MacG said:I dunno but for me, today's news isn't so bad. As long as I have a cool looking computer and it's running Mac OS X, I'm happy!
Tomorrow's Mac will still cost you a lot of money. I'd be more critical and careful with my money than somebody with such a religionist attitude.
the reason this thread has so many replies is because this is one of the hugest announcements apple has ever made, its been a hot topic..
Not as many ppc snobs as some people think...
I bought an iBook last year, but I really, strongly considered an XP laptop instead. My wife's company-supplied IBM laptop seems far better constructed, with a much nicer screen and keyboard, than anything I've purchased from Apple since my WallStreet. More importantly, while the G4 is entirely functional for day-to-day surfing and writing, it's nowhere near as fast as Intel chips for quite a few of the things I do regularly (FMPro and MySQL in particular scream on Intel vs. PPC, nevermind that most of the Intel laptops I priced had much faster hard drives to boot).
However, I much prefer OSX for web development, and find it far easier to automate (even before the Tiger feature) than either XP or Gnome, and there are two or three apps that I just can't live without that aren't available for PCs. BBEdit and BBEdit, and say, BBEdit come to mind first, but there are others.
So I'm really looking forward to the move, and really could care less about leaving the PowerPC behind. If I can get an Apple with a much faster processor and still use all the OSX programs I've already paid for, the I'll be first in line for a Mactrino laptop.
I bought an iBook last year, but I really, strongly considered an XP laptop instead. My wife's company-supplied IBM laptop seems far better constructed, with a much nicer screen and keyboard, than anything I've purchased from Apple since my WallStreet. More importantly, while the G4 is entirely functional for day-to-day surfing and writing, it's nowhere near as fast as Intel chips for quite a few of the things I do regularly (FMPro and MySQL in particular scream on Intel vs. PPC, nevermind that most of the Intel laptops I priced had much faster hard drives to boot).
However, I much prefer OSX for web development, and find it far easier to automate (even before the Tiger feature) than either XP or Gnome, and there are two or three apps that I just can't live without that aren't available for PCs. BBEdit and BBEdit, and say, BBEdit come to mind first, but there are others.
So I'm really looking forward to the move, and really could care less about leaving the PowerPC behind. If I can get an Apple with a much faster processor and still use all the OSX programs I've already paid for, the I'll be first in line for a Mactrino laptop.
EKIRNHADSW said:
Sure, the Apple VP has stated that they won't do anything to stop you from installing Windows on your Mac, so it seems reasonable that you would be able to dual boot- remember that dual booting means only running one OS at a time- in which case whatever OS you boot into and its apps would be running at full speed.
As for the cost-effectiveness question, I don't think it will affect it much. The pain in porting from Windows to Mac or vice-versa has always been due to differences in the OS, not differences in the CPU architecture.
Who is ready to place a bet on when Apple will switch to yet another supplier for its processors? Ten years from now, perhaps?
Apple has shown it is not afraid to make a major change, and that they attend to the requirements of both existing users (run-time translation, universal binaries, and major apps ready to go when the Macintel models come out) as well as future users (the fastest and coolest-running processors they can get for us).
Apple has shown it is not afraid to make a major change, and that they attend to the requirements of both existing users (run-time translation, universal binaries, and major apps ready to go when the Macintel models come out) as well as future users (the fastest and coolest-running processors they can get for us).
rareflares said:
Seriously?
That Intel are being lauded in the same way that IBM were not too long ago.
That Intel chips won't give us fast cool powerbooks.
That somehow OSX is nearer being an OS that anyone can buy and run (and by that I fear that writing an OS for a range of potential 3rd party hardware strewn self built rigs would see it's reliability hit).
NB none of those are proven and none are dispelled right now - but it's what's in my mind right now.
I guess I believed Apple too much when they told me Intel sucked ;-)
admanimal said:
SO?? It mean's they're not locked onto Intel. Remember, Microsoft chose Power for it's new box. Why? Because it's better. Microsoft wants to have a nice, closed cash cow just like Apple has now. Think the Xbox360 can't be a PC?
- Status