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.
Freakk123 said:
Negatives:
-Apple's arguments (MHz myth, etc) can now be used against it
-I just generally like IBM more than Intel
-I'm not a big fan of x86

There are far more negatives than you listed!
- Apple Support: For how long is Apple going to support the PPC platform? I bought a Powerbook G4 two weeks ago, and I fear that it will outlive Apple's support of the PPC platform. Which OS X version will be the first Intel-only version?
- Third party support: For how long will companies provide programs for the Apple PPC architecture? If there are no more PPC Apples around, the PPC versions of programs can't be tested anymore, so prepare for lots of surprises in future PPC versions of programs.
- Drivers: Soon, there won't be any drivers anymore for the PPC architecture, so if you want peripherals for your current Mac, buy them now.
- Who will buy PPC hardware until the transition has been completed?

I for one consider to protect my investment by switching to Linux. I hope the Linux community will manage to support Airport Express sooner or later :(
 
Lollypop said:
Sorry to disagree 840quadra, but socket types are important, I dont see Intel doing a completely custom design just for Apple, and even if they did it would increse costs, reduce availablility ... effectively eliminating the reason I think Apple is going to Intel. Apple will have to use the standard intel designs, that means a different socket for each type of processor.

I agree software is key, but with tiger having lived a double life i think software shouldnt be SUCH a big problem, the Mac experience is software + hardware, Apple does software great.. they now have a chance to do hardware just as well.


Were did I say they would be doing a seperate design for Apple?

:edit:

I see were you are going.

I think Apple will look at all of the types and style of sockets and processors, and pick what works good for the product intended. I don't think Intel will create anything special for Apple, because, as you said, cost would be a factor.

One style socket may go into an iBook, and Mini, while others may end up in the Powerbook, iMac, and Powermac comptuer.

Again, only time will tell.
 
I think we should all stop, either get laid or load up some porn and go to sleep. :) Will the INTEL chip be better for porn or the PPC? If it the PPC then I say **** Steve and the horse he rode in on. PPC = better porn = INTEL bad.

:p
 
People finally realizing PC is for business Mac is for home

MacTruck said:
Ok demographic man. You have obviously lost sleep here so I will allow you to lose some more. Do this math.

Based on your own admission no large company will ever use all macs. Sooo at those all up. Every large corporation in the world. Count the employees. Now add up all the schools which have gone away from macs and will not return. Add up every elementary, middle and high school, ohh throw in every college and all its students. I'll let you have VT not that they will be allowed to spend another $5 million on macs ever again after this one. They had to switch twice already. Now what do you have added up yet???? So we are looking at the following using macs.

Movie studios, total macs maybe 5000 macs.
Graphic shops use half macs mostly.
Consumers that just play. Add those up.

Now which ones that won't use macs will use macs in 2 yrs and which ones that use macs now won't use them in 2 yrs. I would say it evens out there. Now what is the current mac market share?

Got your answer? No go.


I think a lot of people are finally realizing what I've believed for years. Windows is fine for businesses, but Mac OS is much better suited for home use than Windows is. I thought of the digital hub idea several years before Apple came out with it...I always thought that it was the perfect idea for Apple.

I was torn back in '95 when I was shopping for my first computer. Mac or PC. I went back and forth. Finally decided on Mac, practically on a flip of a coin. So glad I made that decision.

I have to use a PC at work occasionally. I only stay on it for as short a period as possible. It isn't very enjoyable, very utilitarian, very sterile and generic looking. Ugly little x's in the corners of every window. The desktop cluttered with all kinds of icons, all lined up in rows. Very plain looking.

I use my Mac at home for video and photo editing. Nice Cinema Display...the graphics are incredible. Just one look and there is no comparison. Windows looks so archaic in comparison.

A lot of people I work with used to be Mac users. They tell me they "went over to the dark side." I hear a lot of them now talking about coming back to Apple. I think people go into the Apple stores and are blown away by the look and feel.

I had a friend visiting me from Seattle, Microsoft's back yard...and he took one look at my 17" powerbook and fell in love. We went straight to the Apple store and he bought one. We email each other and he thanks me repeatedly for introducing him to Macs. He says he can't believe the difference. He is so happy. He says that he has shown his powerbook to other friends in Seattle who have daughters starting college. Many of the daughters are wanting Apple computers for school according to my friend. They have ipods, love them, and now they want macs. He says even the parents are thinking of getting one when they see his powerbook.

I think Apple is going to grow way past the 5% market share point. Even if all businesses use Windows...not every person who has a job uses a computer. If you work in an office and see dozens of coworkers all using computers, you think the whole world is like you. Think of all the professions who don't use computers for work. But practically everyone has or will have a computer at home.

Besides, people unfairly judge Apple's market share as 3% Apple vs 97% Windows. Well, Windows isn't a computer. Microsoft doesn't make computers. I think I heard that Dell is the leading PC maker, and if I remember correctly...their market share is something like 13%.
 
Here here.

eVolcre said:
I think we should all stop, either get laid or load up some porn and go to sleep. :) Will the INTEL chip be better for porn or the PPC? If it the PPC then I say **** Steve and the horse he rode in on. PPC = better porn = INTEL bad.

:p

This is exactly what I have been saying all along.
 
840quadra said:
I think apple is adopting the X86 core architecture, which would mean that the socket type, or connection style would have less importance on future Powermac computers. Southbridge would be cool in the points you bring up, but remember that we are about a year a way from a true product (according to rumor and comments from apple) and Intel may have an other x86 architecture available that Apple may use.

What do you mean with the above then?? How can they have another x86 architecture availabe and NOT have socket type be important?
 
eVolcre said:
I think we should all stop, either get laid or load up some porn and go to sleep. :) Will the INTEL chip be better for porn or the PPC? If it the PPC then I say **** Steve and the horse he rode in on. PPC = better porn = INTEL bad.

:p

hmm.. isn't this Macrumors not .... um... nevermind

I don't get to go to bed for an other 8 hours :(
 
weg said:
I for one consider to protect my investment by switching to Linux. I hope the Linux community will manage to support Airport Express sooner or later :(
Well, Linux is undergoing a lot more turmoil than Apple, so, not a good choice. You'll be really upset when Microsoft buys Red Hat.
 
brap said:
Either that, or Jobs was looking for an excuse. IBM were having problems meeting supply -- but the comment about PPC (ergo, POWER) having a poor roadmap isn't true. A POWER5 derivative would have been drool-worthy.

Not in a laptop.
 
840quadra said:
hmm.. isn't this Macrumors not .... um... nevermind

I don't get to go to bed for an other 8 hours :(

Well we do use OSX which sounds pretty close to Oh Sex. :p
 
Performa said:
I think a lot of people are finally realizing what I've believed for years. Windows is fine for businesses, but Mac OS is much better suited for home use than Windows is. I thought of the digital hub idea several years before Apple came out with it...I always thought that it was the perfect idea for Apple.

I was torn back in '95 when I was shopping for my first computer. Mac or PC. I went back and forth. Finally decided on Mac, practically on a flip of a coin. So glad I made that decision.

I have to use a PC at work occasionally. I only stay on it for as short a period as possible. It isn't very enjoyable, very utilitarian, very sterile and generic looking. Ugly little x's in the corners of every window. The desktop cluttered with all kinds of icons, all lined up in rows. Very plain looking.

I use my Mac at home for video and photo editing. Nice Cinema Display...the graphics are incredible. Just one look and there is no comparison. Windows looks so archaic in comparison.

A lot of people I work with used to be Mac users. They tell me they "went over to the dark side." I hear a lot of them now talking about coming back to Apple. I think people go into the Apple stores and are blown away by the look and feel.

I had a friend visiting me from Seattle, Microsoft's back yard...and he took one look at my 17" powerbook and fell in love. We went straight to the Apple store and he bought one. We email each other and he thanks me repeatedly for introducing him to Macs. He says he can't believe the difference. He is so happy. He says that he has shown his powerbook to other friends in Seattle who have daughters starting college. Many of the daughters are wanting Apple computers for school according to my friend. They have ipods, love them, and now they want macs. He says even the parents are thinking of getting one when they see his powerbook.

I think Apple is going to grow way past the 5% market share point. Even if all businesses use Windows...not every person who has a job uses a computer. If you work in an office and see dozens of coworkers all using computers, you think the whole world is like you. Think of all the professions who don't use computers for work. But practically everyone has or will have a computer at home.

Besides, people unfairly judge Apple's market share as 3% Apple vs 97% Windows. Well, Windows isn't a computer. Microsoft doesn't make computers. I think I heard that Dell is the leading PC maker, and if I remember correctly...their market share is something like 13%.

I think you put into words what I was trying to get at with my numbers and quantitative analysis. Thanks. Well said and i concur
 
Last ditch effort to survive or full assault on Windows?

IBM really let Apple down. The G5 is a great chip, but it's way too hot for the PowerBook and iBook. No company can survive long trying to convince half its customers to accept 5 year old chips. Steve et al really had no choice but to work on a contingency plan. Unfortunately I can't see much of a future for Apple as a hardware company.

When Macs are the same as every other PC, albeit prettier and running OS X instead of Windoze, the general public will expect them to be just as inexpensive as every other PC. Right now Apple makes an average of 26% profit on each Mac. Dell, the ONLY profitable PC maker, has a much lower profit margin and they have no OS division sucking millions of dollars, no retail stores, no American tech support costs, etc. If Apple is able to turn any profit at all on their new Mactel computers they will have to be priced well above everyone else's virtually identical PCs. Market share isn't going up under that scenario. At best Apple remains the choice of 4% of the market.

We all know that Apple will manage to convince a small, but vocal minority to pay more to get a real Mac. Unfortunately it should be quite simple for hackers to figure out what it is that makes a Mactel different from a generic PC. A patch to circumvent Apple's hardware lock will probably be available on the internet weeks before the first Mactel hits store shelves. Thousands, if not millions, will download the patch and install OS X on their Dells, HPs and do-it-yourself gaming boxes just because they can.

Of course maybe that's the whole point. Once enough people have tried a "free" copy of OS X they won't want to go back to an inferior OS. After all, widespread, world-wide piracy in the 1980's and 90's is the way Microsoft got their software onto 95% of the planet's personal computers. Maybe history will repeat itself. We can only hope so.
 
This has probably been raised above but a good comparison could be the move from 32bit to 64bit for Windows XP - old apps will still run but for optimum performance the apps need to be recompiled.
 
Performa said:
I think a lot of people are finally realizing what I've believed for years. Windows is fine for businesses, but Mac OS is much better suited for home use than Windows is. I thought of the digital hub idea several years before Apple came out with it...I always thought that it was the perfect idea for Apple.

I was torn back in '95 when I was shopping for my first computer. Mac or PC. I went back and forth. Finally decided on Mac, practically on a flip of a coin. So glad I made that decision.

I have to use a PC at work occasionally. I only stay on it for as short a period as possible. It isn't very enjoyable, very utilitarian, very sterile and generic looking. Ugly little x's in the corners of every window. The desktop cluttered with all kinds of icons, all lined up in rows. Very plain looking.

I use my Mac at home for video and photo editing. Nice Cinema Display...the graphics are incredible. Just one look and there is no comparison. Windows looks so archaic in comparison.

A lot of people I work with used to be Mac users. They tell me they "went over to the dark side." I hear a lot of them now talking about coming back to Apple. I think people go into the Apple stores and are blown away by the look and feel.

I had a friend visiting me from Seattle, Microsoft's back yard...and he took one look at my 17" powerbook and fell in love. We went straight to the Apple store and he bought one. We email each other and he thanks me repeatedly for introducing him to Macs. He says he can't believe the difference. He is so happy. He says that he has shown his powerbook to other friends in Seattle who have daughters starting college. Many of the daughters are wanting Apple computers for school according to my friend. They have ipods, love them, and now they want macs. He says even the parents are thinking of getting one when they see his powerbook.

I think Apple is going to grow way past the 5% market share point. Even if all businesses use Windows...not every person who has a job uses a computer. If you work in an office and see dozens of coworkers all using computers, you think the whole world is like you. Think of all the professions who don't use computers for work. But practically everyone has or will have a computer at home.

Besides, people unfairly judge Apple's market share as 3% Apple vs 97% Windows. Well, Windows isn't a computer. Microsoft doesn't make computers. I think I heard that Dell is the leading PC maker, and if I remember correctly...their market share is something like 13%.

Funny that you mention the dark side... I get told that EVERY day!

But if Apple could just stay in the home they could increase their market share AND stay out of the way of M$, interesting though is the possibilities in the SERVER market... Apple could kick ass, show Dell and HP how a server should look using the same hardware! Again software will be KEY in the server market, Linux and M$ does intel servers very well!
 
bit density said:
Why in the hell do you NOT want OSX running on a stock dell?

Look, I want Apple, Sony, Dell, and whoever else to make the best machine possible, and instead of just Windows, I want to be able to run OSX on that machine as well.

Advantage clearly Apple. If I buy a mac I get OSX, Ilife, Applecare, and a bunch of other stuff, free. If I buy Sony, I have to spend 100 bucks of OSx, 79 Dollars for Ilife, and 80 bucks more for I works, and whatever else I want to run. This is clearly in Apples best interest.

Apple has a huge leg up over windows in that they do not have to support legacy hardware. If it doesn't work with your machine, Apple will gladly refund your money, go buy windows.

Me, this means I get one of those shiny new Sony boxes, with the best OS in the world running on it. What is wrong with that?

Cheers
To begin with, a pair of reasons this isn't in the cards:

1) Phil Schiller has already stated that
We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac
2) Steve Jobs has always been vehemently (some might say rabidly) against cloning the Mac. Just about his first official action after returning as CEO in 1997 was to pull the plug on the Mac clones. I've still got some Power Computing swag around here someplace...

Understand, hardware sales are much more profitable for Apple than software sales. They are not about to give up any hardware sales.

If they ever do decide to allow OS X compatible machines from other hardware vendors, I expect very tightly controlled configurations from select vendors (Dell? HP? Sony?) with some sort of Apple certification program. Selling boxes of OS X to load on any random x86 box doesn't seem likely.
 
MikeBike said:
First Off, the only SAFE way to run Windows is in Virtual PC.
Either on Apple or Intel. The Registry is so fragile in Windows that a Bad install/un-install cycle can really screw the system up. With Virtual PC you can make a FULL System Image Backup, Install some flaky software like MySql beta, let it break, and go back to your Backup. This is extremely easy.

No, you can backup your registry and restore it if anything happens to it. Pretty easy. One click and it's backed up. System goes kablooey. You boot into safe mode and restore the messed up registry. Windows XP also has system restore so if you do happen to make your system go kablooey, you can roll back to a time before you did that dastardly deed. And the third option is to use some third party software like Acronis True Image or Symantec Ghost or any number of gazillion apps to create an image.

It's hard to make your Windows system fail. However, the registry does get polluted after awhile if you install and uninstall a lot, resulting in the system slowing down over time. I usually restore a fresh image after about a year, freshen it up with the latest definitions and drivers, remake the image and move on from there.
 
jar said:
To begin with, a pair of reasons this isn't in the cards:

1) Phil Schiller has already stated that 2) Steve Jobs has always been vehemently (some might say rabidly) against cloning the Mac. Just about his first official action after returning as CEO in 1997 was to pull the plug on the Mac clones. I've still got some Power Computing swag around here someplace...

Understand, hardware sales are much more profitable for Apple than software sales. They are not about to give up any hardware sales.

If they ever do decide to allow OS X compatible machines from other hardware vendors, I expect very tightly controlled configurations from select vendors (Dell? HP? Sony?) with some sort of Apple certification program. Selling boxes of OS X to load on any random x86 box doesn't seem likely.

Interesting that you should mention Power Computing... the reason Apple pulled the cloner plug was that they couldnt keep up with Power, up to now they have been able to say that they are faster because of superious chips, now they are operating on the same playing field, they will have to be very quick with hardware updates it they arent going to fall behind.
 
When Macs are the same as every other PC, albeit prettier and running OS X instead of Windoze, the general public will expect them to be just as inexpensive as every other PC. Right now Apple makes an average of 26% profit on each Mac. Dell, the ONLY profitable PC maker, has a much lower profit margin and they have no OS division sucking millions of dollars, no retail stores, no American tech support costs, etc. If Apple is able to turn any profit at all on their new Mactel computers they will have to be priced well above everyone else's virtually identical PCs. Market share isn't going up under that scenario. At best Apple remains the choice of 4% of the market.

I don't get it. Everybody already knows that Mac laptop hardware flat out sucks compared to Wintel. Everybody knows you can get a 2.4 GHz AMD64 machine for the same price as a slower 1.8 G5 iMac, and people keep buying the systems. I don't understand why you think that when there is no difference in the hardware people will all of sudden say:

'Well, gee, I could justify buying an Apple when it was inferior, but now that its the same, there's no way I could ever buy an Apple'

I agree that Apple will remain a niche player, but how can they improve their hardware 'ceteris parabis' and suddenly have no customers?

Of course maybe that's the whole point. Once enough people have tried a "free" copy of OS X they won't want to go back to an inferior OS. After all, widespread, world-wide piracy in the 1980's and 90's is the way Microsoft got their software onto 95% of the planet's personal computers. Maybe history will repeat itself. We can only hope so.

I agree that OS X will get cracked, but an OS is not a movie or a song. Try installing Linux on your machine, and after you have all the drivers working, come back and tell me how many regular people are going to be installing a completely unsupported version of OS X on their machine. It works for Windows only because MS has built so much driver support into it.
 
I don't think this is the end of Apple, but I think It shows the problems with the Mac platform. Apple makes mistakes/ like this every couple of years, and drags it's users along whether they like it or not. While this can happen in the PC world, it's often less painful. Apple will survive, and in the long-run probably expand past the 5% mark, but in the long-term, Apple can't keep going through "transitions" every few years.
Another thing that worries me is that they went with intel over AMD. While I'm sure they have their reasons, one cannot deny the fact that AMD's current, and future desktop processors have a lot more legroom than intels. I don't understand why Apple didn't do the smart thing and go with AMD for their desktop/server's, and intel for their portables, other pc manufacturers can use both brands, so why not Apple? Using both manufacturers would virtually eliminate any kind of complaints about apple's lacking performance compared to their competition, and their both x86 so no it's not like it would cause a pain for developers. Most of all using both manufacturers would mean apple would have established two simultaneous relationships with two different chip manufacturers, hopefully preventing another outrageous IBM incident.
 
MontyZ said:
Well, Linux is undergoing a lot more turmoil than Apple, so, not a good choice. You'll be really upset when Microsoft buys Red Hat.

Red Hat is NOT Linux in the first place.
 
Godwin said:
Key word here is THERMAL performance.. Performance /Watt as Steve puts it. AMD has been lacking behind Intel in that department much like Power has been.

I think lack of portability POWER processor was the tipping point.. remember all the IBM's new customers going for cell aren't using them for portability purposes.

Again, the only X86 processor that Intel has that is better in thermal performance is the Pentium M. All the other chips (P4, P4EE, Pentium D, etc.) run really hot. However, the Pentium M is not yet as fast as the other Pentiums, yet alone as fast as the AMD chips. It's awesome for notebooks but for desktops, well, maybe next year. And again, while the desktop chips are 64-bit, Pentium M will remain 32-bit for awhile.

And stop quoting that one article from Tom's hardware. Overclocking is never guaranteed. I'm sure if you overclock the beejezus out of a CPU with exotic cooling, you'll beat whatever but under normal yields with normal conditions, the Pentium M can't match Athlon64 yet. Plus Tom's Hardware has forever been known as Intel's and Nvidia's b***h.

Now, I'm not bagging on the Pentium M. It's an awesome design and should've been the chip to replace the PIII. It has more room for growth than current P4's. But for the Intel roadmap, it'll remain a 32-bit chip (while their other chips and AMD's chips are transitioning to 64-bit) for at least to the dual-core PentM.
 
I have mixed feelings about this, here is why:

What is bad:
- Rosetta only supports G3 processors. Every app that needs Altivec (G4) will not run on a Intel Mac. That basically means you can't buy any new Software until the fat binaries are shipping.
My guess is that no (informed) buyer will get any new Mac Software until they ship the fat binaries or at least confirm that they will be available for download later.
PowerPC based Macs will be supported for many years to come. Thats why I don't see any problems with buying one in the next two years. As I said - this is not true for buying Software
What is good:
- Intel is dedicated to making chips because their future depends on it. That is really good. We will not have to worry about Freescale or IBMs roadmap.
I cannot see a difference between IBM and Intel from a corporate standpoint - both huge companys - in the 1984 movie IBM was the bad guy?
- I can run Windows on my Intel Mac - I consider this as a good thing. That means I will finally never buy anything else but a Mac. If I need Windows - I can boot it.

To sum up:
Because I have some apps that need a G4 I will get a fancy new PowerPC based Mac soon. But NO new apps until they ship the fat bineries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.