PC's suffer from viruses because the Microsoft Windoze OS is riddled with security holes. Not because of the type of processor it's running on. OSX will be far more secure than Windoze irregardless of what CPU it's running on.Kobushi said:
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
eVolcre said:
You can still at this point do a ton more with computers and games from custom maps, to more control options, better online capabilities, etc. Another cool article epands more on this issue. http://www.ringsurf.com/info/Entertainment/Video_Games/Video_Game_Systems/PC_vs_Console/
Also, remember what happened in 1983 when the games market went in the toilet. They saturated the market with so many games that it became a mess of some of the worst video games ever produced. Remember Porky's or ET for the Atari? Besides, its computers that they develope on so why not just make money on both sides. Games are almost released like movies now complete with trailers, so why not grab the market on the whole, Macs and all...
Thanks for that well explained post Jason Vene. Even though my considerations are from a consumer, rather than developer, point of view it obviously makes sense.
I would like to add that the actual streamed keynote explains a lot more than most of the articles doing the rounds, and has certainly put my mind at ease over this next transition.
I think the future for Apple is looking good.
I would like to add that the actual streamed keynote explains a lot more than most of the articles doing the rounds, and has certainly put my mind at ease over this next transition.
I think the future for Apple is looking good.
Awesome post!
Jason, you should have helped Steve Jobs at the Keynote. I liked your way of setting things strait than his.. Your post made things seem sweeter even for a dummy like me..
Jason, you should have helped Steve Jobs at the Keynote. I liked your way of setting things strait than his..
Your post made things seem sweeter even for a dummy like me..Dr.Gargoyle said:
The same statement could apply to your entire argument.... Why change anything? If you are running an "archaic" program, why upgrade your hardware etc? If it works, as you say, and you have NO intentions of improving it, why change anything?
Its not as though these people are being FORCED to upgrade.
Well..I guess for mid-level user like me, the transition might not be so bad, since I can barely tell the difference between an IBM CPU and an Intel one. But how about high-end users? They won't be able to buy a machine that outperforms PC, right? How's Apple gonna do with that? I think Apple just lost that edge by switching to Intel..
And I just saw another update on Macrumors that Rosetta doesn't support AltiVec. So the news we know so far are against the future performance of OS X on Intel CPU..
I hope SJ can come up with something, otherwise I think things are not looking good for Apple..
Honestly, after seeing the key note yesterday, I don't feel like it's a cheerful moment or a moment worth celebrating. I feel like it's a very sad moment and that Apple is actually making a sad announcement. It's sad that IBM dumped Apple and I think it's a decision that IBM is gonna regret one day. I mean, this company has all the leading technology but just not able to make popular to general public. I have a lot of respect for them, but it's just weird..
Also, I have friends work in the CPU industry, they all say that IBM is still so far the leader in this industry, and it's got the technology to make multiple OS run on its servers (please correct me if I'm wrong). Besides, it's kinda odd to me that while many companies are switching to IBM, Apple managed to switch to Intel.
And I just saw another update on Macrumors that Rosetta doesn't support AltiVec. So the news we know so far are against the future performance of OS X on Intel CPU..
I hope SJ can come up with something, otherwise I think things are not looking good for Apple..
Honestly, after seeing the key note yesterday, I don't feel like it's a cheerful moment or a moment worth celebrating. I feel like it's a very sad moment and that Apple is actually making a sad announcement. It's sad that IBM dumped Apple and I think it's a decision that IBM is gonna regret one day. I mean, this company has all the leading technology but just not able to make popular to general public. I have a lot of respect for them, but it's just weird..
Also, I have friends work in the CPU industry, they all say that IBM is still so far the leader in this industry, and it's got the technology to make multiple OS run on its servers (please correct me if I'm wrong). Besides, it's kinda odd to me that while many companies are switching to IBM, Apple managed to switch to Intel.
Dr.Gargoyle said:
Uhh, me, who hates the idea of hardware DRM. But only if I see some price cuts.
Ravenflight said:
Well, as I understand it, the fact that some (all?) Intel chips have shared code and data caches should make them more vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits. How many malware attacks are of this type, I don't know.
I feel for these guys. I think the game developers are well and truly screwed. I'm not going to dual boot to use productivity software; but a game, that runs like a$$ in OS X vs just booting up XP? You bet! And that's on top of their increased costs to port in the 1st place.
I think porting games for Mac is going to be the 1st thing that dies.
Here's what I want to know. I just purchased a new PowerBook and what will happen to my notebook when the switch is final?
eVolcre said:It's going to grow teeth and bite you.
So is this something that is covered under AppleCare or do I need to take it to the dentist?
So, to sum up.
Will PPC macs still be supported? Ie. will future releases of Mac OSX run on them? I get the impression that xserves will remain running PPC chips, this is correct, yes?
What about apps, we've seen that there's an emulator for PPC architecture on an x86 machine running X, what about the other way round, will many people feel abandoned... will there have to be two products compiled for each platform by many devs? I'm thinking some will chose to forego that once the point is reached that PPC is virtually phased out of the mac platform.
Its not worrying to me because of any stupid sentimental crap, its worrying because how the bollocks am I meant to buy a mac within the next TWO years and know my purchase will last and I won't have to buy an x86 afterwards?
Any thoughts, people?
Personally I think apple should keep the PPC option constantly open and always be developing emulators for both platforms, should a G6 thats superior to intel's offerings for instance, they could go with that for some of their products. I see no reason for this silly all or nothing nonsense...
Will PPC macs still be supported? Ie. will future releases of Mac OSX run on them? I get the impression that xserves will remain running PPC chips, this is correct, yes?
What about apps, we've seen that there's an emulator for PPC architecture on an x86 machine running X, what about the other way round, will many people feel abandoned... will there have to be two products compiled for each platform by many devs? I'm thinking some will chose to forego that once the point is reached that PPC is virtually phased out of the mac platform.
Its not worrying to me because of any stupid sentimental crap, its worrying because how the bollocks am I meant to buy a mac within the next TWO years and know my purchase will last and I won't have to buy an x86 afterwards?
Any thoughts, people?
Personally I think apple should keep the PPC option constantly open and always be developing emulators for both platforms, should a G6 thats superior to intel's offerings for instance, they could go with that for some of their products. I see no reason for this silly all or nothing nonsense...
HelloKitty said:
Apple lost that edge when IBM hit a wall. Intel is already killing in the laptop arena and making great leaping strides while the PPC solution for laptops is currently at a near standstill. Okay, that's hyperbole, but basically true.
OS X will make use of Intel's instruction set SSE2 instead of altivec. The only thing this affects is that altivec optimised software will have to be rewritten.
It's not as simple as IBM dropping Apple or vice versa. Basically, Apple didn't have the marketshare to make the R&D worthwhile.
IBM is the leader in some areas, but not all. They have nothing to compete with the Intel on the laptop side, among other examples. And while they can run multiple OS on their servers so can everybody, including Intel.
springdaddy said:
As we have disscused countless times on this forum.... Your notebook will be fine apple will still support its products probobly past 2010 when you note book will be dead/sold/replaced. People are still using OS 9 and i have no clue how long ago that was.
HelloKitty said:
I agree, it did feel a little sad... and I think it's safe to say there was tension in the air when photoshop was loading. Uncomfortable silence.
I'm all for the switch to Intel, though.
Jason Vene said:
I enjoyed your post, but would have to take issue with this claim. I think a lot of rev A iMac 3 owners would agree.
- Status