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
You r making me laugh!
a) x.86 hardware is hackable no matter what!! It is not Windows alone!! get that through first, let it sink and then read on..
b) there is no Intel chip that comes even HALF-WAY to the power that a 2.7Ghz PPC provides. That is single chip battles and not clusters!
c) Intel doesn't have a REAL 64-bit solution. Itanium chips are a joke!! AMD athlon 64 are more reliable than these, and athlon line is discontinued!!! LOL!
All that talk from Jobs, 'bout the future of comp being 64bit is out the window!!
d) Apple may the announcement of switching to Intel, -- in two years, when they start making really chips!! not just cool sets that provide the performance of a G4, minus well stay with the current powerbooks:
d.1)So we keep the intel = G4. U get space in the case... great move.. compensate speed and performance with mega fast SATA 2 /NCQ drives... errr... hard drives are CAPPED at about 88 megabytes/s DUE TO PHYSICAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING -> you can make the most amazing shoes but you always going to be able to run so fast! call it nature
d.2)So we fit a 2 disk array to get data fast in and out. WOW why didn't the rest of the bulky laptops have it? Simple. TOO HEAVY!!
d.3)Weaked you fit a million different interfaces = ports and drives and so on. When it comes down to processig that info--which the future, hence 60GB iPods-- then what?: "we doing it for you and for our costumers" cheaper machines that perform ALMOST same (meanin less)! I though changes were for bette things not just prices-- "we change the case to a metallic one for price drop and BETTER COOLLING, you can get holes in the PM g4 but the plastic is too xpensive!
e) MUltiple CPU or what mac is used to: Dual processor. Now, a bit hard to get but PPC are design for multi-thread, hence VIRGINIA TECH uses PMG5s and not Intel. Multi-thread is what allows for two cpus fisically seperated to work together like in DP powermacs. But dont worry you are gonna get a dual core Intel chip.. yes you are two cpus in one, fisically connected!! Now, it will be very close to the perfomance of a single PPC 2.7ghz so no down side here LOL!!!
I got to go to work but, just remember that for a while Apple will continue with PPC-- real macs as we know them-- hell i am going for the dual 2.7 or better this winter, so prepare yourself for the CHEAP, DELL REVAMPed macs coming soon. Apple wanted the world to buy more macs, SO DONT GET MAD IF APPLE STARTS TO SELL PIECES OF CRAP AS COMPUTERS -- not everyone drives BMWs, do they?
Ps. It would be sad if BMW started putting Ford engines in their cars, they would go broke, but hell their only 4% of the market.. are they broke??
a) x.86 hardware is hackable no matter what!! It is not Windows alone!! get that through first, let it sink and then read on..
b) there is no Intel chip that comes even HALF-WAY to the power that a 2.7Ghz PPC provides. That is single chip battles and not clusters!
c) Intel doesn't have a REAL 64-bit solution. Itanium chips are a joke!! AMD athlon 64 are more reliable than these, and athlon line is discontinued!!! LOL!
All that talk from Jobs, 'bout the future of comp being 64bit is out the window!!
d) Apple may the announcement of switching to Intel, -- in two years, when they start making really chips!! not just cool sets that provide the performance of a G4, minus well stay with the current powerbooks:
d.1)So we keep the intel = G4. U get space in the case... great move.. compensate speed and performance with mega fast SATA 2 /NCQ drives... errr... hard drives are CAPPED at about 88 megabytes/s DUE TO PHYSICAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING -> you can make the most amazing shoes but you always going to be able to run so fast! call it nature
d.2)So we fit a 2 disk array to get data fast in and out. WOW why didn't the rest of the bulky laptops have it? Simple. TOO HEAVY!!
d.3)Weaked you fit a million different interfaces = ports and drives and so on. When it comes down to processig that info--which the future, hence 60GB iPods-- then what?: "we doing it for you and for our costumers" cheaper machines that perform ALMOST same (meanin less)! I though changes were for bette things not just prices-- "we change the case to a metallic one for price drop and BETTER COOLLING, you can get holes in the PM g4 but the plastic is too xpensive!
e) MUltiple CPU or what mac is used to: Dual processor. Now, a bit hard to get but PPC are design for multi-thread, hence VIRGINIA TECH uses PMG5s and not Intel. Multi-thread is what allows for two cpus fisically seperated to work together like in DP powermacs. But dont worry you are gonna get a dual core Intel chip.. yes you are two cpus in one, fisically connected!! Now, it will be very close to the perfomance of a single PPC 2.7ghz so no down side here LOL!!!
I got to go to work but, just remember that for a while Apple will continue with PPC-- real macs as we know them-- hell i am going for the dual 2.7 or better this winter, so prepare yourself for the CHEAP, DELL REVAMPed macs coming soon. Apple wanted the world to buy more macs, SO DONT GET MAD IF APPLE STARTS TO SELL PIECES OF CRAP AS COMPUTERS -- not everyone drives BMWs, do they?
Ps. It would be sad if BMW started putting Ford engines in their cars, they would go broke, but hell their only 4% of the market.. are they broke??
i almost forgot to give you prove from Apple themselves:
http://www.apple.com/ca/powermac/performance/
enjoy!
http://www.apple.com/ca/powermac/performance/
enjoy!
ManchesterTrix said:
Just to add to this - any code written using low-level Altivec assembly will need to be completely rewritten. However, any code using Apple's Accelerate framework should just recompile - though it might need some tweaking - as it provides the necessary hardware abstraction.
rubberband said:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
Read this article before complaining.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but someone is a previous post gave the impression that Apple had the only viable 64-bit chip on the market.
In any case, AMD is the only manufacturer that offers real 64-bit solutions, currently:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/
As for notebooks, most Compaq/HP notebooks run 64-bit AMD, for example.
In any case, AMD is the only manufacturer that offers real 64-bit solutions, currently:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/
As for notebooks, most Compaq/HP notebooks run 64-bit AMD, for example.
I apologize if the following has been discussed, but I didn't have time to read all the previous 97 pages.
I think I remember reading that a new study just revealed that ~16% of the installed user base is using Apple computers. hmm. "IF" Apple can offer competatively priced lower end computers "AND" a significant number of the alleged user base begins to upgrade computers on a more regular cycle, well, wouldn't that have a significant effect on marketshare?
just a thought
I think I remember reading that a new study just revealed that ~16% of the installed user base is using Apple computers. hmm. "IF" Apple can offer competatively priced lower end computers "AND" a significant number of the alleged user base begins to upgrade computers on a more regular cycle, well, wouldn't that have a significant effect on marketshare?
just a thought
Apple could put out Intel Macintoshes today, if they chose from among the zillions of chipsets and motherboards that are available commercially. In the Intel world, you can roll your own--you can march yourself down to the computer store, buy all the components, and manufacture your own Windows or Linux machine to your own specs in a couple of days. I know a few guys who do that. So there is no reason why Apple can't do that.
By the way, there are already Intel chips in Macintoshes--just none working as a CPU.
So there must be a reason for the one-year delay before Intel Macs come out, because if they put out Intel and PPC Macs side-by-side for a year--for loyalists and early adopters--they could avoid a slump in sales. It obviously has nothing to do with OS X, since it has been running on Intel longer than it has been running on PPC. I think they are finishing up the design and testing of the motherboard and the chipset--and working on the ad campaign and performance tests that will convince you to buy them. I cannot imagine that Apple will use a chipset and motherboard that is available off the shelf, because that would make homebrew Macs possible.
It isn't in Apple's interest to acquire the PR problems that result when people install OS X on homebrew or Brand X machines and blame their problems on OS X.
So Windows won't run on an Intel Macintosh, nor will OS X run on a generic Intel box, if for no other reason than the BIOS, which you are unaware of because the Mac hides it from you. Haven't you ever wondered how the hardware knows how to load OS X? It's the BIOS. Don't you remember those Mac clones that wouldn't work until you stuck in a BIOS chip from a dead Mac?
IBM is not going to develop higher-performance PowerPCs for notebooks and desktops. It isn't their core business. Future versions are designed for game consoles. PowerPC is not an option for the future. It will never be possible to make a G5 laptop, ever. There won't be a G6. IBM doesn't want or need Apple's business and therefore won't accommodate them. So Apple has to switch or die. Intel is in the business of making notebook and desktop CPUs. Since they dominate that market, they are unlikely to change that. So the switch to Intel makes good business sense. A blind bedouin who has been lost in the desert for 20 years could see that. It's a big Duh.
The change makes absolutely no difference to the ordinary user, only to developers. Unless you are a developer, you don't even need to know what CPU you Mac is using. There are Windows users who don't know whether their machine has Intel or AMD nor do they even care. You shouldn't care what's in your Mac, either. What matters to you is whether the computer does what you want as fast as you want in the way that you want. That's all.
For Macintosh users, the change to Intel only has an emotional effect. To all of you upset people, I say, Get a life. Put down the chocolates, turn off the TV, get off the sofa, and get back to using your Macs. You'll get through this the same way you battled your way through that horrendous Year 2000 crisis.
By the way, there are already Intel chips in Macintoshes--just none working as a CPU.
So there must be a reason for the one-year delay before Intel Macs come out, because if they put out Intel and PPC Macs side-by-side for a year--for loyalists and early adopters--they could avoid a slump in sales. It obviously has nothing to do with OS X, since it has been running on Intel longer than it has been running on PPC. I think they are finishing up the design and testing of the motherboard and the chipset--and working on the ad campaign and performance tests that will convince you to buy them. I cannot imagine that Apple will use a chipset and motherboard that is available off the shelf, because that would make homebrew Macs possible.
It isn't in Apple's interest to acquire the PR problems that result when people install OS X on homebrew or Brand X machines and blame their problems on OS X.
So Windows won't run on an Intel Macintosh, nor will OS X run on a generic Intel box, if for no other reason than the BIOS, which you are unaware of because the Mac hides it from you. Haven't you ever wondered how the hardware knows how to load OS X? It's the BIOS. Don't you remember those Mac clones that wouldn't work until you stuck in a BIOS chip from a dead Mac?
IBM is not going to develop higher-performance PowerPCs for notebooks and desktops. It isn't their core business. Future versions are designed for game consoles. PowerPC is not an option for the future. It will never be possible to make a G5 laptop, ever. There won't be a G6. IBM doesn't want or need Apple's business and therefore won't accommodate them. So Apple has to switch or die. Intel is in the business of making notebook and desktop CPUs. Since they dominate that market, they are unlikely to change that. So the switch to Intel makes good business sense. A blind bedouin who has been lost in the desert for 20 years could see that. It's a big Duh.
The change makes absolutely no difference to the ordinary user, only to developers. Unless you are a developer, you don't even need to know what CPU you Mac is using. There are Windows users who don't know whether their machine has Intel or AMD nor do they even care. You shouldn't care what's in your Mac, either. What matters to you is whether the computer does what you want as fast as you want in the way that you want. That's all.
For Macintosh users, the change to Intel only has an emotional effect. To all of you upset people, I say, Get a life. Put down the chocolates, turn off the TV, get off the sofa, and get back to using your Macs. You'll get through this the same way you battled your way through that horrendous Year 2000 crisis.
Panu said:
According to some folks Apple is awaiting the arrival of the dual-core low-power 64-bit Merom[mobile], Conroe[desktop], Woodcrest [server] chips due Q2 2006. Chips are based on the awesome Pentium-M arch and not the not-so-awesome P4 arch. The 2007 quad-core followon to Woodcrest (and presumable replacement to the as-yet announced, but hopefully coming this year or 2006, 970MP at the high end of the PM range) is called Whitefield.
This would give Apple an all dual-core, all 64-bit low-power line in 2006 and quad-core at the high-end by 2007.
Who wants to bet that that IBM/Moto couldn't match that roadmap?
zippy portables
I cannot wait until I get my dual-core 2.5 GHz PowerBook with 2MB shared L2 cache with 667MHz bus. All of this using a 65nm process to run at a cool 25W. Welcome to the Yonah PowerBook...coming in March 2006.
I am salivating already.
Hickman
I cannot wait until I get my dual-core 2.5 GHz PowerBook with 2MB shared L2 cache with 667MHz bus. All of this using a 65nm process to run at a cool 25W. Welcome to the Yonah PowerBook...coming in March 2006.
I am salivating already.
Hickman
tdewey said:
More importantly, IBM/Moto doesn't want to match that roadmap and they don't even care. They are busy chasing other butterflies.
Panu said:
Good point. I should have said "IBM/Freescale" - my bad.
The following article has slightly later release plans for Conroe & etc. But also provides more details about the chips.
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120772,00.asp
I think the poster above is probably correct, Apple will release 32-bit dual-proc Yonah PBs/minis first, just to get the move started.
Platform said:What about Intels EMT64
No, no, I was only referring to AMD. I'm not familiar with Intel's 64-bit plans, but you can bet that they'll straighten themselves out. I just meant to show that AMD has a 64-bit roadmap.
In any case, although I'm not a Mac user (I used to be, from July 1994-June 2002), what worries me is how Microsoft will react to this?
Can Bill do some armtwisting with Intel, here? In light of Microsoft's business with Intel, how possible is it that these "MacIntel"s just won't sell, and that they, too, will be dumped by Intel.
Intel is Microsoft's turf, and notwithstanding the existence of Linux, what *might* Microsoft's long-term strategy be?
The post by Jason Vene sums up the situation perfectly. Those who choose not to accept the facts as Jason has presented them, are simply ignorant of the realities of this transition.
But let's get realistic and face facts. There is no 2ghz G4 processor promised by Motorola (Freescale) more than 2 years ago; there is no 3ghz G5 promised by IBM, or G6, or G7; and importantly, there is never going to be.
Sony has just sold it's 9 millionth PS2; in 3 years from now it's 10 millionth PS3; and MS, it's 5 millionth Xbox 360. 3 years from now Apple will probably have sold it's 5 millionth G5. The equation for IBM is very simple. Give Apple the boot, halve R&D costs, concentrate on the console market, and sell 10 million extra PowerPC processors. If you were the CEO of IBM, which would you choose.
And so the choices left for Steve Jobs and Apple are simple. Close the doors and buy a Windows PC. Become a software only company (the logical choice as far as the investment world is concerned). Or migrate to the only remaining desktop processor. It really is as simple as MacOSX on Intel processors or MS Windows 2006 (Longhorn).
However, no one seems concerned about the real problem Apple faces, and of which Steve Jobs conveniently forgot to mention in his keynote.
With G5 R&D considerably scaled back (or maybe even ended) by IBM and G6 development ended, Apple will be forced to remain with the 2.7ghz PowerMac as it's flagship desktop for at least the next 12 months. iMacs and eMacs might get a slight revision or two, but given that Intel has officially stated elsewhere that it has no plans for a 64bit notebook processor until at least mid-2007, would you really want to purchase a 32bit Intel Powerbook in 2006 knowing that Apple will be offering a new and vastly improved 64bit version 12 months later. And will developers provide free universal code updates of their current and forthcoming PPC apps, not in this lifetime. If you really intend to accept Steve Jobs' vision of Apple's future, it's time to get a second and maybe third job to pay the cost. (A $1000 for Adobe CS2 now, another $1000 for Adobe CS2.5 12 months later) There might be a brilliant light at the end of the tunnel for Apple, but the next 24 months is going to be a very bumpy and frightfully expensive ride.
Obviously, this is a decision Apple had to make. Like it or not, it is the reality of Apple's survival. But it will also significantly change the way Apple operates in the future, and I am certain there will be many current Mac users who will not like what the future holds. In it's own way, Apple will have to become more like Dell. The days of 6 monthly revisions are well and truely over. Intel Mac hardware will need to be updated every second week if it is to remain genuinely competitive. MacOSX will be held more accountable against MS Windows. Mac hardware will have to be the latest and greatest Intel has to offer, and it will have to be user upgradable. Apple will no longer be able to survive as a propriety hardware company. A 4ghz Intel PowerMac will have to be every bit as good as a 4ghz Dell and cost the same or even less. And most importantly, MacOSX 10.5 will truely have to be revolutionary, otherwise we will all be forced into using Windows 2009.
For the first time in it's life, Apple will have to become a genuine competitor in the market. The old Apple with nothing but a new processor which will also be available to every other competitor on the market, is destined to have a very short lifespan. Now what was that rumour about FCP being ported to Windows?
But let's get realistic and face facts. There is no 2ghz G4 processor promised by Motorola (Freescale) more than 2 years ago; there is no 3ghz G5 promised by IBM, or G6, or G7; and importantly, there is never going to be.
Sony has just sold it's 9 millionth PS2; in 3 years from now it's 10 millionth PS3; and MS, it's 5 millionth Xbox 360. 3 years from now Apple will probably have sold it's 5 millionth G5. The equation for IBM is very simple. Give Apple the boot, halve R&D costs, concentrate on the console market, and sell 10 million extra PowerPC processors. If you were the CEO of IBM, which would you choose.
And so the choices left for Steve Jobs and Apple are simple. Close the doors and buy a Windows PC. Become a software only company (the logical choice as far as the investment world is concerned). Or migrate to the only remaining desktop processor. It really is as simple as MacOSX on Intel processors or MS Windows 2006 (Longhorn).
However, no one seems concerned about the real problem Apple faces, and of which Steve Jobs conveniently forgot to mention in his keynote.
With G5 R&D considerably scaled back (or maybe even ended) by IBM and G6 development ended, Apple will be forced to remain with the 2.7ghz PowerMac as it's flagship desktop for at least the next 12 months. iMacs and eMacs might get a slight revision or two, but given that Intel has officially stated elsewhere that it has no plans for a 64bit notebook processor until at least mid-2007, would you really want to purchase a 32bit Intel Powerbook in 2006 knowing that Apple will be offering a new and vastly improved 64bit version 12 months later. And will developers provide free universal code updates of their current and forthcoming PPC apps, not in this lifetime. If you really intend to accept Steve Jobs' vision of Apple's future, it's time to get a second and maybe third job to pay the cost. (A $1000 for Adobe CS2 now, another $1000 for Adobe CS2.5 12 months later) There might be a brilliant light at the end of the tunnel for Apple, but the next 24 months is going to be a very bumpy and frightfully expensive ride.
Obviously, this is a decision Apple had to make. Like it or not, it is the reality of Apple's survival. But it will also significantly change the way Apple operates in the future, and I am certain there will be many current Mac users who will not like what the future holds. In it's own way, Apple will have to become more like Dell. The days of 6 monthly revisions are well and truely over. Intel Mac hardware will need to be updated every second week if it is to remain genuinely competitive. MacOSX will be held more accountable against MS Windows. Mac hardware will have to be the latest and greatest Intel has to offer, and it will have to be user upgradable. Apple will no longer be able to survive as a propriety hardware company. A 4ghz Intel PowerMac will have to be every bit as good as a 4ghz Dell and cost the same or even less. And most importantly, MacOSX 10.5 will truely have to be revolutionary, otherwise we will all be forced into using Windows 2009.
For the first time in it's life, Apple will have to become a genuine competitor in the market. The old Apple with nothing but a new processor which will also be available to every other competitor on the market, is destined to have a very short lifespan. Now what was that rumour about FCP being ported to Windows?
polsons said:
These console numbers are off by an order of magnitude. There have been 90 million PS2's sold. The choice for IBM was obvious. Intel is not the only path for Apple, but it is the best path. They no longer have to convince a chip supplier to advance chips for them. Apple will just be pulling from an existing chip lifecycle.
Good choices all around from Apple, Intel, and IBM.
Hickman
polsons said:
Excellent post. Right. IBM made a business decision. It's one I might have made as well.
BUT . . . was it not made very clear during the keynote (I think one of the Apple officials siad this, not Jobs), that OS X will not run on just any Intel hardware, but on a closed system. So does this not mean that Apple will remain as proprietary as ever?
And will Intel be willing to keep the Intel Mac line as a closed system in light of the fact that it must keep is every bit as competitive (if not more so) as it can? When it knows that Windows users are in the double-digits in terms of market share and up unitl now Mac has had what, 4% or less?
polsons said:
It appears that you do not really have your facts straight. First, 9 Million playstation 2s? Try upwards of 100 Million. Sony had sold nin million by the end of the christmas season 2001. Second, Apple updates will continue at a leisurely pace. Dell et al only update minor processors every 2 weeks. Flagship machines only get updated when something big comes along. Please, know what you're talking about before you go spouting nonsense.
Don't Panic
The sky isn't falling folks.
1) Your current Mac isn't going to turn into a pumpkin at midnight. It still works great and currently runs the software you bought it for in the first place. So quit bitching.
2) All NEW applications in the future will be built with BOTH Intel and PPC binaries (apparently as easily as checking a checkbox before a build) so they'll still work on your PPC machine you bought three months ago or next week. Your investment has not been ruined and there will be nothing wrong with purchasing a new PPC machine next month or whenever. At any rate, computers are like cars, the minute you drive it off the lot, it's old technology. Nothing new here.
3) If you do switch to an Intel based Mac, your OLD software you're still holding on to three years down the road WILL WORK on those new boxes because of Rosetta. You'll probably take a small performance hit, but in two or three years, presumably, the processors will be so much faster than today's that you won't notice the difference.
4) The Mac experience is a holistic one. Neither software or hardware alone. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that OSX will run on a crappy Dell box. Apple will still control the hardware and the OS development so everything will work together as it should. Look...Apple has had a lot of succuess with how they currently run things. They aren't going to screw up the great user experience they've worked so hard to acheive just because they're switching processors. That would be suicide.
5) Although I do feel that the PPC is superior to Pentiums in a lot of ways, if IBM can't deliver a portable versions of the G5, then that hurts the PoweBook in a bad way. We haven't seen anything new on the PowerBook front for too long a time and people are getting pissed. Rightly so. For cryin' out loud, the top end desktop G5 has to be freakin' liquid cooled! That's pretty damn hot and unreasonable for anyone to think you could squeeze that into a powerbook. Forget it. Switching is probably the best thing they can do for now. And when Intel starts dropping the ball, they can switch to AMD, or whatever. More options for everyone.
The sky isn't falling folks.
1) Your current Mac isn't going to turn into a pumpkin at midnight. It still works great and currently runs the software you bought it for in the first place. So quit bitching.
2) All NEW applications in the future will be built with BOTH Intel and PPC binaries (apparently as easily as checking a checkbox before a build) so they'll still work on your PPC machine you bought three months ago or next week. Your investment has not been ruined and there will be nothing wrong with purchasing a new PPC machine next month or whenever. At any rate, computers are like cars, the minute you drive it off the lot, it's old technology. Nothing new here.
3) If you do switch to an Intel based Mac, your OLD software you're still holding on to three years down the road WILL WORK on those new boxes because of Rosetta. You'll probably take a small performance hit, but in two or three years, presumably, the processors will be so much faster than today's that you won't notice the difference.
4) The Mac experience is a holistic one. Neither software or hardware alone. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that OSX will run on a crappy Dell box. Apple will still control the hardware and the OS development so everything will work together as it should. Look...Apple has had a lot of succuess with how they currently run things. They aren't going to screw up the great user experience they've worked so hard to acheive just because they're switching processors. That would be suicide.
5) Although I do feel that the PPC is superior to Pentiums in a lot of ways, if IBM can't deliver a portable versions of the G5, then that hurts the PoweBook in a bad way. We haven't seen anything new on the PowerBook front for too long a time and people are getting pissed. Rightly so. For cryin' out loud, the top end desktop G5 has to be freakin' liquid cooled! That's pretty damn hot and unreasonable for anyone to think you could squeeze that into a powerbook. Forget it. Switching is probably the best thing they can do for now. And when Intel starts dropping the ball, they can switch to AMD, or whatever. More options for everyone.
Countdown until Tiger runs on a dell
Yesterday Steve showed the new countdown widget and made a joke about Longhorn.
I think we could use the same widget to countdown how many days before we see Tiger running on a Dell.
I'm setting mine to 2 weeks.
Yesterday Steve showed the new countdown widget and made a joke about Longhorn.
I think we could use the same widget to countdown how many days before we see Tiger running on a Dell.
I'm setting mine to 2 weeks.
IBM: HISTORY AND EMOTION
Like a lot of people, I am very concerned about performance and compatibility issues with the new Intel chips.
Emotionally, though, the switch is easier to swallow.
Back in the 1930's and 1940's IBM worked for the Nazis, making the Holocaust workable.
Historically IBM simply follows the money.
Like a lot of people, I am very concerned about performance and compatibility issues with the new Intel chips.
Emotionally, though, the switch is easier to swallow.
Back in the 1930's and 1940's IBM worked for the Nazis, making the Holocaust workable.
Historically IBM simply follows the money.
Hey their dudes.
Not from around where you are also not a mac user, yet. Always been around mickeysoft and not to long ago the penguin stuff (nice though). One of the biggest Intel fans around.
Anyhow, I read the first and last two pages of this thread, too much else to read. I guess Apple made the same decision IBM made years ago. It seems that the major concern here is that OS X might be rendered equal to Winblows. No go. I have reason to believe that OS X is the better OS, as Linux turns out over M$ exactly the same, but we still have society to thank for where we are today. Ever since dos M$ dominated the market and everyone and all learned the OS over from someone else. Also $ driven, pc’s always seemed the cheaper option. I guess that’s where apple will hit the big dent into the PC frame. Cheaper mac’s will see a lot more sales than before and a lot of walkovers from PC to Mac will prevail. I just think hardcore gamers will always stay PC. My gutt says the penguin will become a competitor very soon, they only got to sort out their gaming support and M$ will have proper competition. Linux might even force windows back to open source.
I won’t say never cause never is a long time and we might not be around to see it but it would take decades to get M$ Win obsolete, they have to much power at hand and to many hands in the right places.
Also, the Intel changeover from G processors seems just power related, the mac architecture should remain the same, with the exception of what needs to be changed to accommodate the new power plant. This should have Windows stay where it is and belongs(on PC’s), same for OS X. See, if 2 major companies like that brings an announcement like this, some sort of homework must have been done already to reason out AMD as replacement. They will have their reasons. Please do net hear me say AMD’s are bad, I run a couple myself.
No need to worry about viruses yet, the M$ community is still the bigger one out there and easiest to hack and that’s where the underground will set there focus for many years to come. Now who would want to go and learn how to hack Linux and OS X ops if they have it easier with M$? To much work for something readily available.
Oh, Intel won’t have their processor fitted without the nuf sound, so expect that as soon as you expect the powered by Intel Mac, to much of a trademark………..
My 2c…………….
Before I forget, as for the 64bit part. Intel was the leader for years and still provide more solutions than AMD, only AMD brought out the first 64bit processor. Intel sat back, did their homework, watched what they needed to and answered as usual, when needed.
Same as M$, they won’t let go of the top easily.
Not from around where you are also not a mac user, yet. Always been around mickeysoft and not to long ago the penguin stuff (nice though). One of the biggest Intel fans around.
Anyhow, I read the first and last two pages of this thread, too much else to read. I guess Apple made the same decision IBM made years ago. It seems that the major concern here is that OS X might be rendered equal to Winblows. No go. I have reason to believe that OS X is the better OS, as Linux turns out over M$ exactly the same, but we still have society to thank for where we are today. Ever since dos M$ dominated the market and everyone and all learned the OS over from someone else. Also $ driven, pc’s always seemed the cheaper option. I guess that’s where apple will hit the big dent into the PC frame. Cheaper mac’s will see a lot more sales than before and a lot of walkovers from PC to Mac will prevail. I just think hardcore gamers will always stay PC. My gutt says the penguin will become a competitor very soon, they only got to sort out their gaming support and M$ will have proper competition. Linux might even force windows back to open source.
I won’t say never cause never is a long time and we might not be around to see it but it would take decades to get M$ Win obsolete, they have to much power at hand and to many hands in the right places.
Also, the Intel changeover from G processors seems just power related, the mac architecture should remain the same, with the exception of what needs to be changed to accommodate the new power plant. This should have Windows stay where it is and belongs(on PC’s), same for OS X. See, if 2 major companies like that brings an announcement like this, some sort of homework must have been done already to reason out AMD as replacement. They will have their reasons. Please do net hear me say AMD’s are bad, I run a couple myself.
No need to worry about viruses yet, the M$ community is still the bigger one out there and easiest to hack and that’s where the underground will set there focus for many years to come. Now who would want to go and learn how to hack Linux and OS X ops if they have it easier with M$? To much work for something readily available.
Oh, Intel won’t have their processor fitted without the nuf sound, so expect that as soon as you expect the powered by Intel Mac, to much of a trademark………..
My 2c…………….
Before I forget, as for the 64bit part. Intel was the leader for years and still provide more solutions than AMD, only AMD brought out the first 64bit processor. Intel sat back, did their homework, watched what they needed to and answered as usual, when needed.
Same as M$, they won’t let go of the top easily.
- Status