More Details on Apple's Intel Mac

[Mr Maui]

Watch this whole thing is a joke. Steve is buying time so in a few months when he announces that he has some brand new ppc we will all be shocked and at the end he will say ooo yeah one other thing we would never go to intell hahhahaha it was just a joke. (waking up from dream).

I wonder how Mr. Otellini would feel about that after standing up in front of all those developers and millions of people who saw the keynote, and hyping the union. I guess some people have a hard time grasping REALITY!!

Additionally ... is there some reason we cannot still call our beloved Mac ... a Mac!!! The Mactel and Macintel have that drippy, sarcastic sound to it that we have given to Wintel for so many years. Shame that even the Mac enthusiasts can't seem to hang onto what they have regardless of the chip inside ... a Mac!!!

 

[Crunchy]

I think the Intel move is fantastic. I have a G5 DP 2.5, and as far as the speed feel goes, my P4 2.8 at home is way better. It certainly is for browsing and gaming (on, e.g. WC3). And isn't it silly that it takes a DP G5 to compete with the performance of a SP P4? My SP P4 is a pretty souped-up gaming rig, but still, it cost 1/3 of what the G5 cost. So why buy Mac? OS X, OS X, OS X. The joy of Software Update only rings true when you're trying to update your drivers for your totally standard retail ATI All-In-Wonder 9800 card...totally standard, and totally a hassle every time. Or, there's Software Update. I know which one I prefer. As long as the speed on the processors and mobos keep up with software development, we're golden. Intel should do this...and running e.g. Pages on my G5 2.5, I'm not sure PPC does.

 

[Macmadant]

So you think we should keep our fingers crossed and hope their market share drops?

no i don't think it should go over 6 %

 

[iMeowbot]

install osx on a pc is heart breaking also ~losermac~ is terrible if people do this the end of apple's hardware it will be

Look at it this way. There are iPod clones on every corner, they are practically being given away in breakfast cereal. And yet with all those knockoffs (some of them quite nice), all the competitors combined aren't selling half as many as Apple alone. Why is that?

mate r u supporting me or against me

There will most certainly be a hacked or hosted environment that runs OS X, but it won't provide the same experience as running it on native hardware. We have that happening now! Yes, the speed penalty from emulation will disappear, but there will still be annoying deficiencies, some subtle and some not so subtle. There will be people who try one of these arrangements, get a taste of what OS X is like, and find themselves jonesing for the real thing. Give it time, you'll see.

 

[CyberB0b]

My worry is echoed exactly over at As the Apple Turns, (number 2 on today's blog, 6/8/05, if the link below doesn't work right):

http://www.appleturns.com/episode/?date=6/8/2005

I can think of worse. From the quote: "They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP - on the box." As in no Virtual PC, emulation, translation, etc. Straight up Windows!

Salesperson: "Welcome to the apple store. All machines can run OS X or Windows"

Customer: "What the hell is oh-es-sex? Give me Windows"

 

[le_bigMac]

What concerns me (and call me a conspiracy theorist if you must) is that, if Apple starts putting the same CPU in Mac's that PC's are using, then the distinction which makes Apple what it is today, will be forever blurred into nothingness; and, pretty soon we'll all just be running crappy ass PC boxes and have an option to use OS X on it if we wish, (and maybe even a cool little metal sticker with ‘made for OS X’ on it instead of the MS one)… Granted, that would make my old PC a lot more appealing, however, I'm scared (yes scared of change) that this will give more incentive to spy-ware, virus, and hacker types to create the same problem for OS X that Windows has... could be just paranoid, but I wonder if the people at Apple haven’t lost their collective minds in this decision... Guess I'll just have to wait and see though eh?
[/B]

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. The Mac and it's recent superstars like the iPod are not being scooped up because they have PowerPC "Inside". Even the most hardened Mac geek will admit that they bought their snazzy G4 PowerBook not because it was a PowerPC, but because it looked cool, got the job done and was a joy to use under OSX. When all is said and done, after discarding any emotional attachment to finely etched pieces of silicon, people will be more than happy to have "Intel Inside Mac" if their OS continues to rock and the machines are as cool as always...

 

[Macmadant]

Look at it this way. There are iPod clones on every corner, they are practically being given away in breakfast cereal. And yet with all those knockoffs (some one them quite nice), all the competitors combined aren't selling half as many as Apple alone. Why is that?

There will most certainly be a hacked or hosted environment that runs OS X, but it won't provide the same experience as running it on native hardware. We have that happening now! Yes, the speed penalty from emulation will disappear, but there will still be annoying deficiencies, some subtle and some not so subtle. There will be people who try one of these arrangements, get a taste of what OS X is like, and find themselves jonesing for the real thing. Give it time, you'll see.

thanks for making me feel better it's just people hu think there gunna run osx on their pcs irritates me

 

[MacRohde]

Did you guys read this one where Cringley postulates that this is about Intel buying Apple: Going for broke

It's pretty wild and out there...but hey last week I didn't really believe Apple would use Intels inside.

 

[kester]

Sorry if someone has already asked this: I'm not a computer engineer, but if Apple designs a custom motherboard for the new machines... would it even be possible to install Windows? Wouldn't it need drivers for the chipset, etc?

I know the VP said they'd be able to run Windows, blah blah.... but I just don't see a day when you walk into the Apple store and they start pushing Windows as a dual boot option.

 

[Brian0523]

OMG

This thread is proof that people with too little information become a danger to theirself and others around them!

 

[Mr Maui]

This thread is proof that people with too little information become a danger to theirself and others around them!

Next we'll hear that Bill Gates is buying Apple just because he hates that Steve Jobs is the only guy out there keeping him from ruling the world ... electronically speaking.

 

[ioinc]

interesting article

thought this was an interesting article

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/SiliconInsider/story?id=750595&page=1

 

[Mr Maui]

thought this was an interesting article

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/SiliconInsider/story?id=750595&page=1

Very interesting! But at the end ... even this writer says ... "don't count on it till you see it" ... addressing Apple's switch to Intel.

 

[mandis]

Did you guys read this one where Cringley postulates that this is about Intel buying Apple: Going for broke

It's pretty wild and out there...but hey last week I didn't really believe Apple would use Intels inside.

Very interesting...

One more thing i noticed on a different webpage is that the recently released 2.7GHz G5 Powermac is indeed slower than the 2.5GHz model.

Could Apple be doing this on purpose in order to boost the appeal of the their forthcoming Intel macs?

http://www.barefeats.com/threeway.html

CONCLUSION
I'm puzzled as to why the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac beat the G5/2.7GHz Power Mac in EVERY graphics intensive test.

One reader did some calculations with front side bus versus memory bus ratios. It appears the G5/2.5 does memory transfers 12% faster than the G5/2.7. In other words, the G5/2.7's poor FSB/memory ratio causes it to waste time. Since graphics intensive applications require frequent transfers of the memory contents across the system bus to the graphics processor, that could explain why only graphics intensive apps are adversely affected by the poor ratio.

Whether you accept that theory or have a better one, the results on this page illustrate that CPU clock speed is only one factor in performance.

Hmmm.....

 

[steeldrivingjon]

Give me a week or two - and I'll sort my life out. I'll get depressed in the pub later tonight and drown my sorrows. But you have to admit - those photos look dog-ugly!

It's ugly because it's the computing equivalent of a 'donut' spare tire on a car.

It's just a temporary, meant to get developers down the road until the Pirellis come out next year.

 

[steeldrivingjon]

thought this was an interesting article

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/SiliconInsider/story?id=750595&page=1

That's a lame article. The author makes it sound like Jobs' decision to do OS/X on Intel 5 years ago was sudden. He makes no reference to the fact that Jobs went to Intel 13 years ago, at NeXT. He makes no reference to the fact that when Apple bought NeXT, they were buying a company with an OS for Intel PCs. Given the fact that Apple had to port the operating system from Intel to PowerPC in the first place, the decision to keep an Intel version going in parallel is kind of a no-brainer.

 

[knewsom]

The Price is WRONG, b#*#%!

I think that everyone is forgetting one very, VERY important factor here.

Macs are expensive because they use expensive CPUS, and specially engineered hardware (like video cards). With a standard and inxepensive CPU from intel, and a standard video card that doesn't cost twice as much because it was re-engineered for mac, guess what is going to happen to the price of the computers?

IT'S GOING TO DROP. Macs aren't going to be $500 more than PCs of comparable power - they're going to be very comparable. Sure, a Mac will still be more than a Dell, but A. not by much, B. it'll come with a LOT more and MUCH better software and goooold 'ole OSX.

So don't worry - I mean, how many times has Steve let us down (other than the 3ghz G5 powermac and g5 Powerbooks, of which we shall not speak)

-Kristoffer

 

[Fender]

A wonderful piece of work by a dude named Hywel Thomas:

http://homepage.mac.com/hywel.thomas/images/flowchart.pdf

 

[Quartz Extreme]

I mean, how many times has Steve let us down (other than the 3ghz G5 powermac and g5 Powerbooks, of which we shall not speak)

Those are IBM's fault, and precisely why Apple is switching to Intel.

 

[Mr Maui]

I think that everyone is forgetting one very, VERY important factor here.

Macs are expensive because they use expensive CPUS, and specially engineered hardware (like video cards). With a standard and inxepensive CPU from intel, and a standard video card that doesn't cost twice as much because it was re-engineered for mac, guess what is going to happen to the price of the computers?

It's going to DOUBLE, ala Apple?

 

[gweedo]

Virus?

oh, damn.. you are right.. that flopped my opinion on it. i honestly don't care if ibm is a little slower. now that i think about it, now there will be more viruses, more complaints, and now apple is turning into m$.. apple is going to like the marketshare, and they will want to keep it. now i know why igary was depressed, and im joining him.. well off to sulk..

Please explain to me how the CPU has anything to do with it's vulnerability to viruses? The two are not related. The OS has a lot to do with it, and that isn't changing. The mac may become more popular, but it is hard to see how that would be bad for any current users.

I had no idea so many mac users harbored such an inferiority complex.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

Please explain to me how the CPU has anything to do with it's vulnerability to viruses? The two are not related. The OS has a lot to do with it, and that isn't changing.

Exactly.

Are there many viruses on Linux for x86?
How about for BeOS, OS/2, Rhapsody, Darwin, UNIX?
(Not that anybody would make viruses for any for these...)

The venerability to viruses has to do with the OS.
And last time I checked, these new Macs are coming with Mac OS X.

 

[vespina]

Virus on OSx over x86

What concerns me (and call me a conspiracy theorist if you must) is that, if Apple starts putting the same CPU in Mac's that PC's are using, then the distinction which makes Apple what it is today, will be forever blurred into nothingness; and, pretty soon we'll all just be running crappy ass PC boxes and have an option to use OS X on it if we wish, (and maybe even a cool little metal sticker with ‘made for OS X’ on it instead of the MS one)… Granted, that would make my old PC a lot more appealing, however, I'm scared (yes scared of change) that this will give more incentive to spy-ware, virus, and hacker types to create the same problem for OS X that Windows has... could be just paranoid, but I wonder if the people at Apple haven’t lost their collective minds in this decision... Guess I'll just have to wait and see though eh?

"We are Intel: deactivate your operating system and prepare to be assimilated. Your technological and aesthetic Mac distinctiveness will be merged into our own. Resistance is futile."

There is no difference AT ALL, from the point of view of a virus developer, if you are running OS X on PPC or x86... if I program a virus for OS X, all I have to do is recompile it to run on OSX x86... if I program a virus for Windows IT WON'T run on OSX, no matter the processor you are using with it.

 

[Paladin]

It's too bad that the forums like this weren't in existence when Apple went to the PowerPC. I wonder what the reaction was back then. Sure, this is a drastic move, but it makes a lot of sense. Intel makes better processors, and they happen to cost less. Also, their chipsets support technologies that IBM and Motorola have neglected (e.g. PCI Express, DDR-2, etc.). We are all going to be very happy with the results of this partnership.

If you're not, then you can go into seclusion like the first generation of Mac users. They are getting ready to come back into the fold because they are witnessing a resurgence of CISC computing. Since 1994, they have refused to use Apple hardware because of it's dependence on RISC technology. Now, Apple has finally seen the light, so they can return to their platform of choice. Don't you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Apple is not just going to shove an Intel or Asus motherboard in a G5 case and sell it in an Apple Store. Apple is not going to use integrated graphics. Apple is not going to use a standard PC BIOS. Apple is not going to tie their OS to Microsoft-style DRM. Apple is not going to push a dual boot option in their retail stores. OSX is not going to run on Dell Computers, at least not in the beginning. I'm not going to rule out licensing at some point in time. Apple (Steve Jobs) has the OS that can crush Windows (Bill Gates). Who's to say that Apple might not act on that grudge that they've held for so many years?

Bottom Line: Our Macs are going to be better than ever. Why? Because OSX will be better than ever. Do you think the PowerPC is responsible for the power and beauty of OSX? No, the software code is responsible. Do you think that viruses are more prevalent on Windows because of x86 processors? No, the software code is responsible. Watch the keynote. Watch OSX run on an Intel machine. Tell me that you can see a difference. If you can, then you are delusional because it's the same OS. Next Summer, our devices will still connect with ease, our iApps will still be just as great, our OSX will still be elegant and our machines will still be beautifully designed. It'll just have a different name on the processor. Stop being angry and be thankful that Apple is moving in a direction that benefits you.

 

[Mod_Edit]

?

Salesperson: "Welcome to the apple store. All machines can run OS X or Windows"

Customer: "What the hell is oh-es-sex? Give me Windows"[/QUOTE]


No way are you going to have the option before you buy... even *if* hell opens and Wilson Phillips shoots out riding goats.

One thing that I find sort of strange tho, has anyone seen Longhorn? If so, have you noticed how much it looks and acts like osX?

Brings up many many questions.
hmmm