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.
Really switching to Intel!!??
- Thread starter dodonutter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tech4all said:Yea you can. In fact one started to do that and it leaves behind a really icky residue. And I accidently started to peel off the Pentium III logo, but never did finish that - ha, almost sounds like a job in itself to remove these stickers.
Most PCs are just sooo bloated with these stickers it gets irritating, at least to me. Before we know it, PC users are going to start saying: "Macs suck cuz they got no stickers on them" or "Macs cost so much and they don't even put stickers on them". (well sometimes Apple gives you an Apple logo sticker, but at lest it's on a separate paper)
I know! I know! Apple will have seperate stickers so SWITCHERS can place them on themselves.
That way: "my mac is faster becasue it has stickers"
cmkrnl said:
I'm in your boat, although I haven't made my order yet. I certainly won't slap down the dollars for something that will be phased out.
ropbo said:
& even if there is a switch you will have 2+ years of happiness with a MAC and maybe more.
We all make trade offs in life.
RELATIVE chip performance growth
Intel is currently running at 3.7 GHz and PPC at 2.7 GHz. I think you'll find that Intel have the upper hand when it comes to "RELATIVE*" growth - Now I'm not talking about actual performancel just which has increased relative to its own baseline - So which is faster? After all, if PPC were outpacing Intel on a like for like expenditure on platform then would there even be a rumour that Apple might switch? I think not. It is precisely the fact that Steve Jbs has been left with egg on his face for "promising" 3GHz by early this year, and that the chipmaker has failed to deliver that has (possibly) caused him to look elsewhere.
As I stated at the outset , I've been with Mac for years, so am not knocking them. Just recognising the fact they are running a business, not a shrine! I don't actually care which chip they use. What I do care about is that the chip will continue to be innovative and speedy in years to come and that it will be available in sufficient quantities to allow Apple to continue to prosper.
The chip platform debate is not about what is CURRENTLY the best, but about what will be best in the FUTURE. If the rumours are true then they only demonstrate Apples commitment to generating the best. We should trust their judgement.
If you dont know what relative means, look it up in the F***ing dictionary!
nomore said:
Intel is currently running at 3.7 GHz and PPC at 2.7 GHz. I think you'll find that Intel have the upper hand when it comes to "RELATIVE*" growth - Now I'm not talking about actual performancel just which has increased relative to its own baseline - So which is faster? After all, if PPC were outpacing Intel on a like for like expenditure on platform then would there even be a rumour that Apple might switch? I think not. It is precisely the fact that Steve Jbs has been left with egg on his face for "promising" 3GHz by early this year, and that the chipmaker has failed to deliver that has (possibly) caused him to look elsewhere.
As I stated at the outset , I've been with Mac for years, so am not knocking them. Just recognising the fact they are running a business, not a shrine! I don't actually care which chip they use. What I do care about is that the chip will continue to be innovative and speedy in years to come and that it will be available in sufficient quantities to allow Apple to continue to prosper.
The chip platform debate is not about what is CURRENTLY the best, but about what will be best in the FUTURE. If the rumours are true then they only demonstrate Apples commitment to generating the best. We should trust their judgement.
If you dont know what relative means, look it up in the F***ing dictionary!
OpenFirmware != "Windows Compatible"
My thoughts on the subject:
- Intel/x86 processor doesn't necessarily, if at all, mean "PC Compatible".
Current Macs use OpenFirmware (http://www.openfirmware.org), as do Sun's SPARC machines. See Network Appliance (http://www.netapp.com) Filer systems for an example of an Intel/x86 central processor with OpenFirmware instead of a legacy PC BIOS. Apple would want to stay as far away from "put OS X on a Dell" as possible, and having the xMacs continue to use OF would do that.
- I really, REALLY hope that this doesn't come to pass. I've bought two new Macs in the past eight months (17" iMac G5 1.8Ghz and 1.25Ghz Mac mini), and I don't want to see them have an accelerated slide into being obsolete as I'd planned to use them for at least the next two years. Even if the xMacs emulate PowerPC, some software authors won't update their apps for PPC machines, and new apps would most likely be targeted towards directly running on OSX/x86.
- Are any of Intel's "mobile" chips (Pentium-M, etc) 64bit? There's the P4 EM64T, but it's just a (desktop) clone of AMD's 64-bit instruction set tacked onto the P4, and there's no way Apple would want to shoehorn one of those into a portable. Itanium? Other than HP, I see everyone in the industry running as fast as they can *away* from it. HP is just using it because they were one of the developers of the chip and have too much money invested in R&D to just drop it and go with AMD64 like everyone else.
- This will absolutely TRASH Apple's stock value, as well as customer goodwill instantly if it's true. There's no way they could recover from the PR nightmare of saying "We're so much faster than Intel" one day and then the next saying "Well, to get the speed we wanted we have to EMULATE our PowerPC processor on an Intel chip."
Has anyone OTHER than C|Net reported this, other than people just pointing to the C|Net article?
My thoughts on the subject:
- Intel/x86 processor doesn't necessarily, if at all, mean "PC Compatible".
Current Macs use OpenFirmware (http://www.openfirmware.org), as do Sun's SPARC machines. See Network Appliance (http://www.netapp.com) Filer systems for an example of an Intel/x86 central processor with OpenFirmware instead of a legacy PC BIOS. Apple would want to stay as far away from "put OS X on a Dell" as possible, and having the xMacs continue to use OF would do that.
- I really, REALLY hope that this doesn't come to pass. I've bought two new Macs in the past eight months (17" iMac G5 1.8Ghz and 1.25Ghz Mac mini), and I don't want to see them have an accelerated slide into being obsolete as I'd planned to use them for at least the next two years. Even if the xMacs emulate PowerPC, some software authors won't update their apps for PPC machines, and new apps would most likely be targeted towards directly running on OSX/x86.
- Are any of Intel's "mobile" chips (Pentium-M, etc) 64bit? There's the P4 EM64T, but it's just a (desktop) clone of AMD's 64-bit instruction set tacked onto the P4, and there's no way Apple would want to shoehorn one of those into a portable. Itanium? Other than HP, I see everyone in the industry running as fast as they can *away* from it. HP is just using it because they were one of the developers of the chip and have too much money invested in R&D to just drop it and go with AMD64 like everyone else.
- This will absolutely TRASH Apple's stock value, as well as customer goodwill instantly if it's true. There's no way they could recover from the PR nightmare of saying "We're so much faster than Intel" one day and then the next saying "Well, to get the speed we wanted we have to EMULATE our PowerPC processor on an Intel chip."
Has anyone OTHER than C|Net reported this, other than people just pointing to the C|Net article?
LaMerVipere said:
The Microsoft XBox might be. They just switched to PPC 970s, and they're aiming for complete domination of the console market. That means millions of consoles sold at a loss--any chipmaker's dream.
spaceballl said:
Lettuce be real here. That is the one person who most likely had an orgasm when he saw the article.
Dvorak will be in an orgy with himself if this actually happens.
Okay if this happens...
...hmm let me think.
It really depends on how Apple executes this maneuver if they do indeed do it. If they choose to do this they will of course have to create an Intel version of OS X. This could mean trouble. If they market this as a viable platform for Intel-based pcs this could mean Apple would lose all hope of ever having a slight domination over the pc market. Yes, in the end they may dominate the software and who knows way down the road maybe that's what Apple will be aside from their separate iPod division Apple could be a software company and work in the currently Intel-dominated market.
The sad part about this is that Apple wouldn't be making any more of their beautifully engineered computers. Lets hope this doesn't happen. If Apple does decide to make this move lets hope they do it right and don't allow freely distributed copies of OS X for Intel. The Intel chip they need to use should only be in their computers and the system software should not be sold separately for any Intel-based user to try and get their greasy fingers on.
Peace out on that.
...hmm let me think.
It really depends on how Apple executes this maneuver if they do indeed do it. If they choose to do this they will of course have to create an Intel version of OS X. This could mean trouble. If they market this as a viable platform for Intel-based pcs this could mean Apple would lose all hope of ever having a slight domination over the pc market. Yes, in the end they may dominate the software and who knows way down the road maybe that's what Apple will be aside from their separate iPod division Apple could be a software company and work in the currently Intel-dominated market.
The sad part about this is that Apple wouldn't be making any more of their beautifully engineered computers. Lets hope this doesn't happen. If Apple does decide to make this move lets hope they do it right and don't allow freely distributed copies of OS X for Intel. The Intel chip they need to use should only be in their computers and the system software should not be sold separately for any Intel-based user to try and get their greasy fingers on.
Peace out on that.
cosmicsoftceo said:
The chips in the XBOX aren't even the same thing or we'd have 3.0+GHz Power Macs by now.
cosmicsoftceo said:
So are you therefore saying that the only value Apple have is in proprietary sytems such as iPod/ITMS and Mac Hardware? What about the OS itself. Just look at history to see what Microsft id compared to IBM. Don't you think Tiger is a suffiently attractive offering in its own right, regardless of hardware platform? I'm gonna buy a mac mini for all the old folks in my family so they can video conf and exchange emails with my wife and I. I;m doing this not because the PPC is better than Intel, but because the OS is safe, secure, stable and simple to use. Think like a businessman, not a mac nerd!
raggedjimmi said:
But the jump from G4 -> G5 is small.
The jump from 680x0 -> PPC Big
The jump PPC -> Intel just as big. Apple can do this
Doctor Q said:
This is why IF this is true (I hope it is but have my doubts) it will be a x86 or something else along the same lines.
jubjub said:
You think if that is NOT the death sentance on IBM I am not to sure what is... I just have the feeling the governor is not calling
Just my point...if Apple announces a switch to x86 coming monday, the computer market will be dead.Fender said: