You're no fun.pseudobrit said:To hijack this thread and steer it on a real topic (and since any comments I make up top will be buried within that 1000+ post monster thread)...
hey well at least you didn't just switched(more "added") to a mac mini just 3 months with thinking about finally leaving the old x86 design behind ... i 'knew' the day i got it that with my luck apple gonna switch to x86 and microsoft to powerpc within a yearpseudobrit said:To hijack this thread and steer it on a real topic (and since any comments I make up top will be buried within that 1000+ post monster thread), I plan on buying a G5 iMac soon.
I was leaning towards a middle-of-the-road G5 PM, but with the iMac having 128MB on the video card now, and at that price, I think I'll pick one up to bridge the gap to the Intel era.
depends while i'm against hose intel stickers directly o nthe machien itself i would have no problem with a intel sticker on the package (perhaps on the side or bottom )pseudobrit said:I will echo others' sentiments that hope the gaudy "Intel Inside" logo doesn't appear outside the new Macs and that Apple TV ads will be exempt from having to play the Intel trademark chime.
and none knows how the intel chips will be called anywayspseudobrit said:I will also point out that the current roadmap for the Pentium line doesn't have a chip that can match the FSB speed of the 2GHz G5, and can't come close to the 1.35Ghz FSB speed of the 2.7GHz G5.
well it has been some time since Powerpc has been a RISC (the r is for reduced but a modern power pc like the G4 or G5 have way lot more instructions than a classical RISC design...)mactastic said:I was a little curious about the FSB issue myself. My understanding was that that was one of the real big advantages to IBM's chip architecture. Also, does this mean we're moving from RISC to CISC?
I'm very ambivalent about the whole thing.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple7jun07,1,3556212.storyDespite Switch, Apple Still Seen as Unique
Analysts say Mac faithful shouldn't worry about the company's alliance with Intel.
SAN FRANCISCO Monday's announcement that Apple Computer Inc. will use Intel Corp. chips in its PCs made the Mac faithful think: different.
After weeks of rumors and speculation, Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs told software engineers at the company's annual developer conference that Intel microprocessors would power Macintosh computers beginning next year, with Intel inside all Apple computers by 2007.
The move ends a long and sometimes stormy relationship between Apple and IBM Corp., which builds the Mac's current PowerPC chips, and Motorola Inc., which makes chips for Apple laptops. Intel supplies most of the chips that power PCs running the Windows operating system of Apple archrival Microsoft Corp. So closely aligned are Microsoft and Intel that they often are referred to as Wintel.
So to some of Apple's Macolytes, the new alliance portended something sinister for the Cupertino, Calif.-based company that has leveraged the success of its iPods to boost sales of its stylish but expensive PCs.
"Where does this lead us?" Jobs asked from the stage. Before Jobs could answer himself, someone in the audience cracked, "Down the road to hell."
Despite sentiments like that, computer industry analysts and many Mac users discounted the long-term effects of the change, saying Apple has built its reputation on software and design rather than the raw computing power of its machines. By switching to Intel, they said, Apple may be able to cut prices on its computers and compete more directly against low-cost sellers.
In wooing Apple, Santa Clara, Calif.-based Intel can claim the prestige of supplying one of Silicon Valley's most finicky customers, but the financial benefits will be relatively small. Intel is the world's largest chip maker, and Apple is one of the smallest major PC makers, with just under 4% of the market.
For its part, Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM has already focused its energies on building chips for the video game industry. Its chip technology will power next-generation game consoles from all three of the major game companies: Microsoft, Sony Corp. and Nintendo Co.
On a generally flat day on the financial markets, Apple shares fell 32 cents to $37.92, Intel dropped 16 cents to $27.17 and IBM lost 79 cents to $75.
Jobs described the switch to Intel as the third major transition for Mac computers since the company was formed in 1976. The other two were the initial switch to PowerPC chips between 1994 and 1996 and the move to a new operating system, OS X, between 2001 and 2003.
The change was fueled by a desire "to make the best computers going forward," Jobs said, noting that he promised high-performance desktop and laptop models two years ago that never materialized. "We envision amazing products we want to build for you. But we don't know how to do it on the future of PowerPC."
He did not cite IBM by name, but Apple reportedly had been frustrated by IBM's inability to develop a chip that could process immense amounts of data without overheating. Intel, by contrast, touts its cool-running chips that consume less power.
But just because the chips are the same, differences will still exist between Macs and other PCs. Most noticeably, Apple will continue to promote the virtues of its operating system, which is widely viewed as more stable and secure than Windows even if it runs a fraction of the programs.
"This is not a clone play," said Jupiter Research consultant Michael Gartenberg. "OS X won't run on a Dell or HP machine. Will someone come up with a hack to do so? Absolutely. But the OS X installer will not allow it to work on a non-Apple machine that's not from Cupertino. But I can imagine Microsoft creating an [application] where you push a button and get OS X, and push a button and get Windows."
Change does not come without risk. When Apple switched to PowerPC chips, its market share fell to around 5% from 8% to 10%, said Insight 64 consultant Nathan Brookwood. After the computer maker introduced the OS 9 operating system, its share fell to less than 3%. "Going to Intel's architecture, they could end up in the 1% range," he said.
Paul Hershenson, president of Pasadena-based software developer Art & Logic said that although the change might seem strange, he predicted that few would even remember it in a few years.
"Apple has always been the alternative company," he said. "They're the ones who don't feel corporate. They're the nonconformist computer company. That's always been the vibe . So moving over to Intel processors just seems like a conformist thing to do.
"I suspect that most people will react the way we did. At first, they'll say, 'That's freaky!' But we have a lot of faith in Apple. People who have strong reactions, I think they'll settle down pretty quickly."
i never talked about apple _not_ being part of the PC world so far depends of point of viewSun Baked said:Steve Jobs sold out to the PC world and made Apple the most exciting new PC maker.
haha count me in for a Powermac 2,5+ years from now when it's time to upgrade , no matter what ... next time i'm gonna get a big tower again ..well at least i hope so ... must resist drooling ... (i really hope they can keep a G5 powermac like exterior design )Sun Baked said:Sucks for us, but is great for the above average Windows buyer that has been drooling over the PowerBook and iBook but couldn't afford the switch.
You forgot one...IJ Reilly said:Speaking of the "politics of computers," my beloved LA Times ran this cliché-ridden story on the switch to Intel in today's paper. Clichés highlighted for those who might have a difficult time spotting them...
I think we'll see exactly what we saw with IBM: A "consumerized" version of one of their most painfully powerful chips. I could see a mass-production designed derivative of Xeon (Itanium?) or perhaps the first-to-market with their 64 bit architecture.Xtremehkr said:Given the development time that Apple and Intel have had, I am curious about may have been developed jointly between Apple and Intel.
Apple is just not abruptly making the jump, so it makes me wonder whether or not they have been working with Intel to improve on certain technical aspects that will put Apple ahead of most computer makers who use Intel chips.
I just don't think it will be Intel as usual when they are used in an Apple.
And why not AMD?
He can probably also imagine himself as Napoleon."This is not a clone play," said Jupiter Research consultant Michael Gartenberg. "OS X won't run on a Dell or HP machine. Will someone come up with a hack to do so? Absolutely. But the OS X installer will not allow it to work on a non-Apple machine that's not from Cupertino. But I can imagine Microsoft creating an [application] where you push a button and get OS X, and push a button and get Windows."
Nope, this one was definitely a Democratic induced mess, they did after all stick Al Gore on the board a couple years ago.Thomas Veil said:As you've probably heard, Apple is reportedly going to announce that they are moving to Intel chips today (Monday).
Damn that Bush and those Republicans! This is all their fault!
It's even more a matter of laziness, IMO. The guy on the phone only knows how to set somebody up with Windows, so instead of turning the page or asking somebody he just says it isn't possible.mactastic said:I know it's a common misconception. Stupid is as stupid does....