im afrade the intel platform was to unstable for me, i tryed form the 8XX to the latest 955 chipset and the could not compare to the stability to the nforce 4 platform. I like stability and speed i havent seen ether form intel since the pentium 3.
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.
Windows on Mac and Mac OS X on PCs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
babyjenniferLB said:
I've not had an Intel in one of my home machines for 5 years now, and see no reason to switch back. My AMD64 3000+ is still running in a very stable fashion, boots just as quick as it always has etc. When I first put it in, it was the first chip that to me seemed to provide a "stable" performance environment with fewer "lumps".
fisty said:so basicly u would **** a ugly bird instead of a cute one cu the ugly one gives you more "pleasure" ?
wtf?
GO FOR THE FIT BIRD u fool, once your done your done...simple
I'd go for the less attractive girl if she was 'better' as well
I'd also choose an uglier car with better performance over some hollow shell of a car with a gutless engine. See its whats in the inside that counts 
contoursvt said:I'd go for the less attractive girl if she was 'better' as well
I like a female for her liver and intestines. jk
What if they get someone to figure it out, and keep quiet about it for a small cut of the donations? Lookout payperpixel!
Computers should be about performance and functionality first and not about looks..
The thing that makes me laugh about the new mactels is.. How long were we being told altivec rules and PS benchmarks blow PCs away, etc ? That stuff got rammed down peoples throats for years and now all of a sudden the new ad campaigns act as if Intels have always been amazing and just held back in a PC...
But hang on, before we were being told intels arent as good just check out the PS filters render time.. Now overnight its the opposite and we're supposed to just accept that ??? Is there any credibility in any of what gets said here ? Do words mean anything ?
"Imagine what it will be like in a Mac" ?
What is a Mac ? A computer which runs DDR Ram, ATA hard Drives, AGP graphics and now x86 intel.. Sorry thats a PC also.
One by one Apple eventually switched to every single PC development, Ram, Hard Drives, Graphics, CPUs.. Its all fallen one by one. Even OSX is BSD..
The thing that makes me laugh about the new mactels is.. How long were we being told altivec rules and PS benchmarks blow PCs away, etc ? That stuff got rammed down peoples throats for years and now all of a sudden the new ad campaigns act as if Intels have always been amazing and just held back in a PC...
But hang on, before we were being told intels arent as good just check out the PS filters render time.. Now overnight its the opposite and we're supposed to just accept that ??? Is there any credibility in any of what gets said here ? Do words mean anything ?
"Imagine what it will be like in a Mac" ?
What is a Mac ? A computer which runs DDR Ram, ATA hard Drives, AGP graphics and now x86 intel.. Sorry thats a PC also.
One by one Apple eventually switched to every single PC development, Ram, Hard Drives, Graphics, CPUs.. Its all fallen one by one. Even OSX is BSD..
Bulb said:
Firstly, the very first Mac ever built was a Personal Computer. All Macs are Personal Computers.
Can you tell me the last time Apple used a hard-drive, CPU or RAM in any of their machines that was actually built by Apple Computer? Even the Apple Lisa had a CPU built by Motorola... not Apple.
Apple design the machines. Since Apple began their machines have shipped with the slogan "Designed by Apple" not "Designed, built and manufactured by Apple".
If Apple changed their hard-drive supplier from Toshiba to Seagate would you suddenly think "oh they're not really Macs anymore"? Just because Apple have changed from one CPU supplier to another does not take away the "Appleness" of Apple.
In the same way Dell will still be Dell if they start using AMD CPUs. Sony laptops are still Sonys and HP laptops are still HP regardless of what CPU is in them. Why would Apple not be Apple simply because they switch CPU suppliers?
Bulb said:
These two are not QUITE separate.
[/quote/
The thing that makes me laugh about the new mactels is.. How long were we being told altivec rules and PS benchmarks blow PCs away, etc ? That stuff got rammed down peoples throats for years and now all of a sudden the new ad campaigns act as if Intels have always been amazing and just held back in a PC...[/QUOTE]
What makes me laugh are the folks who think they know something about computers who bloviate stuff like this. Ya think things other than the chips apply here? Ya think a 200MHz Intel chip will beat a 2.7GHz PowerPC? Ya think that Altivec couldn't possibly be more efficent than SSE, but can be beaten because of supplier problems?
Feh.
maverick808 said:
Its not about who replicates the technology, its about the architecture behind it. x86 in this case.. And in previous cases, SDRAM, ATA Hard Drives, AGP, PCI, etc.. All taken from PCs.
I got no problem with Apple switching to Intel but dont try and act like the power of the cpus will be so much greater now Apple have come along.
My point is Apple would always proclaim superiority on their hardware and their OS, they tried to fight the platform war on that front and lost so swallow your pride and admit.. Otherwise you are like the guy who does the combover on his bald patch!! The hardware is 100% PC and the OS is ported from BSD which had nothing to do with Apple!!! All they have left to their credit is the colour schemes and huge price tags!!
Bulb said:
What you're not quite getting is that Apple didn't "take" those things from PCs. Apple computers ARE PCs, and they've always used standard technology wherever it suited them. There's no company that has ever completely reinvented the wheel at every turn...what logic would there be behind that?
"x86" doesn't really exist anymore. Everyone builds hardware that is compatible with the instruction set, but the true x86 hardware is long gone. AMD and Intel are both copying the technology because it's easier than starting from scratch every six months. It's not like Apple started out completely on its own and abandoned its own innovations. It has always gone with whatever hardware they've found to be viable.
And I don't think you're getting the message from marketing, either. There's a lot you can do to make your computer do more than it has in the past. Take two identical computers, one running Windows 95 and the other running NT4. Similar time periods, totally different results and differing advantages/deficiencies in each case. Intel "breaking free" in an Apple computer doesn't imply that the hardware is magically faster because of that Apple logo, it implies that they believe that the end result is better because of their hard work. Whether that's true depends on your priorities, preferences, and individual needs.
matticus008 said:
You may have a point except for the fact that Apple fought the platform war on the grounds that they were different and superior.. The technology they have adopted IS from PCs and it wasnt standard until PCs made it so! Apple havent innovated a single thing when you look at todays landscape for personal computing, not in the last 15 years anyway..
What Apple seem to want to say is they can change to any religion overnight and they are always right. That argument suggests they could simply put an OSX skin over the top of XP, throw it in a shiny case and it would still be Apple.. Or like saying Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood and Charlie Watts could all get replaced and it would still be the Rolling Stones! Or like some farmer selling free range eggs then decids to put the hens in cages and still calls them free range eggs.. Its totally ridiculous.
Bulb said:
So how should have Apple have fought the platform war? On the grounds that they were the same yet inferior? Yeah that would have been a smart business plan. Anyway, in 2001 and 2002 the PowerPC was a superior processor to the average x86 of the time and, regardless of the processor, Apple machines were far better designed and more elegant (and I don't just mean in outer appearance) than comparably priced Dells or Compaqs. Things change.
Bulb said:
What you state here is vague. What specific claims by Apple are you referring to? Did Apple ever state that any of the processors they have used would be the best processor for the rest of time? Are you trying to say that at some point Apple said that the G5 is superior to the Yonah?
It's not like yesterday Apple was saying that the PPC G5 is better than the Yonah and now they are saying no the Yonah is better than the PPC G5. If you think they did then please point out where they state this.
Bulb said:
You're still not getting it. Apple computers have always used largely stock hardware. They've never engineered their own hardware down to the last screw. What has any single computer manufacturer created from scratch in the last 15 years? Almost nothing.
Surely you don't mean to imply that Dell or HP or anyone else has continually created new hardware independent of each other. As for Apple innovation and developments, look no further than pushing USB and eliminating legacy connections, leading the charge for wide-aspect LCDs, implementing Firewire, and pioneering recordable DVD technologies. Those are just the basic points for hardware.
You could go on to tremendous software accomplishments, including iLife, the pro media line, and OS X. Don't give me that BSD port nonsense, either. Do you know how many BSD variants there are? What about Linux distributions...just because they share the same origin doesn't mean they're all lazy ripoffs of each other. When was the last time Windows was completely overhauled, top to bottom and side to side? (Hint: 1994).
It's not to say that Apple has single-handedly bested the entire PC industry, but give credit where credit is due.
Don't be ridiculous. This is the fourth time Apple has made a major change to the CPUs used in their computers. Yes, the PowerPC platform didn't replace Intel designs, but everyone knew that more than 10 years ago. In its time, it was competitive. There's no fundamental flaw with the nature of PowerPC that made it lose out, it was simply a matter of finances and business decisions. IBM wasn't willing to go in the direction Apple wanted, or wasn't doing it fast enough. So Apple found someone else.
Apple has always been Apple. They're always going to say what they're doing is great and better than the competition, because that's what marketing is meant to do. Every single personal computer on the market shares a common heritage to some extent, and the change of one component doesn't really matter in the long run.
Not true. Fundamental technical flaws -- G5's use too much power and run too hot for use in a laptop.matticus008 said:
That's the problem, in my opinion. I find their arrogance to be nauseating, especially in their latest commercial. And I've heard the same from others. They must think PC user's are stupid, using those dull little boxes. Good thing Apple is here to save us all from ourselves and dullness.matticus008 said:
I'm not an Apple basher -- I'm a long time Mac Developer. But I think they could do a better job with their commercials.
That's not a fundamental problem with the PowerPC architecture, that's a fundamental problem with the G5 processor architecture. The perceived argument was that PowerPC was abandoned because it was inferior than x86-compatible design, which hasn't been demonstrated. It would amount to the same thing as dismissing x86 entirely because of the terrible performance of Pentium 4s. The Pentium M and Athlon 64 are proof that the devil is in the implementation.brettbolt said:
That's fair enough. What's bravada for some is arrogance for others. The latest commercial is certainly not without controversy.
matticus008 said:
Actually, I'm somewhat of a student on this stuff, and really it was 1989 when MS got Dave Cutler from DEC, who designed NT (on Intel N10 RISC processors, not X86). Further, the NT project started life as OS/2 3.0 and became NT when MS and IBM parted ways in 1991. NT->2000->XP->Vista is the same family tree. Also worth noting that NT has supported several platforms in its life, IA32, IA64, DEC Alpha, Mips, and PowerPC; only IA32 and IA64 survive. Anybody remember the IBM PowerPC desktops?
You're probably referring to Windows 95. Really it was not a complete overhaul but pretty significant surgery over Windows 3.1. They actually kept parts of the system in the 16-bit world because the code had been so highly optimized that it was wasteful to trash it.
As to the BSD underpinnings of Mac OSX, I do have to say I have new respect for what Apple pulled off. I've been working a lot with Linux for the past 2 years, mostly Red Hat/Fedora plus several embedded flavors. To take something like that and turn it into OSX, well, they did a masterful job. If Microsoft had to take Red Hat, put their Vista GUI on it, and make it run old Windows applications, I don't think they could do it.
brettbolt said:
I agree with you here, Apple's arrogance used to really irritate me. But I guess I have become numb to it. It's kind of like the racist grandfather, you eventually learn to ignore their ramblings. I've definitely notced a small contingent in the Mac community that stakes their identity on being a Mac user for the sake of being one (in a way, we all do
). Rebelling for the sake of rebelling. Usually involves body piercings, and lots of self-reassurance that the person is creative. The kind of people who spend all day telling you how creative they are, and how anyone who doesn't fit their mold can't possibly be creative, especially those Pee-Cee luddites.
janstett said:I agree with you here, Apple's arrogance used to really irritate me. But I guess I have become numb to it. It's kind of like the racist grandfather, you eventually learn to ignore their ramblings. I've definitely notced a small contingent in the Mac community that stakes their identity on being a Mac user for the sake of being one (in a way, we all do
There is truth to what you both say. I think that Mac had its toungue firmly in its cheek when they approved the advert. The advert is a throwback to the intel bunny adverts accept this time to target is the OS and not the CPU.
Still, the advert was great for current mac users that like to feel a litle smug, but the non-mac community will probably not be impressed. What does it tell them apart from the fact that some macs now use intel chips?
Apple's philosophy may have been: we have successfully managed to persuade the media to cover our move the intel extensively and to discuss the mac platform in general. So the world knows who we are, now all we need to do is tell them that the intels are ready and there's no longer a need to wait.
Like many of you I have converted many users to the mac platform not because I showed them a picture, or made a pithy remark, but because I showed them how the things work..If you go to apple's website they have 30 second overviews of application features.. why don't apple just dump those all out their as TV adverts.. People watch enough TV to end up getting the full picture..
Those clips make me want to buy another mac
let alone switch..Bulb said:
USB, FireWire, replacing floppy drives with CD-ROM drives, zero-config-networking, H.264, CoreImage, CoreData, CoreAudio, journaled filesystem, Spotlight, Quartz, legal media downloads, Xgrid, Expose, Dashboard, etc. (And, before you start trying to tear this list apart, I'm well aware of the fact that Apple didn't invent all of these technologies. My point is that they pioneered their use in the personal-computer market).
And how do you describe a Unix-based OS that grandma can use without needing help from her uber-geek grandson if not innovative?
Cheers
If the goal of their ad is to win new customers (current PC users), then insulting them about their "dullness" is not getting off to a friendly start.jacobj said:
Instead, how about an ad telling about the Mac's relative freedom from viruses/spyware and the other PC plagues. I know someone who bought a Mac just for internet use. The PC is left disconnected from the net, for business apps only.