[Boondoggle]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm out.

OSX is good, but it's not good enough to justify the Apple tax all by itself. The superior hardware was what truly justified the price before now, and without it I may as well go with the next best thing: Linux/Intel. Hell; there are a few other PowerPC vendors out there; maybe I'll check them out with Linux/PpwerPC.

Moderation calls for Moderation, and Linux is only free if you don't value your time.

A CPU is only a small component of the hardware. Which Linux distro is it that will play MP3's "out of the box"? I've tried several that didn't. You can't even install FreeBSD with a USB keyboard. Going to stream that audio to your stereo wirelessly? Going to manage those photos in what? Not even Picasa in Linux. Now which consumer movie editing program are you going to use?

Oh and that pervasive metadata searching ability? that is um... which menu is that under again in Linux?

The truth is that Linux on the desktop makes Windows look good. As far as i can tell it is only marginally good for web browsing and exceptional at making one a self-righteous, long-suffering sap.

Enjoy.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by vinster

Why didn't Apple do this in 2001 the same time they made the move to OS X and how do you know for sure that this is going to work to Apple's benefit?

Somehow I don't think Steve would feel badly about walking away from Apple if this doesn't work out.

Because OS 9 didn't run on Intel.

Transitioning to Intel couldn't happen until they had a real OS. Now they have an OS that not only is the best Mac OS ever, but the best PC OS ever. They can compete feature for feature with MS and win (they believe).

It appears that in the short term (next couple of years) Apple fully intends to remain a closed system in terms of hardware. They should be able to maintain their hardware/software integration advantage and Intel chips (especially Pentium-M) promise some truly innovative hardware designs.

I expect the price points to remain roughtly the same. That should enable Apple to either pack better gear in the box for the same price and/or enjoy a better profit margin. In that respect, they are simply going to keep doing exactly what they have been doing.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by vinster

Why didn't Apple do this in 2001 the same time they made the move to OS X?

Because at the time, Apple was struggling with Motorolla and their G4 updates. They were betting on IBM to deliver the G5 with good supplies and frequent updates. IBM had a good reputation supplying chips to Apple (PowerPC G1s & G3s) they weren't expecting IBM to drop the ball with the G5.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I expect the price points to remain roughtly the same. That should enable Apple to either pack better gear in the box for the same price and/or enjoy a better profit margin. In that respect, they are simply going to keep doing exactly what they have been doing.

If, anything, Apple needs to get their prices out of the stratosphere.

[goMac]

I'm staying put. Anyone who thinks that Apple is abandoning PowerPC is silly. Apple is currently beating it into us developer's heads we must support both PowerPC and Intel clients. PowerPC is going to be around for a very long time still.

The next Intel chipsets based on the Pentium M are also very cool, so people can stop with the hot Macs non sense. I would bet the wattage/processing power graph was based on the Pentium M.

Steve is giving us a fast laptop chipset, far faster than the G4 ever could be, and the G5 will never make it into a laptop. Give Steve a break and get with reality (I'm looking at you Cody Dawg).

[E's Lil Theorem]

Originally Posted by TheGreatButcher

... I'm concerned about the remaining quarters, esp. after they announce how many Mac sales and revenue from them...

Ah, crap! Now, it all makes sense! That's why during the last analyst call they announced that in the future they wont be breaking out sales numbers among desktops.

And as far as Millennium moving to Linux and still moderating here, isn't one of the mods already a Linux and only Linux user? I forgot what his handle is, but IIRC, he's from Germany made a thread about what to wear (to a date?) once . In short, I don't see a problem.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vinster

Can the original poster add an on-the-fence vote to this poll? I'm still undecided.

On-the-fence votes are so pointless. The idea is to express your opinion, not your lack thereof.

[alphasubzero949]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

On-the-fence votes are so pointless. The idea is to express your opinion, not your lack thereof.

Then again, if they're on-the-fence, I'll be more than glad to help take the pressure off of them. I could use a shiny new Mac.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by alphasubzero949

If, anything, Apple needs to get their prices out of the stratosphere.

I disagree that their prices are in the "stratosphere", but I understand the desire for lower prices. Hell, I went Mac-less for years for that very reason until the Mini came along.

But you have to remember that Apple is thriving in a PC market that has proven death for even companies like IBM. And Apple hasn't been doing it with massive biz sales either.

The list of failed PC makers reads like the list of cancelled Fox Shows (thank you Family Guy for that classic bit) and yet Dell and Apple make billions in entirely different ways. You gotta respect that.

If Apple plays Dell's game, they'll die just like every other PC maker (I'm looking at you HP).

Prediction time:

You'll won't see a Mac priced lower than $499. Apple has no interest in that space nor should they. Its pointless.

Apple will be able to offer a really good range of laptops from $899-2999. I don't know if the iBook and PowerBook brands will remain as we know them, but access to Intel chipsets should make it easier to offer a great entry level laptop and some real screamers at the top end that will be clearly differentiated. This is where Intel really pays off.

Expect PPC to remain in the PowerMac lineup for a while. I'm not sure they gain anything by moving to P4's right now. The only area they might gain would be more room for more expansion options but don't expect the price points to change much. Might have an entry level Intel box.

Mini will be the first Intel desktop Mac. Makes total sense. Price point won't change.

XServe's future is fuzzy. Right now 64-bit matters in that space so I imagine they'll keep a PPC version in the pipeline for quite a while. They might diversify with Intel offerings but I don't see any compelling reason to drop PPC in the XServe completely any time soon.

Apple will NOT work with AMD. Not. Gonna. Happen.

/predictions

To be honest, from a hardware standpoint this gives Apple a lot of room to work and promises great things for Apple customers. The only sketchy part is whether or not they can keep their developers happy and the stock market happy through the transition. That's why I think they should launch an Intel product (new laptop) ASAP just so the market has something concrete to focus on rather than all this rampant speculation.

[Parky]

I emailed Steve about this (and yes I know his email and yes I know it is him who replies, don't ask me how though).

He sent me an email which is very clear, it's not about what we can see now, it's all about the future.
He said we have great products now, but they need to make sure they have good one's in the future.

I was very shocked initially, but after a little more understanding of a better future I'm happy to trust Steve and see what happens.

Ian

[rhombus]

Why don't you post SJ's reply to you email on this forum, I'm sure everyone would read it.

[jcadam]

Ok, now that I've had a chance to calm down and think about this, I believe the following is probably what happened:

IBM flat-out told Apple that making consumer-level PPC chips with high performance was low on their list of priorities. Probably due in no small part to IBM not wanting to lose sales of their POWER-based server and workstation products to the XServe and PowerMac.
SJ probably first threatened to leave, and after seeing IBM still didn't care decided to up and do it.

So, can't get good microprocessors from IBM, where to go now?
Motorola/Freescale: erm, no.
Anyone else make PPC? erm, no.

So, can't use PPC, what other options are there?
You've basically got x86, or some high priced server/workstation class CPU like SPARC or Itanium.

So, ok, I can understand the decision. Not happy about it, and I imagine SJ and the majority of the engineers at Apple aren't either.

[Parky]

I will post Steve's full reply, but I'm at the office and it's in a mail folder on my Mac at home.

I will post the full reply once I get home in a short while.

Ian

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, please do post it. I'd like to read it myself.

The next Intel chipsets based on the Pentium M are also very cool, so people can stop with the hot Macs non sense. I would bet the wattage/processing power graph was based on the Pentium M.

I find it amusing that there are a LOT of you out there that a few days ago would have denounced the Pentium M if someone here had said that they thought it ran well. Now the same ones (and you know who you are) all of a sudden think it's a great chip.

[Randman]

It's not the chip. Heck, Apple could run on Doritos for all I care. I don't much about PC chips but the Yonah sounds like a great chip for laptops.

Besides, all the drama queen antics are silly. Saying a Mac and PC are the same because they both use Intel is like saying a PowerMac and XBox360 are identical because they both use PPC.

[Parky]

I asked Steve this :-

Can you please explain today's 'Intel' announcement when this is still being 'sold' to us on the Apple web site :-

http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/

Here is Steve's reply :-

Ian,

The problems with the PowerPC are not today, they're tomorrow. We need to get our developers working now to be ready. The PowerPC machines we're shipping today are great. But we need to think ahead too.

Best,
Steve

[Cody Dawg]

Posting this from the New York Times (need a registration to read it) from this morning in full:

SAN FRANCISCO, June 6

Steven P. Jobs took the stage at Apple Computer's Worldwide Developers Conference on Monday to tell more than 3,000 of his most enthusiastic fans - and occasionally also his harshest critics - that he was giving them a new homework assignment: to rework their Macintosh programs to run on chips from Intel.

Apple's decision to shift the Macintosh microprocessor business to Intel, a longtime rival, after more than a decade with I.B.M. was the latest bold maneuver in his eight years back at the Apple helm, a period in which he has reinvigorated the Macintosh line and overseen Apple's ascendancy in the digital music business.

Mr. Jobs said the company would begin incorporating Intel chips in some Macs reaching the market next year and largely complete the changeover by 2008. For the transition, Apple will offer a new version of its operating system, Macintosh OS X Tiger, that will run on both I.B.M. and Intel chips.

One immediate challenge will be to persuade Apple customers to continue to buy Mac computers based on I.B.M.'s PowerPC chip while they wait for the Intel versions to arrive. But in an interview after his presentation on Monday, Mr. Jobs said he believed that Apple would be able to navigate around that obstacle.

To hear Mr. Jobs describe it, the switch was a logical and straightforward business decision.

"It didn't feel to me like a long march," he said, describing a moment several months ago when he realized he would end his relationship with I.B.M. He said the decision seemed obvious to his small team of top managers. "There was a day when we looked at each other and said, 'this is the right thing to do.' "

Indeed, it was a contingency he had been preparing for since he returned to Apple, he said on Monday. He showed a satellite map of Apple's corporate headquarters and pinpointed the building where a secret engineering project, code-named Marklar, had been tuning Apple's software on Intel-powered computers bought off the shelf.

"Macintosh OS X has been leading a secret double life for the past five years," he said.

Apple had been counting on a version of the PowerPC processor that required less power and produced less heat, but had not gotten one from I.B.M. and its partner, Freescale Semiconductor. In addition, several analysts said they believed that I.B.M. had refused Apple's demands for deep discounts.

No financial details of the Apple-Intel deal were disclosed.

On Wall Street on Monday, both Apple and Intel shares moved down slightly. Apple's stock closed at $37.92, down 32 cents, while Intel's stock ended at $27.17, off 16 cents.

Yet a number of Wall Street analysts said the deal made sense. "My belief is that Apple had to do it," said Eugene Munster, an analyst with Piper Jaffray. "Clearly, they needed better availability, better pricing and a better development community." Mr. Munster has an outperform rating for Apple stock.

For his part, Mr. Jobs did not ascribe his decision to any pique with I.B.M., of which Apple remains a customer for other chips. Rather, he said he had become convinced that over the next three years Intel would win the race to deliver the most computer processing power per watt. He showed a chart projecting a significant advantage for Intel, which has struggled with heat problems in its own chips in recent years.

Several analysts said Monday that they were skeptical of such claims.

"We're not sure about whether Intel is that much better than A.M.D. or I.B.M.," said Richard Doherty, president of the Envisioneering Group, a consulting firm in Seaford, N.Y. The crucial factor in the deal was probably price, he said.

If outsiders are not true believers, however, Intel is. At the event Monday at the Moscone Center here, Paul S. Otellini, Intel's chief executive, gave Mr. Jobs a bear hug and said his company held no grudges for earlier Apple advertisements that poked fun at Intel's Pentium chips.

Moreover, Mr. Otellini was blunt in pointing out that although Apple's chip purchases might not make a significant contribution to his company's income statement, Intel was eager to move its technical innovations to market more quickly.

"It's a chance to reignite innovation," he said.

Indeed, despite Apple's small share of the personal computer market, the Intel-Apple partnership could affect the balance in the industry, providing Intel's labs with a channel beyond the Windows world of Microsoft - a longtime partner but one that Intel has periodically clashed with regarding competing technologies.

In his presentation today, Mr. Jobs painted a picture of a smooth technical transition from I.B.M. to Intel chips. He mustered support from two crucial Mac program developers, Microsoft and Adobe, whose executives said they were eager to move their programs to Apple's new computers.

Moreover, Apple unveiled a technology called Rosetta, a "dynamic software translation" tool that will make it possible for a user's existing programs to run unmodified on Apple's new Intel-based computers.

Mr. Jobs acknowledged that Rosetta was based in part on technology developed by Transitive Ltd. of Manchester, England, which has a novel approach to making it possible to run programs on disparate kinds of computers.

Al Gillen, research director at IDC, a market research company, said he was skeptical that the transition would be as smooth as Apple portrayed.

"They have a history of pushing platforms that is fairly disruptive," Mr. Gillen said. He pointed to Apple's move from its original Motorola 68000-based systems to systems using the PowerPC. Though Apple had promised the transition would be smooth for Mac users, "it was basically a 'repurchase' operation," he said, requiring new software for those purchasing the new computers. "Their concept of 'fairly easy' sometimes requires buying new things."

Mr. Jobs made it clear that he had no plans to sell Apple software to run on Windows computers. But several analysts said that because the Apple and Microsoft operating systems will be running on similar hardware, he would not be able to stop users from retrofitting Apple software to run on Windows computers.

As for the third-party developers of Mac software, the audience chosen by Mr. Jobs for Monday's announcement, most seemed to feel that he had forged a workable strategy, even though it will force them to revise their programs to run on the Intel chip.

Ray Slakinski, an independent Apple developer whose company, iPodderX, makes software for podcasting on the Macintosh, said Apple's strategy would not cause him any development delays. Apple has been reliable in providing developers with tools for smoothing major transitions, he said.

"It's a good sacrifice for them in the long term," he said of Apple's shift away from the PowerPC. Still, as a Mac user, he thinks the short term may be a bit bumpy. "I think Mac sales are going to take a hit for the next few months," he said. "I was in the market for a new laptop, but I'm holding off."

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I find it amusing that there are a LOT of you out there that a few days ago would have denounced the Pentium M if someone here had said that they thought it ran well. Now the same ones (and you know who you are) all of a sudden think it's a great chip.

I have always liked the Pentium M. I have posted on various boards in the past that Apple needed a dedicated mobile chip instead of the G5 for their notebooks. The Pentium M is a damn good chip. As I said in my first post of this thread, I have no loyalty to brands. I use what works best for me. I do design and video for a living. I need speed in my notebook. Apple was stuck with the G4 chips. IBM apparently couldn't get them a mobile chip. Apple made a business decision that will help me. I have no issue with that.

[Randman]

From ThinkSecret ...

The move is "not as dramatic as you're characterizing it," Jobs told CNBC host Ron Insana at about 2:25pm ET. Apple has great PowerPC products today and more in the pipeline that it hasn't yet introduced, Jobs said, adding, "This is going to be a more gradual transition."

"We have a good relationship with IBM, and they've got a product road map, and today, the products are really good," Jobs said when asked what IBM had failed to deliver, in his estimation. "But as we look out into the future, where we want to go is maybe a little bit different. We can envision some awesome products we want to build for our customers in the next few years, and as we look out a year or two in the future, Intel's processor roadmap really aligns with where we want to go much more than any other."

The transition is beginning now, Jobs said, to "get us where we want to be to build the kind of future products we want to build."

"Our products today are fine," Jobs added, "but it's really a year or two down the future where we see some issues."

Other highlights from today's interview on CNBC:

- Jobs declined to discuss what future plans Apple has that make Intel a good match: "We never talk about unannounced products, so I can't say. There used to be a saying at Apple, 'Isn't it funny, a ship that leaks from the top.' I don't want to do that." As for a strategic direction? "I guess we'll just have to wait and see."

- Asked if the appointment of new Disney CEO Robert Iger will prompt "warmer relations" between Disney and Pixar, and a renewal of their distribution agreement: "You know, I've had some great discussions with Bob Iger," Jobs said. "I really like him, and we'll see where it goes. I think we'll sit down to have some serious discussions hopefully in the next month or two."

- Asked about economic performance in Apple's sector of the economy, as well as iPod sales, Jobs declined to say too much between the company's quarterly reports. But on iPods, he said that Apple is "pretty thrilled that we seem to be in stock most places. That's something that hasn't been true for the last year on most occasions."

- As for efforts by Yahoo! and other companies to invade the online music sales space dominated by the iTunes Music Store: "In the end, it's all about the results," Jobs said, adding that the market share for the iTMS is increasing, but that he is waiting to hear how many subscribers Yahoo! has.

[Cody Dawg]

While we're talking and a lot of you are genius-types ( ) can someone tell my why, if Mac is so great for design, that Autocad never ran on it?

[d.fine]

I'm not going anywhere I'm here to stay...

[Randman]

Depends on what you mean by design. For print design, Macs have always been at the forefront.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

While we're talking and a lot of you are genius-types ( ) can someone tell my why, if Mac is so great for design, that Autocad never ran on it?

Supply and demand? My assumption is that the makers of AutoCAD, like other software companies, sell on the platform that the market prefers. It seems the majority of architects, engineers and specifiers use PCs. If that changed, I'm sure AutoCAD would be developed for Macs.

[Cody Dawg]

Randman: I'm specifically talking about Autocad, you know, the program architects use - the 2D program?

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Supply and demand? My assumption is that the makers of AutoCAD, like other software companies, sell on the platform that the market prefers. It seems the majority of architects, engineers and specifiers use PCs. If that changed, I'm sure AutoCAD would be developed for Macs.

I agree. Also, AutoDesk was asking for feedback on how many people wanted AutoCAD on Mac a while back. I assume if enough people would ask for AutoCAD that AutoDesk would port it.

People got to remember these folks are businesses and if they can make more money they will port to whatever platform.

[Randman]

I know what it is, but thought you needed to be a little more precise. "Design" covers quite a myriad of industry.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by MallyMal

I agree. Also, AutoDesk was asking for feedback on how many people wanted AutoCAD on Mac a while back. I assume if enough people would ask for AutoCAD that AutoDesk would port it.

Yeah - my brother is one of the few in this field who uses a Mac. I'm sure he gave them feedback.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Yeah - my brother is one of the few in this field who uses a Mac. I'm sure he gave them feedback.

It would also help if Apple had workstation class video cards.

[Krypton]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

While we're talking and a lot of you are genius-types ( ) can someone tell my why, if Mac is so great for design, that Autocad never ran on it?

AutoDesk did make AutoCAD for Mac in the early nineties.

It didn't sell well => They canned it.

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, at revision 14 they did.

They never bothered to port it to OS X.

[Busemann]

Most architects prefer VectorWorks or ArchiCad anyways. AutoCad isn't what it once was.

The DWG/DXF formats are fully cross-platform as well.

[iNub]

There is no vote for me, either. I don't actually use a Mac any more. Apple's announcement yesterday has made my choice simpler. I'm not buying an Apple. Not yet. I'm getting a Dell notebook for school this year, and that should last me until a Powerbook with a realistic price/performance point is out. The last time that has happened was more than 2 years ago.

In fact, and I know I'm not the only one on these forums with this thought, Apple's prices are starting to get really ridiculous again. I can build a fully decked-out dual Opteron workstation computer that would absolutely spank the dual G5 2.7, for less than the top of the line G5. A friend of mine built a dual Xeon workstation with 4 GB of RAM for less than Apple would charge for a middle of the road G5. I look forward to the day when the Mac is at that price point.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by iNub

There is no vote for me, either. I don't actually use a Mac any more. Apple's announcement yesterday has made my choice simpler. I'm not buying an Apple. Not yet. I'm getting a Dell notebook for school this year, and that should last me until a Powerbook with a realistic price/performance point is out. The last time that has happened was more than 2 years ago.

In fact, and I know I'm not the only one on these forums with this thought, Apple's prices are starting to get really ridiculous again. I can build a fully decked-out dual Opteron workstation computer that would absolutely spank the dual G5 2.7, for less than the top of the line G5. A friend of mine built a dual Xeon workstation with 4 GB of RAM for less than Apple would charge for a middle of the road G5. I look forward to the day when the Mac is at that price point.

UGH!!!, When will people get it that Apple with their systems is NOT competeing with home built PC's they are competeing with the likes aof DELL and HP and Sony. For what you get in of those machines at that price is not what Apple offers. Why do people ALWAYS compare Macs to home built PC's and then say that a PC that they can build is cheaper than a Mac when that is NOT the Market Apple is focusing on.

[Cody Dawg]

And if you build that system you'll soon be able to put Mac apps on it.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Most architects prefer VectorWorks or ArchiCad anyways. AutoCad isn't what it once was.

The DWG/DXF formats are fully cross-platform as well.

really? I know 3 different architects, all of home work in firms that use AutoCad. They usually like the Mac, but can't switch.

[deboerjo]

Hey, the poll is missing an option for "I'm switching to Apple"

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Yes, please do post it. I'd like to read it myself.



I find it amusing that there are a LOT of you out there that a few days ago would have denounced the Pentium M if someone here had said that they thought it ran well. Now the same ones (and you know who you are) all of a sudden think it's a great chip.

I am talking yonah chips. Please tell me that those chips (dual core in your powerbook) are not going to kick serious butt especially as apple has had 5 years too optimize OSX for intel.

[Busemann]

AutoCad still has a strong foothold, but it is now very easy to move between the apps totally transparently. I know several architects who switched from Windows/AutoCad to OS X/VW 11.5 and they are all praising it to the skies.

I think the main reason why people were hesitant to move over is the special work-environment in AutoCad. It was very difficult to switch if you had been using it for years, but now it is apparently much more seamless.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

And if you build that system you'll soon be able to put Mac apps on it.

If they let you. Doubt it though.

[wataru]

All I can say is "holy crap." Cody Dawg, you need to get a clue and fast.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

And if you build that system you'll soon be able to put Mac apps on it.

And where did you find that nugget? Or did you just make it up?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

PowerBooks will now become frying pans because Intel is going to much hotter, probably.

Centrino laptops run cool.

My 1.25GHz AlBook often gets so hot I can't touch it. I actually suspect you could cook an egg on it.

You should examine the facts first, then make a decision.

tooki

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

And if you build that system you'll soon be able to put Mac apps on it.

Actually, it will be harder than you think.

Apple will NOT use off-the-shelf motherboards. They'll make their motherboards proprietary enough that your average joe won't be able to just install OS X and it will work. There will be plenty of roadblocks set up.

At best you'll still need an "emulator" along the lines of Classic for OS X to run on a home-built PC.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

And if you build that system you'll soon be able to put Mac apps on it.

No Cody, Apple will not allow this. And if some extremely resourceful and knowledgeable geek somehow manages to do this (by putting a hell of a lot of time/effort into it), it will be illegal to sell anyhow.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

PowerBooks will now become frying pans because Intel is going to much hotter, probably.

No Cody, it is the exact opposite. Why do you think there's no Powerbook G5, and there hasn't been one up until now. Intel is known for their cool (much cooler running than the PPC) laptop chips.

If people wanna get all hysterical over Apple, they should at least base their info on facts.

[osxisfun]

>If people wanna get all hysterical over Apple, they should at least base their info on facts.

[:dragonflypro:]

Help me…

I'm confuzzled…

How is getting a intel based machine today with Win/linux in any way a preparation for the transition?

T

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by PacHead

No Cody, Apple will not allow this. And if some extremely resourceful and knowledgeable geek somehow manages to do this (by putting a hell of a lot of time/effort into it), it will be illegal to sell anyhow.

It's doable, but not trivial. Someone will do it. This Intel-OSX bootloader hack/utillity will be freely available on the web.

If macs still had a significant portion of their OS in ROM this would be a lot more difficult

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by PacHead

To those who are leaving, well goodbye ! Freedom of choice and all, ya know ?

Whatcha gonna do ? Run XP ? Run linux ? On what, a machine that uses the same processor as the one who are abandoning ?



As for myself, the only way I'd leave is if I hear those 4 intel notes, instead of the Apple chime, when I fire up a new Mac.

I'll be running Slackware/Enlightenment on a dual Opteron. No Wintel for me, thanks.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

It's the same ship... the captin is simply changing the sails a bit.

Or re-arranging the deck chairs?

Where's the "On the fence" option? I've already moved from shocked to sad, but I'll reserve judgement for a while, till I see howthings shake out. I dread the thought of having to gi Windows. Just absolutely dread it, and will only do so if Apple goes out of business. I suppose with 5 bil. they could sustain a burn-through of 1.5 billion a year or so without it being the end of the world, but if they lose too many sales in the next 18 months, they'll lose the developers, too, then it's only a matter of time. But one thing we do have a little of is time, so being rash is not the sensible move here.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I find it amusing that there are a LOT of you out there that a few days ago would have denounced the Pentium M if someone here had said that they thought it ran well. Now the same ones (and you know who you are) all of a sudden think it's a great chip.

Not as amusing as bumping this thread 2-3 years from now and finding a LOT of you out there that denounced Apple's switch over to intel (you know who you are) bragging about how wonderful and fast their brand new intel based mac is.

P.S. - I always look forward to the month of October (iPod's birthday) so I can bump those 'iPod=next G4 cube' threads.