Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Randman

Fine, then don't buy a Mac with an Intel chip. Simple as that. But all the crying from some people on this site is laughable. "Apple betrayed us." "I follow the chip not the OS." "OSX isn't worth the Apple tax." "I'd rather run Windows on a Pentium than OSX on Intel."

Being concerned is one thing. Being pissed is one thing. Being an alarmist and drama queen before all of the facts are in is quite something else.

The only abuse I've seen is coming from the x86 Mac camp. Some people won't move to x86 or Intel, deal with it.

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Ditching your OS of choice because you don't like the processor that powers it is of course your prerogative. But the phrase 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' does come to mind.

Even if that's true, it's no different from what Apple is doing.

Mastrap · Jun 8, 2005, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

I've been irritated with Apple's weaker hardware for years, their move to Intel simply drives the last nail in the coffin.

So the second Apple does something to address your concern you take that as a reason to leave?

Fair enough. If you're happy with Linux, and I personally need an OS that just works™, then all power to you.

legacyb4 · Jun 8, 2005, 09:49 AM

And I guarantee that if the 3-banger was starting to consistently outperform the Ferrari engine this year in Formula One, Red Bull would definitely consider the Geo to be their engine for the following race year instead of Ferrari.

Originally Posted by sideus

Exactly. Mac OS X will now be a ferrari with a Geo Metro 3 banger inside.

Mastrap · Jun 8, 2005, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Even if that's true, it's no different from what Apple is doing.

Oh give it a rest already.

Apple had no choice. IBM was not delivering the goods, that's what this is coming down to. Do you really think that this was an easy decision for Apple? Do you really think that they want to cause all of this upheaval? That they want to risk losing business over the next year or so? That they want to have to ask developers to change their apps? Get real.

Apple's hand has been forced. That's all there is to this.

MaxPower · Jun 8, 2005, 09:58 AM

After reading threads like this on pretty much every Mac forum out there, I think we've been duped yet again! The real reason Apple is moving to x86 is to finally trim the frothy zealots from the fringe of the bell curve. OS9* and PowerPC fanboys all at once! I think we'll be seeing a lot of these vanity farewell posts in the coming transition. I hope you all find what youre looking for.

*has to support legacy apps on OS9 so I feel your pain... a little.

version · Jun 8, 2005, 10:00 AM

Despite x86's inherent flaws, I'm only ditching Macs because the transition is a bump I could do without.

Edit: I'm quite surprised by some of the reactions to Millennium, MacNStein, theolein, etc. Pretty sad to see almost disgust being thrown at them personally.

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

So the second Apple does something to address your concern you take that as a reason to leave?

Fair enough. If you're happy with Linux, and I personally need an OS that just works™, then all power to you.

There are other ways they could have addressed this without moving to Intel. In fact, if they'd moved to AMD (Athlon 64 and Opteron) I'd still be backing them.

Linux "Just Works", if you're intelligent enough to use it. I find it very simple and easy to manage.

What's also funny are the 2 anonymous hate mails I've gotten for my position on this. You guys are all class.

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

It's funny watching the x86 Mac zealots attack the people who simply want to stay with PPC.

Is it possible for you to come to grips with Apple's failure to keep these customers? Can't you understand that some people won't buy an Intel product?

Stop being so insulting. It doesn't get your point across, and only shows your "fanboyness".

x86 zealot... hardly. IMHO, it's like blaming the wife for breaking up a marrage when the husband has been an abusive drunk. IBM has had speed issues, supply issues, delays, etc. etc.

I love the idea of PPC, and have been a big fan... but it's over... and I trust that Apple can see the writing on the wall much better than I can. I feel like it's a weight off of Apple's sholders. No more explaining, no more forced G5 vs. P4 stats, etc. etc.

MaxPower · Jun 8, 2005, 10:09 AM

What's also funny are the 2 anonymous hate mails I've gotten for my position on this. You guys are all class.

Ok, that just sucks, man. Sorry to hear it. People, put your venom on the forums and weather the counterpoints but dont be a PM coward

turtle777 · Jun 8, 2005, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Fact is, I like Linux. It's very simple to use...

Well, good luck getting nice apps like iLife, iTunes and iPod integration etc. for your Linux box.

-t

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 10:14 AM

I also like the idea of saying "Oh, the hardware is similar to the PC side of the fence... but Apple is known for higher quality".

The CPU has always been an issue when explaining the Mac's processor. Sure we have dual G5 systems at 2.7GHz... but the general systems are much further behind. I'm still amazed the eMac is running on a G4.

zerostar · Jun 8, 2005, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by version

Despite x86's inherent flaws, I'm only ditching Macs because the transition is a bump I could do without.

So your not going to have a 'bump' switching to your new platform of choice? Or you already own all your software, hardware, etc. for this new platform?

zerostar · Jun 8, 2005, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

There are other ways they could have addressed this without moving to Intel. In fact, if they'd moved to AMD (Athlon 64 and Opteron) I'd still be backing them.

So you don't like Intel personally, did you ever state why? or if you did do you remember where you posted that info?

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Ok, that just sucks, man. Sorry to hear it. People, put your venom on the forums and weather the counterpoints but dont be a PM coward

WOW... hate mail? Crazy... looks like a PC forum

zerostar · Jun 8, 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

the x86 Mac zealots

version · Jun 8, 2005, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by zerostar

So your not going to have a 'bump' switching to your new platform of choice? Or you already own all your software, hardware, etc. for this new platform?

I've never been one to stick with just the one platform. I've always used various systems. This change in Macs will put a damper on things where I work, so time to let go of them.

Mastrap · Jun 8, 2005, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Linux "Just Works", if you're intelligent enough to use it. I find it very simple and easy to manage.

Oh come on now. I've installed many a Linux distro on many an old Mac and there is no comparison between even the easiest Linux install and the ease of installing OS X.

Linux, as the old adage goes, is only free if your time has no value. I need things to work out of the box, I need things to run with minimal trouble shooting. I use my Macs to earn a living.

Of course, if you're highly proficient in Linux then none of the above applies to you. In which case, best of luck on your chosen path

version · Jun 8, 2005, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Oh come on now. I've installed many a Linux distro on many an old Mac and there is no comparison between even the easiest Linux install and the ease of installing OS X.

Linux, as the old adage goes, is only free if your time has no value. I need things to work out of the box, I need things to run with minimal trouble shooting. I use my Macs to earn a living.

Of course, if you're highly proficient in Linux then none of the above applies to you. In which case, best of luck on your chosen path

That's the point. Not everyone is in the same position as yourself. Some will transition with no issues at all, others will abandon the platform. Why? Because that's just the nature of things.

I don't get the hostility that some are displaying towards others. Fact is - Apple is going to take a hit in this changeover, so rather than being dismissive of the reasons, let's just accept, and be courteous towards those that are affected.

nforcer · Jun 8, 2005, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Randman

Fine, then don't buy a Mac with an Intel chip. Simple as that. But all the crying from some people on this site is laughable. "Apple betrayed us." "I follow the chip not the OS." "OSX isn't worth the Apple tax." "I'd rather run Windows on a Pentium than OSX on Intel."

Being concerned is one thing. Being pissed is one thing. Being an alarmist and drama queen before all of the facts are in is quite something else.

turtle777 · Jun 8, 2005, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by zerostar

So you don't like Intel personally, did you ever state why? or if you did do you remember where you posted that info?

I asked the same question in another thread. Didn't get an answer yet.
To me, this is as childish as the behavior he acuses the x86 Mac zealots of.

-t

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Linux "Just Works", if you're intelligent enough to use it. I find it very simple and easy to manage.

I had to laugh when I read that bit...

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 10:52 AM

http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=23941

SUNNYVALE, CA -- March 8, 2005 --AMD (NYSE: AMD) released the following statement today regarding the Fair Trade Commission of Japan's (JFTC) Recommendation to Intel Japan K.K. ("Intel") on its violation of Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act:

"The JFTC found that Intel illegally manipulated the market to exclude competition, hurting PC users around the world," said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. "Using market power illegally to limit innovation and, more importantly, consumers' freedom to choose, cannot be tolerated. We encourage governments around the globe to ensure that their markets are not being harmed as well."

McCoy continued, "The evidence of harm to consumers is obvious. By preventing PC manufacturers from using CPUs of their choice, Intel's misconduct deprived consumers worldwide of the freedom to purchase computers that best fit their needs. Efforts by an avowed monopolist to artificially set market shares to exclude competition clearly violates antitrust standards globally."

The JFTC has found that Intel has abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, thereby violating Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel used illegal tactics to stop AMD's growing success and increasing market share, which reached 22% in 2002, by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers (which sell notebook and desktop computers to customers around the world).

The JFTC Recommendation is the culmination of an 11-month investigation that has established patterns of anti-consumer and anti-competitive behavior. The Commission found that, because of AMD's inroads into Intel's market share, Intel deliberately set out to artificially limit AMD by imposing conditions on five Japanese manufacturers that together represented 77% of all CPUs sold in Japan. Specifically, the JFTC found that:

One manufacturer was forced to agree to buy 100% of its CPUs from Intel; another manufacturer was forced to curtail its non-Intel purchases to 10% or less;
Intel separately conditioned rebates on the exclusive use of Intel CPUs throughout an entire series of computers sold under a single brand name in order to exclude AMD CPUs from distribution;
The mechanisms used to achieve these ends included rebates and marketing practices that includes the "Intel Inside" program and market development funds provided through Intel's corporate parent in the United States.

and...

http://informationweek.serverpipeline.com/news/49901383
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/06/intelc.htm
http://news.com.com/2009-1001-212039.html?legacy=cnet

just to name a few.

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Oh come on now. I've installed many a Linux distro on many an old Mac and there is no comparison between even the easiest Linux install and the ease of installing OS X.

Linux, as the old adage goes, is only free if your time has no value. I need things to work out of the box, I need things to run with minimal trouble shooting. I use my Macs to earn a living.

Of course, if you're highly proficient in Linux then none of the above applies to you. In which case, best of luck on your chosen path

I'm not talking about OS installation (which is still easy), I'm talking about use. Either is very simple, and Linux is even more flexible (and faster).

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I had to laugh when I read that bit...

what's simple for one person isn't simple for another. Just a fact of life.

smacintush · Jun 8, 2005, 11:22 AM

Simple question: While I love my G5 and have faith that is a well designed chip, in the opinion of those of you who think that this move to x86 is a mistake, what should Apple do for their pathetic laptop processors? How would you suggest they handle those? Leave things as they are?

typoon · Jun 8, 2005, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Simple question: While I love my G5 and have faith that is a well designed chip, in the opinion of those of you who think that this move to x86 is a mistake, what should Apple do for their pathetic laptop processors? How would you suggest they handle those? Leave things as they are?

Good point. We've been complaining about battery life for a while now. If this will increase batter life and give us faster laptops at the same time why is this a bad thing?

Randman · Jun 8, 2005, 11:52 AM

What about PowerMacs? How long can they stay overclocked at 2.7Ghz?

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Apple had no choice. IBM was not delivering the goods, that's what this is coming down to.

IBM has the goods. Apple had the choice.

Do you really think that they want to cause all of this upheaval?

Actually, I'm not sure that they don't. Transitions like this generally mean a big jump in hardware sales, at least in the short term. They are, after all, a business, are they not?

That they want to risk losing business over the next year or so?

They can weather one slim year, maybe even two if they have to. Their cash reserves will be hurt, but not completely plundered, and Jobs has made quite a point about Apple not having any debt.

What this will do is hurt their market share this year (which, keep in mind, only tracks the machines actually sold during that period of time, not the machines in use). Everyone here agrees on that. That has the potential to blow up in Apple's face, however, if there isn't a very big boost in sales when the first Intel boxes come up.

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Simple question: While I love my G5 and have faith that is a well designed chip, in the opinion of those of you who think that this move to x86 is a mistake, what should Apple do for their pathetic laptop processors? How would you suggest they handle those? Leave things as they are?

Invest the money going into this switch into processor development.

Mastrap · Jun 8, 2005, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

IBM has the goods. Apple had the choice.

Where? Where is the promised 3GH G5? Where is the G5 for the laptop? Nowhere. IBM didn't, or couldn't, deliver, pure and simple.

As I've said before, Apple's hand was forced in this imo.

Dalhectar · Jun 8, 2005, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by sideus

Heh, you must have been in TheSteve's RDF blast zone. Performance units per watt means what now?

Performance Units per watt... isn't that snappiness per watt?

Randman · Jun 8, 2005, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

IBM has the goods. Apple had the choice.

Was the real Millennium kidnapped and replaced?

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Where? Where is the promised 3GH G5?

It's in the XBox 360.

Where is the G5 for the laptop?

If you don't think the next-gen consoles don't require a laptop-capable chip on account of the small size, you're insane.

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

Was the real Millennium kidnapped and replaced?

Nope.

I've long said there was no love lost between me and Apple. I've stuck with them because they make the best computers, and they're good enough to justify the premium. That's no longer true, so I'll have to go elsewhere. It's not a thought I relish, but if Apple's going to sell out then I have no use for them anymore.

Randman · Jun 8, 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I've stuck with them because they make the best computers, and they're good enough to justify the premium. That's no longer true.

That's where you are mistaken. They will still be the best computers. The OS is going to continue and mature and improve. Faster speeds are a plus. Cheaper prices are a plus. Being able to meet supply is a plus. Being able to give Windows a real run for the money for the first time in years will be a plus.

To say Apple is selling out is hypocritical. Apple jumped from Moto to IBM, which was the big evil more than a decade ago. Was that a sellout?

IBM couldn't pass 3Ghz, IBM couldn't come up with a mobile G5 chip, IBM couldn't keep up with demand and IBM is turning its attention to Microsoft and the XBox.

It's IBM that sold out Apple, not the other way around.

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

Good point. We've been complaining about battery life for a while now. If this will increase batter life and give us faster laptops at the same time why is this a bad thing?

I think this was at the heart of the issue. I don't think IBM had a portable solution for the G5 regarding heat and power.

We are still zipping along at 1.67GHz PowerPC G4 while the Intel M proessers are starting to show some real strength. Think 6-7+ hour batteries, etc. etc. etc.

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

IBM couldn't pass 3Ghz, IBM couldn't come up with a mobile G5 chip, IBM couldn't keep up with demand and IBM is turning its attention to Microsoft and the XBox.

mitchell_pgh · Jun 8, 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

It's in the XBox 360.

If you don't think the next-gen consoles don't require a laptop-capable chip on account of the small size, you're insane.

If you think the chip in a console is designed for a laptop, you are insane. Donsoles have MUCH more room for cooling, unlimited power, etc. etc.

They are not the same.

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

I asked the same question in another thread. Didn't get an answer yet.
To me, this is as childish as the behavior he acuses the x86 Mac zealots of.

-t

waiting for your reply to my above post, if you can.

Whenever you get a minute, thanks.

zerostar · Jun 8, 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Intel bit

Every company has shady business dealings, there is NO company on the up-and-up 100% of the time. If you think a company has never done anything that would be called 'shady' you are kidding yourself. (This obvioulsy dosen't make it good or acceptabe, but there are a lot of people involved som of them are only looking out for #1, hard to judge a whole company on a few policies by who knows?) Look at Apple, they have done out and out despicable things in the past and yet this you can look past???

The practices the article sights in Japan are AFAIK perfectly legal in the USA.

Because they want one supplier to only buy chips from them to get a discount only makes business sense to me, and I only have to wonder if this is the same deal Apple has signed up for.

Seems like you are making excuses for whatever reason, You don't like Intel's practices ok, you shouldn't like Apple's either.

legacyb4 · Jun 8, 2005, 01:42 PM

The bump is going to come in full force when the OS is changed to a significant degree when it no longer makes sense to support the older hardware; how long did the 604 hang around before being officially dropped for OS X? Probably a lot longer than you would have wanted to use that old machine to try and keep up with the current OS, I imagine.

By the time your existing Mac or Mac-purchased-within-the-year is no longer supported, the speeds of the newest Macs should be significant enough to merit buying a new one.

As far as a 'bump' goes, I would gather that there will be almost an unnoticable effect for existing Mac users except to note how much faster the 2006/2007 machines will be (which would have happened anyway if Apple stayed with the PPC; then again, maybe not which is precisely Apple made the decision to change).

Originally Posted by version

Despite x86's inherent flaws, I'm only ditching Macs because the transition is a bump I could do without.

Millennium · Jun 8, 2005, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

They will still be the best computers.

Not by nearly as much of a margin, and in particular not by enough of a margin to justify the price.

Cheaper prices are a plus.

You assume the prices are going to drop. This is, to say the least, unlikely. Apple was paying less per-chip for the G5 than Intel charges per-chip for its latest offerings. If the prices are going to drop, then it will only be because Apple is cutting corners elsewhere.

Being able to meet supply is a plus.

Where was the shortage?

Being able to give Windows a real run for the money for the first time in years will be a plus.

Do you honestly believe Macs haven't been competitive for the last few years? For that matter, do you honestly believe that Macs will survive the next release of Virtual PC on Windows, which will almost certainly run OSX?

To say Apple is selling out is hypocritical. Apple jumped from Moto to IBM, which was the big evil more than a decade ago. Was that a sellout?

No, because technological progress was made in the process. This is a regression.

IBM couldn't pass 3Ghz, IBM couldn't come up with a mobile G5 chip, IBM couldn't keep up with demand and IBM is turning its attention to Microsoft and the XBox.

IBM had its 3GHz chip, and it would have the mobile chip very soon. I've heard nothing about any shortage of G5 Macs, and as for Microsoft and the XBox, they're turning their attention other places too. One of those places could have been Apple, if only Apple would have allowed it.

PacHead · Jun 8, 2005, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

IBM has the goods. Apple had the choice.

Yeah, that G5 powerbook is really a hot seller ! I need to pick one of them up.

Also, a watercooled, overclocked dual chip is probably not what Apple had in mind, when IBM were to deliver their "powerful" chips to Apple.

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by zerostar

Every company has shady business dealings, there is NO company on the up-and-up 100% of the time. If you think a company has never done anything that would be called 'shady' you are kidding yourself. (This obvioulsy dosen't make it good or acceptabe, but there are a lot of people involved som of them are only looking out for #1, hard to judge a whole company on a few policies by who knows?) Look at Apple, they have done out and out despicable things in the past and yet this you can look past???

The practices the article sights in Japan are AFAIK perfectly legal in the USA.

Because they want one supplier to only buy chips from them to get a discount only makes business sense to me, and I only have to wonder if this is the same deal Apple has signed up for.

Seems like you are making excuses for whatever reason, You don't like Intel's practices ok, you shouldn't like Apple's either.

read the other articles, they outline their practices and illegal dealings in the US and Europe as well.

They're shadier than most and I won't do business with them. However, don't feel bad, there are a lot of companies out there that I don't purchase products from.

I speak with my wallet. If I don't like a company I won't buy their stuff, it's easy.

PacHead · Jun 8, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

IBM had its 3GHz chip, and it would have the mobile chip very soon.

Well, since Apple is still going to update their line of PPC Macs, I sure look forward to the Powerbook G5 soon, and also the 3Ghz dual G5, if what you say is true.

Shaddim · Jun 8, 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Yeah, that G5 powerbook is really a hot seller ! I need to pick one of them up.

Also, a watercooled, overclocked dual chip is probably not what Apple had in mind, when IBM were to deliver their "powerful" chips to Apple.

Yep, they should have went with AMD instead of IBM, better roadmap and superior product.

Mastrap · Jun 8, 2005, 01:58 PM

And no guarantee that they're able to supply the numbers needed.

But of course, we're all guessing here. I suspect that Apple took a very hard, very long look at this before making any decision.

zerostar · Jun 8, 2005, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Not by nearly as much of a margin, and in particular not by enough of a margin to justify the price.

Justify what price? My Recent Dual 2.5 G5 was cheaper then my Dual Xeon box and they are almost the same spec-wise. Apple's laptops (with a proper chip) are very very competitive, and the iMac is comparable to other for what you are getting, especially with the 2.0GHz G5.

Originally Posted by Millennium

If the prices are going to drop, then it will only be because Apple is cutting corners elsewhere.

If they can use standard video cards with the intel boards that is a HUGE drop in price for each machine, and that is only one scenario.

Originally Posted by Millennium

For that matter, do you honestly believe that Macs will survive the next release of Virtual PC on Windows, which will almost certainly run OSX?

I doubt Apple would allow this.

Originally Posted by Millennium

One of those places could have been Apple, if only Apple would have allowed it.

Pure speculation and obvious hurt feelings, you don't know what happened, for all we know IBM told them to go f' themselves.

zerostar · Jun 8, 2005, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Well, since Apple is still going to update their line of PPC Macs, I sure look forward to the Powerbook G5 soon, and also the 3Ghz dual G5, if what you say is true.

Exactly, lets see what IBM will deliver in the next year, Ill be amazed if they reach another 300MHz