[iNub]

Originally Posted by typoon

We're a little snitty aren't we.

Yes. Annoyed with the people who can't understand that who Apple intends to compete with and who they actually compete with are two entirely separate groups. In my experience, this is a form of groupthink unique to Apple fans. They believe their commodity computer made of mass-produced commodity parts is somehow set apart from the other commodity computers made of mass-produced commodity parts, just because the parts have a different logo. Endianness and instruction sets aside (both of which are largely irrelevant to anybody that doesn't maintain a gigantic code base of ISA-dependent software), the fact remains that a processor is a processor is a processor. You buy a computer based on whether or not you like what it has to offer. It's a tool, not a philosophy. Brand loyalty is a dumbass idea fostered by dumbasses so they can feel proud of their dumbass purchases, even if they made the wrong choice.

Originally Posted by typoon

I was just making a point that most people Mac or PC users that are complaining that they can build a homebrew PC for 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a Mac are missing the point. Apple is targetting not only us but also those who DON'T build their own PC's and look at computers from Dell or HP or Sony. THAT is what they compare themselves to NOT a person like you or I who can build a "homebew" PC for A LOT less than we can buy a Mac for.

I was complaining? I would think that favorably comparing an Apple computer to something faster, cheaper, and more readily available would be a compliment to the company.

Originally Posted by typoon

I assume you bought a Mac because as you said "their computers are held up to the high standard of the homebrew computer. The fact that you can build a faster Windows system for half the price of the Apple, and still compare it to the Apple stuff, is a testament to just how good the Apple software is."
Because you can compare it to something home built even though it's more expensive.

2001 Dual USB iBook 500 MHz (May it rest in peace)

Originally Posted by typoon

Most "average" users don't give a hoot that you can build one for 1/3 the price. They look at what it's got. They look at why they should buy it over a Dell or HP or Sony. If a Mac is 2.7GHz and 3.6 GHz P4 the average consumer will look at the speed as well as the cost. Many DON'T care that the PC may have lesser components they just want something fast. To them a 3.6GHz P4 is faster than our 2.7 GHz G5.

By and large, a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 is faster than a 2.7 GHz G5.

[QUOTE=typoon]People will buy a Celeron 3.6GHz before they buy a Mac because it's faster. Not only that it's cheaper. For the price you can buy a PC these days from a Major Manufacturer like Dell or HP don't have half the stuff standard that the Mac does. If you add components that the Mac has then it adds up to more. Most don't do that. They see 3.6GHz and our 2.7 while The G5 would most probably wipe the floor against a Celeron. The Average user doesn't care. It's 3.6GHz and it's cheap that's why they buy it.[/quote

They will buy that Celeron because it's 500 bucks and comes with a flat panel screen and a year of AOL, not because it has a faster processor. Most people that buy Celerons don't even know what a megahertz is.

Originally Posted by typoon

I bought a Mac not because it was cheaper than a PC but mostly because of the Mac OS and because overall they imo are better. I grew up with an Apple IIE and have been with Apple til now. I used a Mac even though it was more expensive because of the GUI and because back then Macs in many cases were faster than a PC. If MS had something similar to system 7 back in the early days I'd probably be using a PC right now instead of a Mac.

Conversely, I bought an iBook because it was cheaper than what the competition had to offer at the time, and it came with USB and a network adapter built right in. When I got the computer, I didn't like OSX, not even a little bit. I thought it was a mistake and a worthless venture. When Puma came out, I finally had a reason to uninstall OS 9. I got to 10.1.3, removed Classic, and never looked back. (If I would've looked back, I would've seen the stupid Florida power spike that fried that poor iBook, I bet. )

Originally Posted by typoon

I get where you are coming from. I'm just saying that people are complaining that the Mac is more expensive than their "home built" PC when Apple isn't aiming for that Market. They are aiming for those who want the total experience without the hassle as well as those who don't know anything about PC's except for Dell, HP and Sony.

I also get where I'm coming from. All I'm saying is that Apple can aim their marketing gun wherever they want, the fact remains that Apple is competing with every other means of acquiring a computer, just as Dell and Sony and whatever other zillion PC manufacturers out there are. If marketing actually were a gun, it would be a double-barrelled 12-gauge filled with pepper shot fired by a blind man trying to hit a thimble from a thousand yards.

[iNub]

Originally Posted by TheMosco

The mac will still have one disadvantage, and thats the lack of Intel's compiler. GCC is nice in the free sense, but Intel's compiler produces much better binaries for windows and linux.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Intel's compiler compile executables for the instruction set, not the operating system? The EXE filename extension (which is not unique to Windows) is just an interface for the user, the computer just sees a set of instructions at this address. That doesn't even seem worthy of being called a "port". More like "reconfiguration". The applications being compiled cause the most headaches, in my very limited experience.

And GCC is a very good compiler, if you're writing cross-platform code. Free is just a nice bonus.

And you even said, it compiles for Linux. How hard could it be to change the compiler to support a BSD environment? I bet it'd even take less time than it took GCC to get Altivec support.

[iNub]

Originally Posted by khufuu

At this point, Apple is still a h/w company and, assuming that they still want to make superior hardware, they may be able to enforce their OS to only run on their boxes.

Am I alone in hoping that Apple becomes a software and gadget company, and is still able to survive? That would be freakin' awesome.

[osxisfun]

Very little osbourne effect:

Apple will have all of its machines switched by the end of 2006 i am guessing:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars

look at the grid at the bottom.

thoughts on super fast switchovers?

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by iNub

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Intel's compiler compile executables for the instruction set, not the operating system? The EXE filename extension (which is not unique to Windows) is just an interface for the user, the computer just sees a set of instructions at this address. That doesn't even seem worthy of being called a "port". More like "reconfiguration". The applications being compiled cause the most headaches, in my very limited experience.

And GCC is a very good compiler, if you're writing cross-platform code. Free is just a nice bonus.

And you even said, it compiles for Linux. How hard could it be to change the compiler to support a BSD environment? I bet it'd even take less time than it took GCC to get Altivec support.

I was actually wrong:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...ntel/index.php

The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members at Apple’s Developer Connection website. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.

I just wonder how this will benefit universal binaries if at all.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by iNub

Yes. Annoyed with the people who can't understand that who Apple intends to compete with and who they actually compete with are two entirely separate groups. In my experience, this is a form of groupthink unique to Apple fans. They believe their commodity computer made of mass-produced commodity parts is somehow set apart from the other commodity computers made of mass-produced commodity parts, just because the parts have a different logo. Endianness and instruction sets aside (both of which are largely irrelevant to anybody that doesn't maintain a gigantic code base of ISA-dependent software), the fact remains that a processor is a processor is a processor. You buy a computer based on whether or not you like what it has to offer. It's a tool, not a philosophy. Brand loyalty is a dumbass idea fostered by dumbasses so they can feel proud of their dumbass purchases, even if they made the wrong choice..

I totally agree with you that a processor is a processor is a processor. Like I've said in just about all my posts about this I don't care if it's using Jimbob's processor as long as it still runs OS X and is still as friendly as it has always been. Meaning when I plug something in it'll basically just work.

I partly agree with you to about about brand loyalty. People stick with a brand mostly because they think it's better than the rest or because someone who has had good experiences keeps using what they are comfortable using. most people find change hard to handle. I think that is part of this Intel switch. Much like the change from OS 9-OS X.

I don't think brand loyalty is a "dumbass idea fostered by dumbasses so they can feel proud of their dumbass purchases, even if they made the wrong choice." People stick with a brand for different reasons. Like why some people are loyal to Pepsi and some are Loyal to Coke.

I agree with you that you buy a computer for what it has to offer and that it's a tool. That is why I find it baffling why people are so upset about this switch by Apple to Intel. It's still going to be a Mac just with a different processor. I doubt that Apple will do anything too drastic to change the overall "Macintosh experience."

[xi_hyperon]

Originally Posted by iNub

Brand loyalty is a dumbass idea fostered by dumbasses so they can feel proud of their dumbass purchases, even if they made the wrong choice.

No.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by iNub

Am I alone in hoping that Apple becomes a software and gadget company, and is still able to survive? That would be freakin' awesome.

Yes, you are alone.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Interesting point. I used a pirated copy of Quark and Photoshop... and now I own... perhaps that will happen in the PC world. I DO think if people had a "taste" of OS X, they would come back for more.

I think apple will be able to make all the updates annoying enough to keep most people running on Apple's hardware. While a hacker might not mind spending 4-5 hours figuring out how to combat the new .1 upgrade that apple just released... I just want to hit a button and forget about it.

Exactly. Some will want to do it and I think it will help expand the user base which would be a good thing for Apple. They'll continue to sell their computers and at the same time, many people will want to try it out, so those who are willing to put in the time will add to Apple's marketshare. It won't be a huge loss to Apple as it will probably only be those willing to put the time into it, so the average person won't do it, but I hope it would help with their marketshare.

[Cadaver]

While I'm sticking with Apple for now, I can "jump ship" at any time by swiveling my chair 90° and using the Athlon 3200+ box to my right.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by iNub

Am I alone in hoping that Apple becomes a software and gadget company, and is still able to survive? That would be freakin' awesome.

Yes, you are totally alone. That would suck so bad.

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, alone, alone, alone. A "software and gadget" company?

[Randman]

Originally Posted by iNub

I am alone in hoping that Apple becomes a software and gadget company and is still able to survive. That would be freakin' impossible.

FIxed™

[stevesnj]

In a sense all the software and gadgets are the innovation of Apple. The iPod, Newton, GUI (Xerox), iMovie...etc. They are the start of all the gadget and software...others simply copy and sell Apple's innovative ideas in theor knockoff form.

[osxisfun]

Luxology LLC announced Friday that modo, its subdivision surface and polygonal 3D modeling software, is compatible with the Intel-based Macs that Apple will produce in the coming year.

“We had a programmer working on this immediately following Apple’s announcement and within 20 minutes modo was not only compiled as a universal binary but actually running on the Intel-based Macs,” said Luxology president Brad Peebler in a statement.

well luxology aint jumping ship/....

[doctre]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

...I'm proud of the fact that we are purists and like the real Mac platform - chip AND operating system - and haven't jumped on the Intel wagon.

Actually, you should've used a different term when you used "purists" and "real Mac". You said Mac, not PowerMac so the true "purists" in this case are the people running the real m68k Macs.

On a more serious note, I'm glad that you are proud of your decision, however, I (like many others here) feel that you are jumping the gun as there are no real details on what will happen with the hardware. If your argument is strictly based on "theres an Intel inside that Mac and I hate it" then there is no more I can say to you to convince you to "give it a try" and there is nothing that you can say to me to convince me that this is a bad move on Apple's part. Personally, I'm stoked about getting a faster Powerbook in the coming months that'll run the heck out of Final Cut Studio.

[theolein]

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20050606.shtml

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20050610.shtml

[cdetdi]

Alright,

First of all, I'm a lurker, not a poster, so don't take my insanely-low post count as an indication of inexperience.

Now, I find myself agreeing a whole lot with Millenium. Mac hardware being priced at a premium was easier to stomach when PCs and Macs were on different hardware, different processors, that weren't compatible. Now, if I am looking at an expensive Mac that doesn't have the features of its PC counterparts (features in laptops are lagging considerably: no "xbrite" or HD screeens, no built in Flash readers, not necessary items, but things that make a daily computer experience much easier) but that is essentially a PC, I can't convince myself that the Mac is worth the sacrifice of money and features for OSX. Plus, if OSX is nately x86, I don't like the fact that I won't be able to run it on the other beige boxes in my house. In my mind, if you are going to make my current, 3-thousand dollar hardware completly obsolete, at least give me the option of using other hardware that I already have. I take offense to the idea that my investment isnt' going to be supported as the MAJORITY platform in a year and my only option is to invest another large sum for a new product.

I don't believe that companies will make fat binaries that are backward compatible with PPC. Everything Steve showed us and talked about was how PPC stuff will work on intel, but what about the millions of mac users that don't have the P4 "Power"mac? What happens to them when Intel takes over?

I'm not a stickler against Intel, I like AMD better, but, it really isn't an issue that will influence my decision on this. On the other hand, lately Apple has acted, in what I feel as being, very anti-competitive and very rough on their consumers. I really feel like I am being juiced for money in every aspect of computing. OSX was free of this, not anymore. I understand every company is out to get your money, clearly, but some companies truely work for it. I'm starting to feel that Apple is being deceptive to earn money.

So, right now, my conclusion takes me back to Windows and Linux. Great. No, not great. The fact remains that being productive on a daily basis, using simple applications (Address Book, iCal, iSync) just isn't possible in the Windows world. Nothing is as integrated, except for integration with Outlook, no explanation needed. Even Dashboard, which I thought was gimmicky, has become very integrated into getting daily taks accomplished as efficiently as possible. I love OSX, period.

I just wish I could have a choice! Whoever mentioned that they wanted Apple to go to being mainly a software company, I'm with them. Apple can still make the iPod and our favorite Mac accessories (Airport Express, etc.) but just let OSX run on everything. I'll buy 5 copies at 130 a piece in an instant for my Wintel boxes. And, considering how cheap software is to distribute, I'm sure Apple will make enough off me that way. Even if they charged more, say $200 for a non-mac hardware version, I would be all over it. I need choices, though, my powerbook is fantastic, but when I need a tablet, or an ultraportable with long battery life, or an inexpensive upgradable plain old box, Apple doesn't have the answer.

I'm sure my ideal situation isn't feasible, but, why not put it out there: Apple makes stylish, upmarket, powerful computers with OSX and their software packages (iLife, iWork) preinstalled and charges a premium price, but they also offer OSX for non-apple hardware and charge more for it. For an average consumer, they can still buy their mac, but for users like me, I get OSX everywhere I look!

cdetdi

[Randman]

Originally Posted by cdetdi

I just wish I could have a choice!

You do. Buy a Mac with PPC, wait for a Mac with Intel or jump to an inferior platform.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by theolein

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20050606.shtml

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20050610.shtml

yea, he said it.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by theolein

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20050606.shtml

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...20050610.shtml

He said SJ used a quad intel model for the demo, and linked to macslashdot...
Devil's advocate for sure. FUD advocate as well.

[brapper]

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I'm neww here, what's going on???@?@?@?@

[zizban]

I have been thinking about this whole Apple on Intel thing. Here are my thoughts:

I believe the move to Intel chips will mean the end of the Mac OS as a distinctive platform. Let me explain: By moving to Intel, Apple has ensured that all but the most die hard Mac developers will soon stop making Mac applications. Why? This is why:

Apple on Intel means that Windows applications can run via emulation at full native speed. Just look at Linux where Windows apps can be run via VMWare or Wine. What's the incentive to port an app when you can tell the user to run it under these applications? Further, Apple has said, it wont stop people from putting Windows on their Macs, which I think is a mistake. Don't have that specific application? Boot into Windows or run it via emulation. There might be a flurry of initial porting to mac/intel but after a while I think it will peeter out. I might be wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but that is how I see it. Want an example? Look at Linux. A few die hard companies make Linux games, for instance, but very few. That's the future: A widespread OS with no nifty applications.

On top of this is cost. if you are a small developer, can you afford to have a powerpc and intel Mac, and optomize your application for both? or do you not develop for one of the platform? Porting costs money, after all.

Thats my 2 cents.

[theolein]

^ Well, to be honest, I think the news that OSX on Intel has laready been leaked is quite a good thing. It will mean that OSX has better spread than it otherwise would. BUt you have a very good point about FAT binaries and small developers who can't afford large testing setups. I also think that PPC code is going to suffer at some point when Intel Mac become predominant. However, that happend with both previous switches - 68k to ppc and OS9 to OSX- as well, so it will probably not be that bad in reality.

What really blows me over is the idea that this was more a business decision than a technical one. From the NYTimes article (login: macnn, pass:macnn) it appears that IBM wanted bigger Apple investments into PPC development and even Sony tried to convince Apple to use the Cell in its Macs and even offered various Sony technologies in exchange for that. It would have made good sense for Apple to provide some investment in the chip line it was using and it would have provided far less of an uproar as the Intel switch has.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's Xenon processor, which is NOT a Cell CPU, cost Microsoft a load of money to get developed by IBM. And it's normal business practice that you need to invest in your company's products to move them along. Why Apple wasn't prepared to invest in PPC development is a mystery to me. Since this has been going on for quite a while (probably over a year, ever since IBM didn't realise the 3GHZ G5), I think Apple may have made a mistake there. Investing in PPC development would have given Apple even more control over the PPC than it already had, and had Apple started a while ago, the chances that we would have faster G5s by now, and low power and (possibly dual core) fast G4s, would be much higher.

[zizban]

I do agree that Apple could have put more time and money into PPC development. I mean, if MS could do what it did with the Xenon, Apple could have done so with the G5. The move to Intel still stuns me.

[theolein]

What would be incredibly ironic would be if Microsoft were to release Windows for PPC again (like they did with WinNT 4 for a while).

[zizban]

Originally Posted by theolein

What would be incredibly ironic would be if Microsoft were to release Windows for PPC again (like they did with WinNT 4 for a while).

IBM asked them to port it to the POWER chip and even said they would handle support themselves but MS said no. If MS goes through and adds the media center stuff to the new xbox, like they say they will, then they will have to port a good chunk of windows xp to the PPC.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by zizban

If MS goes through and adds the media center stuff to the new xbox, like they say they will, then they will have to port a good chunk of windows xp to the PPC.

Not really. You don't need a whole version of WinXP running just to write a WMP application. Windows Media Player exists for OS X - that didn't require porting WinXP to the PPC.

Besides, PPC != MacOS X.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

Not really. You don't need a whole version of WinXP running just to write a WMP application. Windows Media Player exists for OS X - that didn't require porting WinXP to the PPC.

Besides, PPC != MacOS X.

WMP for OSX is a completely different app than WMP for Windows.

[theolein]

Originally Posted by zizban

IBM asked them to port it to the POWER chip and even said they would handle support themselves but MS said no. If MS goes through and adds the media center stuff to the new xbox, like they say they will, then they will have to port a good chunk of windows xp to the PPC.

I'm pretty sure that the XBox 360 is Microsoft's attempt to take control of the home media center market, and part of the calculations that Microsoft would have done would have been to compete against Apple, but not only. The main thrust of Micorosoft's XBox adventure is against the PS3. I personally think that Microsoft is more capable in the marketing department than Sony is and having a machine that not only does games etc, but also the web, mail, messaging, video and audio is a good way to start. A good part of that also reflects on Apple, as I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who would compare a Mac mini to the new XBox. The Mac mini is a general purpose computer and far more flexible than an XBox, but you can bet that your average home user doesn't care, and doesn't want to be bothered with complex stuff, and that the XBox will be popular in the home.

The reason Microsoft got IBM to make a new chip for them and not Intel is the $100 million dollar question. It might simply be a question of Altivec, or multiple SIMD units being better than anything Intel could produce (SSE3) or it might be a conscious decision to screw Intel over. It might even have been a conscious decision to screw Apple over as a side effect. Microsoft had the money to invest in a completely new PPC chip (which is neither a Cell nor a G5) and might have correctly thought that IBM's eyes would glaze over when shown a fistfull of dollars and prod IBM to begin asking Apple for more cash for PPC development on the G5.

The end effect is that IBM's resources would have been divided between no less than 4 different CPU designs - IBM's Power series for its mainframes, Apple's G5, Microsoft's Xenon and IBM/Sony/Toshiba's Cell. Sony's attempt to get Apple to use the Cell in its products shows that Sony, which competes directly against Apple in multiple markets, is worried about Microsoft's Xenon chip. At least I think so. This is because Windows continues to dominate x86 development, and could end up driving PPC dvelopment as well, since Microsoft would love to cripple the Cell processor's development.

Not only that, but Microsoft now controls both the software on the XBox (only software that Microsoft allows will run on it), and the hardware, something that has traditionally been Apple's game.

So perhaps Apple simply decided that Microsoft was trying to kill Apple through subterfuge, and that reason is one of the most telling for Apple's switch to Intel. If Apple can produce an Intel powered Mac mini which has media apps (check, they're already there), and games (porting the huge amount of PC games will definitely be easier on x86 OSX), Apple could very well get in on the games console market, especially if future Mac minis are cheap.

[Cadaver]

Theolein, you've got some intersting points.

I'm sure IBM thought the Microsoft-Xenon deal was worth more money to them than the Apple-PPC970 deal. And perhaps Intel wanted to stick it back to Microsoft for going with an IBM chip rather than an Intel chip in the XBox360 (unlike the Intel chip in the original XBox).

Bottom line is I think all players invoved are happy. Intel's got a new, high-profile (even if small market) customer in Apple; a crown-jewel if you will. And IBM's got a high-volume/high-dollar client in Microsoft and the new XBox (likely worth more in revenue to them than the Apple business was).

Customers get screwed in the end, of course, but that's nothing new. All these companies are businesses. Their responsibility is to the shareholders. Customers (the little guy) are the last piece of the puzzle; none of these companies are humanitarian organizations.

[Stogieman]

Well since the other thread was closed down, what's the latest word on the leaked x86 OS X. Did anyone get it to work on a PC?

[brapper]

Originally Posted by Stogieman

Well since the other thread was closed down, what's the latest word on the leaked x86 OS X. Did anyone get it to work on a PC?

yeah, i wanna know tooo.

[porieux]

...

[gelbin]

it is ridiculous to jump ship. yes it sucks that apple had to shift, but ibm was garbage. there was no development going on, ibm was worthless for apple, didn't care about apple, and jobs knows whether the development was moving forward, but it clearly was not at the expected pace with the appropriate heat requirements.

[ScottEllsworth]

Jumping ship is moronic at this point, because you have _no_ _facts_.

At this point we have no idea what Apple is going to offer, save what we can guess from Intel's roadmap. Even that is not a perfect crystal ball, since faster PPCs might begat another generation of G5 machines for number crunchers and xserve users. Further, there are variations on the Pentium M with a decent number of 64 bit processors, and there are AMD chips that run the same instruction set with all sorts of crunchy goodness.

Until we see real specs for new machines, jumping ship is just being spiteful. Two years ago, SJ announced 3GHz PPC machines that still have not shown up, and IBM has no particular hope of producing them. Thus, making our plans based on still shaky release dates seems a bit - impulsive.

As far as vendors saying 'just dual boot or use VPC', well, they can try it. Then, those who _do_ value the Mac experience will buy products that work. Products that are pleasing. Products made on and for a Mac.

Scott

[iKenny]

I'm sticking with it. I'm here for OS X anyway – I like the hardware a lot, but seriously, I wouldn't run Apple hardware with Microsoft Windows. It's all about the OS.

[Talleyman]

Man, your knee is jerking. Resigned the day of the announcement. Typical machead behavior. Those more rational are saying..who the hell knows what will happen. Those, pro or con, who are pronouncing the result of the Apple/Intel switch are blowing smoke.

Those who are saying they are switching before they see the result are crazy!

Originally Posted by Millennium

I've already resigned my moderatorship from Developer Center for that reason. I'll stay on for Web Developer -and possibly other platform-agnostic forums, such as Networking- if the staff doesn't object, but otherwise I'll resign those too. You're right; it would be hypocritical to moderate in a forum dedicated to a platform that I cannot in good conscience recommend anymore.

[netzien]

Well i have been using Apple since 1984, i am sick to death of having to buy a complete new suite of apps, every few years. Anyone remember multi-finder, then of course PPC, then OS X. As you might be able to tell this has pissed me off. I took the first 3 times with humor, not this time.

I see this move as good only for the developers, another way to force everyone to spend $2-4K per seat in un-needed software upgrades. I am sick of it. It is really time this industry served the needs of the customer, not the needs of the software publishers, or media giants. The move to Intel does not serve the customer needs.

I am sticking with Apple, who in thier right minds wants to use MS crap. BUT I am not buying any Intel systems. I will stick with the best PPC systems available at the EOL of the PPC, and wait for a few years until they change course again (when the software publishers whine about needing more revenue). My guess is Intel will be out and something else will come in. About then it will be time to upgrade anyway.

I do not believe this is a deathnail for Apple, but it probably is not a move to bring in more Apple platform customers either. All in all i see this move as neutral for the business. It is clearly being driven by sevicing the needs of apple's business relationships, not the needs of its customer base.

Do you all really want to spend thousands of dollars on software you do not really need ?. You might like a faster platform, but 98% of you do not need it, and will end up having to spend big bucks to buy new software that does mostly the same things slower, therefore needs faster hardware to justify it. Remember the real cost of ownership is the software prices, not the box. I have a 1.67 ghz powerbook, the software I run on it, cost far more than the laptop did.

In short Apple can have my business, but not Intel (and never microsoft -- my home is, and always has been, microsoft free ! )

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by netzien

Well i have been using Apple since 1984, i am sick to death of having to buy a complete new suite of apps, every few years. Anyone remember multi-finder, then of course PPC, then OS X. As you might be able to tell this has pissed me off. I took the first 3 times with humor, not this time.

Which OS/Platform doesn't require software upgrades?
1984-2005 = 21 years. Three upgrades in 21 years is not "every few years", more like every decade. But hey, stick with PPC, it''ll be around (brand new even) for at least a couple years, and supported for at least as long again.

[jeff3835]

So after years of Apple white papers, and Photoshop demos showing us that PowerPC is superior, we are now suppose to believe that Intel is better and has Apple's best interest in there game plan?

Everyone knows that Intel and Microsoft have been sleeping together for years, and though they have had some lovers quarrels in the past they have maintained there strong relationship, that is as long as Intel remembers who wears the pants in that relationship.

What's going to happen when Microsoft makes certains 'suggestions' to Intel regarding there involvement with Apple? Do you think that Intel is really going to give a company with only 3% (depending on what you read) market share equal or greater support than Microsoft partners like Dell or HP?

Why did Apple decide to go with Intel and not AMD? Could the MPAA also have been a major influence in Apple's decision to switch to Intel? Steve mentioned on CNBC the other night that Apple's future plans will rely on the Intel processor. By rely, is he referring to the new Pentium with DRM? Are the RIAA and MPAA influencing Steve's decision to switch to Intel because some of Apple's 'future plans' will require DRM, and good relations with these two organizations? See... http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125..._story_related

And, in 2007 after we all have our shiny new MacTel boxes, will Steve announce at that WWDC the next release of the MacOS which will be code named 'Longhorn'?

[osxisfun]

wrong.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by jeff3835

So after years of Apple white papers, and Photoshop demos showing us that PowerPC is superior, we are now suppose to believe that Intel is better and has Apple's best interest in there game plan?

While Jobs has publicly stated that performance issues related to IBM's PowerPC chips were the main motives behind the switch, Big Blue told the Times that pricing was a central issue.

"In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when IBM executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business."

(emphasis mine) IBM gave up and told Apple, "Pay us more, even though we're already two years late on your chips." So invest more R&D money into the PPC chip that is not working as planned, or look for an alternative?

Did you really, truly believe all of Apple's marketing claims on the PPC? I didn't. I just didn't really care. My Apple has always been "fast enough", and think it will be in the future.

[madmanXwater]

I don't understand why so many people are assuming that Apple is going to use cheap or substandard hardware. Apple (and Steve Jobs) prides themselves in pushing the design and performance of computers to the next level and I don't see that changing. The use of the Intel processor is to benefit the Mac experience and Apple won't let it become anything other than the next great Macintosh family. We're not changing to the "Intel Platform" like so many people have misspoken, we're simple changing CPUs and whatever support chips are necessary to make that happen. Don't so blindly tie the name Intel with cheap beige boxes with wires everywhere and IRQ conflicts, that’s just not going to happen from Apple. I'm sure that a few years from now we will all be asking ourselves "what were we so worried about?”

Mike

[DudeMac]

Then it's time to start looking into the direction of the Amiga.

[TheBum]

I'm no fan of the x86 family of processors and have berated them on numerous occasions. However, idealism and realism are two different things. Apple is doing the realistic thing by switching. It's obvious to almost anyone that IBM is not the least bit interested in developing low-power chips and neither IBM nor Freescale can provide processors in the quantities that Apple needs. I also can't deny that Intel seems to have the same sort of bleeding-edge drive that Apple does and I think it will be a healthy marriage.

[brapper]

nice sig..................

[bigpoppa206]

Originally Posted by DudeMac

Then it's time to start looking into the direction of the Amiga.

True and THEY are moving to the PPC chip!

[Ω]

Originally Posted by brapper

nice sig..................

Tooki!! Tooki!! Tooki??

[brapper]

for real for real!!!