Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

angelmb · Jun 6, 2005, 03:45 PM

I guess is time to read this book and meet the new friend :-/

Don Pickett · Jun 6, 2005, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Fozz_uk

Great, so in 2 years Apple's tiny user base will be split in half. How many developers will be willing to wheel out two versions of an app for a couple of % of marketshare?

MS and Adobe both publicly committed to at least two years of multi-binary apps, so it may not be an issue. I also think that Jobs is looking very long-term. IBM isn't going to deliver the chips, so what choice do they have?

Millennium · Jun 6, 2005, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

I fully expect rash, dramatic comments about this from the forums here. But you, on the day the story breaks, before we even know the details? I'm a bit disappointed, Millennium.

I think I'll give it awhile before deciding to change platforms, thank you.

Go ahead, if that's what you want to do. But I know too much about the Intel architecture to be able to wait. I know the load of steaming crap that Apple is getting itself into. Do you really think I would lightly abandon the platform I grew up with?

version · Jun 6, 2005, 03:47 PM

It's the transition that gets me. Only now has Apple really gotten OS X on its feet, making inroads into new areas, beginning to settle down and ease-off on things. But now this? We're looking at 2007 before things settle down, at a bare minimum, but in that we have to deal with an OS X that is, once again, becoming schizophrenic. It just leaves me thinking OS X is just going to exist as a mish-mash of things.

Ugh.

On the other hand, if IBM left them with no choice, then I guess it's got to be this way. But whatever it is, it's not good, IMO.

smacintush · Jun 6, 2005, 03:47 PM

Were all missing the most important aspect of this:

Dvorak…was…right

ugh.

NYCFarmboy · 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Krypton

Indeed.

Well no new Mac for me then

(for a year)

likewise. I don't see why they announced this without product to ship... yes I know software has to be developed etc, but this is going to really hurt their market share in the meantime.... we basically have a year or two to purchased "Last Year's Model" from Apple.

ugh.

I agree with the switch though, IBM has just totally dropped the ball on the Power PC.. after Steve Jobs promised a 3 gig dual G5, I had decided to wait until that is available... so I waited and waited. Now I will wait on the IntelMac™

My G4 dual 1.42 will handle everything until then...quite nicely.

MacManMikeOSX · Jun 6, 2005, 03:48 PM

Hoya chara, I was gana replace my Cube finally screw that, Macs have lost their apeal to me. I stuck with them for so long even without the Hebrew and Arabic support, Linux here I come.

Goldfinger · Jun 6, 2005, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Because the low end isn't going to care about photoshop, Quark and After effects running slower in emulation perhaps?

Remember when Steve and the Adobe prez talked about Carbon and how photoshop was recompiled by ONE guy in 20 minutes to make it run natively in osx? Then it was something like 3 years before Photoshop was native? And remember Quark?

No way in hell well any of those pro apps be ready in a year.

Yeah I remember all that. But what if they are ready on time ? I really want to get this over as fast as possible. 2 years is dangerously long.

As for the 64bit thing, ajprice, aren't the 90nm Xeon's 64bit already ? But I bet these cost an arm and a leg.

In theory this transition is a really good thing. We can only hope.

PacHead · Jun 6, 2005, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

To me It doesn't really matter what's under the hood as long as it still runs OS X. It'll be interesting. Now we don't have to hear "Macs are slower... blah blah blah." I'm frankly tired of explaining it to people.

Exactly ! Windows is a miserable piece of crap, so the main argument people had on the PC side was speed/cost. Now that that argument is out of the way, the only thing left is the OS, and there's no doubt about that Mac OS is superior than the crap called Windows.

I de hope though that the intel chip is proprietary to Apple, so not every PC knucklehead in the world will be able to install OSX on their crappy machines. That would be bad.

Big Mac · 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

So you'll make things harder on yourself by switching to linux? What do you think a move like this will do to the world of consumer linux users? This could very well destroy any chance of linux as a consumer Windows alternative.

What hardware advantages? The only things remotely unique about the hardware are the mobo, proc and industrial design. Apple hasn't had an advantage in mobo/proc for years and industrial design is a platform independent concept.

And what extra cost? You presume to know what the costs in the future are going to be? If Apple is to increase market share they HAVE to make Macs cheaper period. Not CHEAP, but fully in line with the PC world.

Your reaction seems pretty knee-jerk to me.

I'm following Millennium out the door. Linux won't be affected in the least by Apple's betrayal. The PowerPC was a fundamental part of the Mac's uniqueness. Jobs has crashed the ship; there's little reason to stay aboard Titanic. Apple is now quite officially beleaguered once again. Investors, get ready to short AAPL. We'll be looking at sub-teen levels in no time. Apple's sales will go through the floor - the average Mac buyer is not uninformed. The dark years of '95-'97 will pale in comparison, and this time Jobs' showmanship will not rescue the company. Oh, and these "Macs" will not be commodity priced, either. Linux is now the only sensible route. The Mac is truly dead.

PacHead · Jun 6, 2005, 03:50 PM

DP....must be many peeps here now......damn is it slow.....

DeeKat · Jun 6, 2005, 03:50 PM

So does this mean that that future Intel-based Mac platform will be much more vulnerable to viruses and spyware? If it's easy to recompile the apps i'll bet it's easy to recompile the viruses?

mitchell_pgh · Jun 6, 2005, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by bit.shiftr

About a month ago I purchased a PowerMac duel 2.7 At the moment I'm not too pleased about this! Perhaps after a few days I'll feel different. I agree that it's going to make it hard to continue marketing the powerpc machines...I wouldn't have make the purchase of the PowerMac if I knew then what I know now.

Oh well, in three to four years I'll be wanting a new machine anyway! ~sigh~

You said it... in 4 years, you will want a new system. By that time, the x86 systems will be in full swing (who wants a 1st gen x86 Mac box?) Also, it's not like ANYONE would dare make x86 ONLY applications for OS X anytime over the next 5 years unless it's an ultra cutting edge application (which wouldn't work on an older PPC system regardless)

Like steve said, this isn't like the jump from OS 9 to OS X.

I'm guessing by next year at this time, most of the comon developers will be 100% on board with x86 OS X.

Dalhectar · Jun 6, 2005, 03:51 PM

I don't think of the PowerPC being that much more effecient than a Centrino processor. As Intel produces Centrino like processors for the desktop (which they will in 06) and abandon the P4 core, there should be considerable gains in performance. Add that to Intel's big memory bandwidth, it'll be awesome for Apple laptops to step aboard and still good for desktops.

One big issue I see in Intel's pipeline is lack of a 64-bit compatible mobile chip. None of Intel's upcoming mobile chips support 64-bit, while desktop chip 64-bit support should be mainstream in '06. it would make it easier for developers to just have all Intel based macs run 64-bit, vs forcing developers to code for both 64-bit and 32-bit systems.

It'll be interesting to see how the upcoming "premium" Dell lineup in '06 compared to Intel based Macs.

Millennium · Jun 6, 2005, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

So you'll make things harder on yourself by switching to linux?

Not that much harder. I've actually been following Linux development for a while, and you might be surprised what they've come up with. True, they haven't yet figured out that the menubar belongs at the top of the screen, but they're not that far off.

What do you think a move like this will do to the world of consumer linux users? This could very well destroy any chance of linux as a consumer Windows alternative.

Actually, I think it's the Mac that will be destroyed in this. Windows has made enough usability gains in the past few years that the Apple premium isn't worth it on the basis of usability alone. As long as they had a superior hardware architecture it could cover the difference, but that is gone now.

What hardware advantages? The only things remotely unique about the hardware are the mobo, proc and industrial design. Apple hasn't had an advantage in mobo/proc for years and industrial design is a platform independent concept.

Since the introduction of the PowerPC chip, the only time Apple hasn't had the advantage is during the late G4 era, when the raw clockrate of Intel finally caught up in raw speed, and even then the PowerPC architecture was still better by leaps and bounds in every other aspect.

And what extra cost? You presume to know what the costs in the future are going to be? If Apple is to increase market share they HAVE to make Macs cheaper period.

And they won't do that. This is Apple we're talking about. The price points on their "pro" machines haven't changed in ten years. Their whole business model is based around it.

Your reaction seems pretty knee-jerk to me.

I have had a long time to consider what I would do if Apple did this. It is not a decision I am making lightly.

milhous · Jun 6, 2005, 03:53 PM

here's the link to the keynote but it's not active yet:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide...events/wwdc05/

COMPUTER HISTORY IN THE MAKING!

xi_hyperon · Jun 6, 2005, 03:54 PM

dp.

RonnieoftheRose · Jun 6, 2005, 03:54 PM

Apple will surely have to do two things.

1. New machines on a more regular basis than they do now.
2. More configuration options for buyers. Choose between processor models and speeds, a larger choice of graphic cards, larger choice of HDD, etc.

If they don't do those things at prices comparable to other Intel box companies they will get very hurt no matter how good OS X is.

xi_hyperon · Jun 6, 2005, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Go ahead, if that's what you want to do. But I know too much about the Intel architecture to be able to wait. I know the load of steaming crap that Apple is getting itself into. Do you really think I would lightly abandon the platform I grew up with?

Maybe I'm missing something then. What if the developers play along and we end up with a fairly transparent transition? How is your user-experience affected then? Or is it the hardware, not the OS and its advantages over others, that keeps you using Macs?

I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to understand, because I don't.

My guess is that Apple didn't lightly abandon the PowerPC platform either, and perhaps did so because they saw no future in it, especially for portables.

BoomStick · Jun 6, 2005, 03:56 PM

As usual Apples will be over $2000 and the Dell will be $299.

Who do you think the business market will go with?

Educational institutions bid out computers and guess who wil lose completely here now?

The ONLY way I get macs in the system here is they are a vendor specific item.

No longer.

smacintush · Jun 6, 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Mac is truly dead.

and there it is…Apple is dead yet again…

They could lose 100% of the Mac faithful and come out way ahead.

The entire rest of the computing world is there to be taken and many many of them are weary of or bored with Windows.

tooki · Jun 6, 2005, 03:58 PM

What worries me is the fact that the Mac's primary speed problems are software-related, caused by the many layers of the OS. Switching CPUs won't change that.

Now the PC crowd will be able to compare CPUs 1:1, and declare "see? Mac OS is slower" and have it be entirely legitimate.

tooki

trancepriest · Jun 6, 2005, 04:00 PM

If you die hard Mac fans truly believe that Apple won't license out Mac OS X to every damn Plastic Caked on box... boy ya'll are dead wrong. This is a move for market share. And I'm not switching to Linux or SGI boxes because we're with Intel now. I'm switching because apples entire philosophy has changed now and this will affect us in slow software development cycles.

Spliff · Jun 6, 2005, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by tooki

What worries me is the fact that the Mac's primary speed problems are software-related, caused by the many layers of the OS. Switching CPUs won't change that.

Now the PC crowd will be able to compare CPUs 1:1, and declare "see? Mac OS is slower" and have it be entirely legitimate.

tooki

Tooki, you nailed it. All those benchmarking fanatics will have a field day if Mac Intel machines are slower than a PC Intel machine with the same processor.

ryaxnb · Jun 6, 2005, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Well, that settles it. I'm moving to Linux.

No, I mean it. The root of just about every advantage the Mac had lay in the superior hardware architecture, and the most important aspect of this was in the clean, efficient PowerPC processor. Everything else -such as the software/hardware integration- came forth from it. With Apple settling for what is cheap over what is good, this no longer applies, and the remaining Mac advantages are not enough to justify the extra cost. My next machine will be a homebuilt PC, probably running Ubuntu.

So long, Apple. It's been a good 21 years. But my platform is truly dead.

What a sad view. Personally I think Apple has changed before (apple II>Mac 68k>Mac PPC and Nubus architecture>PCI>NewWorld PCI) and they can change again. I think that once apps come out (and I'm pretty sure they will,) this will be like the switch to PCI - not a big deal to most people. True, it will probably be an unsteady first 2 years or so, but after April-October 2008 it just won't be a big deal.

You'll all see.

xi_hyperon · Jun 6, 2005, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

And they won't do that. This is Apple we're talking about. The price points on their "pro" machines haven't changed in ten years. Their whole business model is based around it.

Read about the Mac mini lately? I don't think one can say with a straight face that Apple isn't interested in breaking into new price categories now. This is an example of why your assumptions seem to be a bit on the rash side today.

Millennium · Jun 6, 2005, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

Maybe I'm missing something then. What if the developers play along and we end up with a fairly transparent transition? How is your user-experience affected then? Or is it the hardware, not the OS and its advantages over others, that keeps you using Macs?

It's mostly the hardware. OSX is very good, but not good enough to justify the premium by itself.

My guess is that Apple didn't lightly abandon the PowerPC platform either, and perhaps did so because they saw no future in it, especially for portables.

Then they are fools. But then, Jobs has always been a fool. A damned lucky fool -his ideas have saved the company once or twice in the past- but we forget all too easily that he's torpedoed the company before as well. Now he is doing it again.

version · Jun 6, 2005, 04:04 PM

I'l bet my shoes that Apple won't be in the hardware business in 5 years.

Randman · Jun 6, 2005, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I'm also a bit disappointed that IBM didn't manage to offer something competitive – which I can't understand, really.

Sony and M$ are going to scoop up the PPC chips for gaming boxes.

abo · Jun 6, 2005, 04:06 PM

I'm been using Apple since 1980. I have five machines in the house. I have never thought of switching.

But I don't know if my next machine will be an Apple. I was planning to get a new Powerbook next year; I don't think so now.

It's sad.

Maybe this is a Coca-Cola classic moment?

Athens · Jun 6, 2005, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by sideus

I'll buy an iMac G5 and it will be the last Mac I'll purchase. Started using Macs in 1992.

I feel like I'm going to puke.

Its a f***ing CPU, who the hell cares, that is NOT what makes a Mac a Mac. Why didnt you puke when they switched from 68k RISC cpu's to IBM the ARCH ENEMY and Motorolas PPC cpu?

turtle777 · Jun 6, 2005, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Krypton

The most bizarre thing: no announcement on Apple's main page - are they just not going to draw attention to "the roadmap"?

And what the hell are they going to sell for the next year?!

Not a lot, and Apple stock is gonna dwindle until the Intel-based hardware is available.

-t

bit.shiftr · Jun 6, 2005, 04:08 PM

I'm a little surprised by how quickly some are willing to abandon the ship here. I just switch to Mac last year and I just spent some big bucks on a new PowerMac dual 2.7. So do I feel like I've been double-kicked in the gut...YES!

But, I'm willing to see this out and I feel that Apple will specify a hardware design that will compliment their OS. I like having the PowerPC Processor...but it's the OS that keeps me here.

Don Pickett · Jun 6, 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'm following Millennium out the door. Linux won't be affected in the least by Apple's betrayal. The PowerPC was a fundamental part of the Mac's uniqueness. Jobs has crashed the ship; there's little reason to stay aboard Titanic. Apple is now quite officially beleaguered once again. Investors, get ready to short AAPL. We'll be looking at sub-teen levels in no time. Apple's sales will go through the floor - the average Mac buyer is not uninformed. The dark years of '95-'97 will pale in comparison, and this time Jobs' showmanship will not rescue the company. Oh, and these "Macs" will not be commodity priced, either. Linux is now the only sensible route. The Mac is truly dead.

I will bet you Apple's stock goes up on this. Why? Because companies run on profit, not idealism. As wonderful as the PPC platform might have been, if IBM and Moto won't make the chips for it, there will be no computers. The corporate and financial worlds will love this decision, because it means no more constricted supply lines, no more tricks to distract from slower processors and the resources of the biggest chipmaker in the world behind Apple.

Your comment about abandoning OS X makes no sense. The OS will not disappear. The people making the OS will not disappear. OS X will not become a Windows clone. If you truly love OS X, there won't be much change. If your real desire is to be "different" then your love isn't of Apple, but of some idea of what that word means to you.

MacManMikeOSX · Jun 6, 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by version

I'l bet my shoes that Apple won't be in the hardware business in 5 years.

Yeah when I heard I said "They're gana take on Microsoft aren't they?" I think they might use their hardware as an entrance and slowley shift from a hardware to OS company, but slowly so that they can make the bottom line.

Krypton · Jun 6, 2005, 04:10 PM

Jobs let slip on CNBC that there will be new PowerPC products during the transition period. You will likely still see new G5s by the end of this year etc.

brapper · Jun 6, 2005, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'm following Millennium out the door. Linux won't be affected in the least by Apple's betrayal. The PowerPC was a fundamental part of the Mac's uniqueness. Jobs has crashed the ship; there's little reason to stay aboard Titanic. Apple is now quite officially beleaguered once again. Investors, get ready to short AAPL. We'll be looking at sub-teen levels in no time. Apple's sales will go through the floor - the average Mac buyer is not uninformed. The dark years of '95-'97 will pale in comparison, and this time Jobs' showmanship will not rescue the company. Oh, and these "Macs" will not be commodity priced, either. Linux is now the only sensible route. The Mac is truly dead.

That's so dramatic I wonder whether you're kidding...I hope yes.

Millennium · Jun 6, 2005, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

Its a f***ing CPU, who the hell cares, that is NOT what makes a Mac a Mac. Why didnt you puke when they switched from 68k RISC cpu's to IBM the ARCH ENEMY and Motorolas PPC cpu?

Because the PowerPC was a better chip and a better architecture than the 680x0. This is not true of x86.

Spliff · Jun 6, 2005, 04:12 PM

How will this affect audio engineering? I thought that the PowerPC was much better for audio work (lower latency, etc).

wdlove · Jun 6, 2005, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by version

I'l bet my shoes that Apple won't be in the hardware business in 5 years.

Anything is possible, but it would certainly be a surprise.

Don Pickett · Jun 6, 2005, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Because the PowerPC was a better chip and a better architecture than the 680x0. This is not true of x86.

The draw here is OS X, not the CPU.

BasketofPuppies · Jun 6, 2005, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Go ahead, if that's what you want to do. But I know too much about the Intel architecture to be able to wait. I know the load of steaming crap that Apple is getting itself into. Do you really think I would lightly abandon the platform I grew up with?

The processor that runs the platform you grew up with has been stagnant since 1999.

You can scream about the PowerPC's superior architecture until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains Intel and AMD have been able to adapt their ancient processor architectures to meet current needs whereas IBM and Motorola/Freescale have not.

turtle777 · Jun 6, 2005, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by version

I'l bet my shoes that Apple won't be in the hardware business in 5 years.

You might be right. Probably only with iPod and consumer related gadgets...
What a sad ending, well, maybe not ending, but sequel...

-t

driven · Jun 6, 2005, 04:17 PM

I guess my only concern is this:

The G5 is 64 bit. The P4 is 32 bit. Are we going backwards? Or is this intended for the Itanium? I'd rather they went with AMD and the Athlon64.

Oh well .... so long as my PowerMac and my PowerBook stay current with software for the next 3 years or so I'll be a happy man.

xi_hyperon · Jun 6, 2005, 04:20 PM

Oh, **** on a stick. Sometimes I just don't get you guys. What Athens said - it's a processor. I have yet to see anyone explain how, if the user experience is not changed, they are affected by a change in processors. The only answer so far is that x86 suxors!!!!1111111 Don't mean to be rude, but it's true. Look at the responses here.

Sometimes I think I'm a bit quick on the stick, but I actually feel pretty level-headed at the moment.

version · Jun 6, 2005, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by MacManMikeOSX

Yeah when I heard I said "They're gana take on Microsoft aren't they?" I think they might use their hardware as an entrance and slowley shift from a hardware to OS company, but slowly so that they can make the bottom line.

Yup, do this carefully and slowly. The need to be the actual manufacturer of hardware will diminish within 5 years. Look at Apple's software range, it's amazing, it's diverse, and they need to get it onto more people's desks.

I think they are aiming high now, and perhaps not tomorrow, but in a few years, only software will be there thing.

Millennium · Jun 6, 2005, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

The processor that runs the platform you grew up with has been stagnant since 1999.

Since 1999? Surely you jest. There was a dark time in the G4 era, and another now, but these are hardly insurmountable. IBM itself has committed to this meaningless but magical 3.0GHz number much sooner than Apple's planned switch.

You can scream about the PowerPC's superior architecture until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains Intel and AMD have been able to adapt their ancient processor architectures to meet current needs whereas IBM and Motorola/Freescale have not.

What need has IBM not met?

Judge_Fire · Jun 6, 2005, 04:28 PM

Virtual PC on x86 should be fun.

MS surely would love to sell more copies of Windows to Mac users, now that it (in theory) runs much better.

J

dpfenninger · 04:37 PM

Well, here are the two main things that concern ME with this move to Intel...

a) Hopefully Apple will design the Pentium version of OS X to only run on Apple hardware (through some sort of hardware check). Otherwise, what would prevent a consumer from buying a cheapy Dell box and then installing OS X on that? Afterall, Apple is still a HARDWARE company first and foremost...as such, they would lose major revenue, and they're not going to be dethroning MS anytime soon by focusing solely on software and licensing the OS to be used on any Pentium-based box. That, I think, would be a death wish.

b) Conversely, Windows XP (via a new Virtual PC 8.0?) could theoretically run at native speed now on a Pentium Apple box. What's to prevent developers from saying "why should I develop an OS X version of my app [especially game developers] when the Pentium Apple box can run the Windows version just fine?"

Lots and LOTS of question marks about this all right now. I really hope Apple didn't just lay the biggest turd in tech history by making this move.

Discuss...

Athens · Jun 6, 2005, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Because the PowerPC was a better chip and a better architecture than the 680x0. This is not true of x86.

And what if OS X runs a bit better at 3.6Ghz on a Intel CPU then it did on a G5 at 2.7, will you eat your words or continue to argue the bad architecture line even after it runs faster? Come on ppl get real! Its like dumping Pepsi because they change there can color from Blue to Green yet the product stays the same.