[nycdunz]

I just bought a powermac dual 2.7ghz... and I am sad to read that the switch to intel is confirmed... what i'm afraid of is will our computers be useless once intel macs start appearing? such as programs wont work anymore for us? I cant believe this horrible move. Damn IBM! arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... i just spent over 3k on this G5, now i will have to spend another just so I can use those new programs. This is the most upsetting news I've came across in awhile...

[osxisfun]

your machine will be fine for at least 5 years IMO.

[westrock]

There has been no conformation that Intel Pentiums or any other x86 platform will be used. Intel makes a ton of different chips. They may simply be able to offer a price point, consistancy that Apple is looking for. Intel may have offered to Apple to make up for the growing competition from AMD in the PC market Knowing that Apple likes to do things their way, it would secure Intel in the Mac market and not have to worry about competition.

I seriosuly doubt that Apple would ditch the PPC market, since they have been trying very hard for the last several years to push it. Maybe Intel can get Apple into the 3ghz area while still having a feature full processor and low heat (anything low heat from Intel would be a miracle though )

But I understand, I was thinking about getting a Power Mac beginning of next year, but now I may have to wait to see what happens.

[wtmcgee]

Yes, you will have to throw it away monday at 10:01am PST.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by wtmcgee

Yes, you will have to throw it away monday at 10:01am PST.

I agree. If you don't have the heart to do it just send it to me. I will be more than happy to "dispose" of it for you

[Todd Madson]

No, Send it to me, I'm sure I can think of something to do with it.

[adios]

Interesting article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,212...tw=wn_tophead_1

According to them, Apple's got access to technology called QuickTransit that will allow seamless emulation with minimal loss of performance as developers transition their apps over to the Intel chips. They're speculating that the move is intended to take advantage of Intel's on-chip DRM functionality to cozy up to Hollywood.

[Eug Wanker]

I'll give you $5 bux for it.

[gururafiki]

I'll give you $6!

[axlepin]

no offense, but why are you getting your panties in a wad?

Your current rig isn't just going to flop over and die on Monday afternoon...it'll keep on working until it blows up or you sell it.

Breathe...breathe.

How long were you planning on keeping your current machine, anyway? By 2007, many improvements will be made and odds are you'll be champing at the bit to invest another $3K in the latest smokin' computer. By then, you'll have invested a few hundred bucks in software upgrades.

We don't yet know what this new chip or chips will be. Some sources say the transition will be painless for user and developer alike.

I'd encourage caution in favor of having fits or delusions of marching on cupertino with pitchforks demanding satisfaction..things work, things will continue to work.

breathe..breathe..

and if in the morning, you still want to unload that G5 because some day it will be worthless, I'm interested in it, too!

axle

[eddiecatflap]

i was going to upgrade in early next year , thing is , what to ?

after all these years of putting down intel , on all the messageboards i posted at , i now have the shocking realisation that apple are actually going to go intel

i'm shocked and angry

if this really is true , i'm going windows , screw apple

[nJm]

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I have always liked using macs because of Mac OS and the nicely designed hardware. Whether it has a 680x0 family CPU, 601 PPC, G3, G4 or G5 it has always been a mac in functionality. As long as my next mac is powerful enough for my needs and runs Mac OS then I'll be happy. If Macs are powered by x86 CPUs I'm sure Apple will find a way to prevent OS X being used on non-Apple hardware.

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

i was going to upgrade in early next year , thing is , what to ?

after all these years of putting down intel , on all the messageboards i posted at , i now have the shocking realisation that apple are actually going to go intel

i'm shocked and angry

if this really is true , i'm going windows , screw apple

That's a little rash isn't it? Sure, the switch to Intel does sound drastic and I've already aired my views on developer reactions. But (and here's my u-turn for anyone that wants to rub it in my face later ) if Intel can provide faster (and I do mean 'faster' not just 'more Mhz') then we'll be better off.

I just really don't want that bloody Intel Inside jingle on the ads.

[eddiecatflap]

ok , i over reacted , but i'm really REALLY shocked

who ain't ?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by :XI:

That's a little rash isn't it? Sure, the switch to Intel does sound drastic and I've already aired my views on developer reactions. But (and here's my u-turn for anyone that wants to rub it in my face later ) if Intel can provide faster (and I do mean 'faster' not just 'more Mhz') then we'll be better off.

I just really don't want that bloody Intel Inside jingle on the ads.

If the cost attendant to a marginal increase in speed is significant, which we all know it will be, our platform will definitely not be better off. Ditching the PPC is a very drastic move, and unless Transitive is all it's cracked up to be Apple will have killed the Mac.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by adios

Interesting article from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,212...tw=wn_tophead_1

According to them, Apple's got access to technology called QuickTransit that will allow seamless emulation with minimal loss of performance as developers transition their apps over to the Intel chips. They're speculating that the move is intended to take advantage of Intel's on-chip DRM functionality to cozy up to Hollywood.

Hola adios the link doesn´t work here, anyway, QuickTransit is real, SGI (Silicon Graphics) uses it to run IRIX software in their new, cough, intel powered Prism workstation, coincidence huh?

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If the cost attendant to a marginal increase in speed is significant, which we all know it will be, our platform will definitely not be better off. Ditching the PPC is a very drastic move, and unless Transitive is all it's cracked up to be Apple will have killed the Mac.

That's what I was thinking at first. "Apple are going to kill the Mac!" and "It's bone-headed! They'll piss off the developers again!!" But now, I'm not so sure. Aside from pissing off the developers again...

Motorola didn't seem to care about Apple as a customer. They went to IBM.
IBM made all these promises to Apple, then got in on the PS3, Xbox 360 & Nintendo Revolution and suddenly, Apple become this tiny company ordering a small amount of CPUs and they end up as more of an annoyance than good business. Now IBM don't seem to care about Apple.

Q. Who is a big company and cares about CPUs?

A. Intel.

Q. Who puts a lot of money into R&D because CPUs (and not systems) are it's core business?

A. Intel.

Q. Who is going to supply Apple with CPUs in the Future?

A. Intel. (Unless this is all just a wild rumour that went out of control )

And another thing, for us end users, the processor switch will be far less of a big deal than the switch from OS9 to OSX. Aside from updating your apps again. But you probably need to do that anyway, I know I do.

I just thought! With x86 in Macs we might even see XSI for OSX!

[Todd Madson]

I also believe this was a move to allow Jobs to placate Hollywood that the hardware based
DRM will allow an "iFlicks Movie Store" would have enough security so that copies of the
all-time enduring classic (hah), "Dude, Where's My Car" wouldn't be freely spewed all over
the internet. I still question the idea of a movie iPod since watching movies on my computer
or a small iPod-like screen pales compared to a real home theater experience. Best guess?

Jobs wants a store that would allow people to burn DVDs on their systems but only their
systems and only once and wants to insure that Hollywood knows that Johnny Jones and his
G5 system isn't going to be a mass duplicator of copyrighted material to all of his buddies.
This way you have a DVD you can watch in your home theater OR stream it to your home
theater from your computer.

Thinking about it a bit more, the old Macs (the current ones we have now) won't be able to
partake in such a movie store which is my guess for the change - the machines we have now
would be too easily be able to make copies of things, at least in Hollywood's eyes. The last
thing Hollywood wants is someone to be able to get a digital copy of one of their films and
be able to burn it for yourself and all of your friends.

Sucks that the megacorporations are essentially dictating what Apple (and Intel and Microsoft)
says and does if you follow some of the DRM in the Pentium D stories on slashdot.org at the
moment.

My guess is: if you want an untainted computing experience get a new machine now. I'm a bit
torn: if I get a current machine it will allow me to do everything that I do now, but since we're
netflix subscribers here, who cares about an "iFlix" store? The "get it on demand" aspect is
nice but not at the expense of big brother making sure I don't do something they don't like.
How far does it extend anyway?

[Agent69]

I don't think DRM has much to do with it at all. If Apple desired this feature, they could have built it into Apple motherboards.

[Maflynn]

I'm pi$$ed,
I spent a boat load of money for my G5 and as new software is transitioned over to the new platform, my machine will not run it. I expected a longer life then 2 years.

I could have spent less money on a peecee gotten more software for less money. While I don't take this personally, as its only business, I still don't like my investment's life span being shortened. I realize it will still run existing apps fine, but I bought high end not run existing apps fine, but new unreleased ones too, i.e., buying for the future.

Yeah Peecee's have spyware and the ilk but still life would have been better money wise.

G5 was supposed to be the future but in the end I got burned.

[powertrippin]

It'll run stuff. What part don't you understand? OSX has been running on BOTH platforms for 5 years. This doesn't mean it WONT run on G5s in 5 years you freakin retards.

[BZ]

Can't say I am too happy, but I am sure my brand new G5 will be humming along in 4 years when I am ready to replace it.

BZ

[ashtoash]

Why won't you be happy? Your machine will be up-to-date and supported by all applications for the next 5 years. by then it's time for a enw computer.

[TheTraveller]

Aiii yai yai, calm down everyone. Did people who bought 680x0 get burned before PPC came out? I seem to recall they were well supported for at least several years.

[alex627]

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

i was going to upgrade in early next year , thing is , what to ?

after all these years of putting down intel , on all the messageboards i posted at , i now have the shocking realisation that apple are actually going to go intel

i'm shocked and angry

if this really is true , i'm going windows , screw apple

You have only yourself to blame for misplacing your hatred of WinTel on Intel. It is not Intel's fault that Microsoft dominates and represses the computer world. Microsoft is where you should focus your hatred. So by going to Windows you would confirm that you are a complete idiot.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by alex627

You have only yourself to blame for misplacing your hatred of WinTel on Intel. It is not Intel's fault that Microsoft dominates and represses the computer world. Microsoft is where you should focus your hatred. So by going to Windows you would confirm that you are a complete idiot.

Except He's not the only one. For years we continued to hear of the superiority PPC, be it a G3/G4/G5. Intel along with M$ was lambasted and a lot of arrogant apple users looked down on intel. I've been a user of both for years. While I have a PC for work, I've been a apple user since the SE days.

While it is is similar to the 680x0 - powerpc days, its a little different too. More and more companies are less likely to port applications. Look at adobe, they've slowly dropped support of Macs over the years. How interested will they be to rework photoshop to run on a new platform. In a ideal world it would only take a recompile but we typically don't live in an ideal world.

as for me, I am upset, the G5 was supposed to be the future yet my investment went down the hopper. I know, that whole 5 year window jazz.

To be honest, I'll be seriously considering jumping ship and going to windows when the time comes to upgrade. If I need to transition over to a new platform, one that runs OSX or one the runs windows, I'll have to see which platform is the most cost effective.

Mike

[Stupendous]

Originally Posted by nycdunz

I just bought a powermac dual 2.7ghz... i'm afraid of is will our computers be useless once intel macs start appearing?

I think all powerpc based macs are obsolete as of today!

Its a sad day for mac users

[axlepin]

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

i'm shocked and angry

if this really is true , i'm going windows , screw apple

Dude..you have GOT to be kidding with that! Here's what you are saying:

1. you've hated Intel for years (for some reason)
2. you've loved Mac OS for same reasons we all do. also love mac gear.
3. bcs Apple goes with an Intel Chip, you're saying screw apple, and switching to windows?

And this gets you precisely what? Further from wintel, or smack in the center of a swirling feces storm?

I'm sure Steve Jobs will be crying his eyes out to lose you, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do!



axle

[mishakim]

for some perspective on new software supporting old (PPC) hardware, look at NeXT: long after NeXTStep/OpenStep was ported to x86 and NeXT quit making hardware, software was released in fat or quad binaries that could run on original NeXT or new PC hardware, as well as on HP and Sun NeXT Systems (I never saw one of those, don't really know what they were exactly). OpenStep still ran on old NeXT hardware right up until Rhapsody.

basically, any developer using XCode will check a box to support PPC and a box to support x86 (did Steve actually say x86, or just "Intel"?), and new software will run on any PPC machine that can still run whatever minimum version of OS X the s/w requires. The events that will lead to new software not running on PPC will be: a future version of OS X dropping PPC support and new technology being introduced and only found on Intel-based systems, PLUS the software actually requiring one of those things. Except for the most advanced software, that won't happen for a very long time.

[t500]

I'm very happy that Apple understands the need to push ahead. IBM's G5 was suppose to be at 3ghz in the first year, and were still waiting. Sorry IBM. After all Apple hardware is switched over to Intel developer's will slowly loose sight of the G series processors. Apple has a good size install base of G4 and G'5, so it will take a little while, and they are still selling them.

The question is what will Apple manage the hardware and still build machine? Will they be just an OS company. Microsoft's biggest flaws is it has to support everyone's hardware. I hope Apple keeps the OS, and doesn't license it out.

This may hurt Apples interm sales. Who will by a G4 or 5 within the next year when they know a change is coming.. Will Intel adapt thier chip to handle RISC instructions?

[eddiecatflap]

oh god

[sheer]

I must admit my preference in an *86 world would be AMD. They just seem to be doing everything right in terms of the transistion to 64bit and dual-cores.

However, Intel does have a number of things going for it which AMD doesn't.
- Deep deep pockets
- Fabs able to supply sufficient quantity of chips
- The best mobile chips (and chipsets for wireless) on the market right now
- Intel inside branding which is well respected by business

As a future move I see it as very positive for the Mac community and a shot across the bows to Dell and m$. It's win win (no pun intended) as long as it's done right, and who else has the experience of such a transition as Apple? Plus we have further PPC updates to come.

It's still Mac, just not PPC, and quite frankly if IBM and Moto between them can't come up with the goods Apple have made the correct decision. Just remember Intel are commited to this now, and they have deep deep pockets.

[jasong]

I'm posting this from my PC, my freakin' PPC based Mac stopped working at 1:07 pm. WTF???!!!????

[Maflynn]

Some different food for thought. While Apple had to weigh the pros and cons pretty heavily here's some of the issues I see facing apple.

Small market share. While the market share which was eroding for many years seemed to bounce back to a degree but its still small. While Steve played up the ease of porting applications, how many companies will want to support two sets of applications running on the same platform. While mathmetica can get the version up and running in a little while - do they want to, i.e., just because they can does not mean they will.

Current sales. Your starting to see a number of threads about not buying a G5 or returning their current machine. Like it or not the G5 (and G4) is a lame duck processor. Who will want to invest in it when they know full well that a whole new platform will be around the corner.

Price. We've always seemed to pay a premium for Macs for a variety of reasons. I think it will be harder to justify that premium now that they are on the intel platform.

How will Apple prevent their software from running on non-apple hardware. If they didn't (couldn't?) stop pear-pc how much more difficult will it be now that the hardware will be the same.

I was pissed when the bomb was dropped but now as I had time to think about it my investment - the G5 should be ok for some time but I stand by my words in a prior post. Now that the platform is the same I'll have to consider which machine gives me the best return on my investment. I use the machine for work not for play and it seems difficult to pay more $$$ for an intel box even if it has the nice apple logo on it,

Peace
Mike

[kilmanjaro]

To those that are complaining about the switch: At the current rate at which AMD/Intel are producing faster chips (especially AMD) it wouldn't be long (and it may have already occured) before x86 processors overtake the G5's "speed advantage". IBM has been very stagnant over the last year or two and the speeds just aren't getting much faster (but definately hotter). Apple has obviously worked and worked on the situation as much as possible, but can you really expect them to just sit around and wait. Having to run a scaled down version of your 2 year old processor in your highest end laptop is EMBARRASSING! Apple has obviously gotten fed up and is moving on, and I praise them for it. Apple seems to have the tools and experience after the last change-over to be able to impliment these changes smoothly and without alienating those that already have PPC systems.

I can understand some of the apprehention regarding the change, but the PPC has been grinding to a halt recently. Not more than a month ago people were complaining about the lack of decent speed updates after waiting almost a year for the PM lineup update. Now some of these same people are complaining that Apple is actually listening and trying to do something about it.

As a side note: I'm thinking this could actually lower prices of macs by $50-100 per unit simply because of economies of scale. While IBM produces probably 200,000 G5 units/year, Intel probably makes 200 million.

[axlepin]

anyone here notice that all during the last several years of apple this and G5 that..OS X what-will-happens, that m$ seems to be getting sort of smelly? I believe there's even a sort of mouldy skin about them.

they've ticked off a LOT of users, and now, superior alternatives have been sprouting like toad stools.

I doubt that Intel iron will make people demand $200 Macs, and as things are, Macs aren't that much more expensive than real PCs are, if at all. The PCs which are cheap are just that: CHEAP!

Do people demand that Boxx PCs be sold at lower prices bcs they use Intel?

You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. Attracting the $200 PC crowd isn't going to do Apple much good, I'd say, and they're better off without those folks.

$200 PCs don't pay for R&D, and THAT is partly what makes Macs so great..they aren't lying around getting a mouldy crust on them, they keep getting better, and that takes bucks.

axle

[Busemann]

As soon as the Intel macs arrive, all PPC machines will burst into flames. You have been warned.

[dru]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

your machine will be fine for at least 5 years IMO.

Will it? Will Apple still release QuickTime updates in 5 yrs that run on PPCs? Will you still be able to surf the internet with FireFox or another browser in 5 yrs? Will you get new OS releases on PPC in 5 yrs? Security updates? You might find yourself very isolated in 5 yrs. At least online. Will your iTunes songs still work? Will you still be able to shop the on-line store? Can you use your new video camera, still camera, install a DVD-HD drive in your PPC?

The world's different now than when Macs had a long term life span 10 years ago.

I won't get a first generation MacPC. I don't expect anyway unless life is SO difficult on my current Mac that I have to abandon Mac OS X or move to the new MacPCs to connect with the world.

This transition's going to PISS a *LOT* of loyalists off.

It fundamentally comes down to Apple's need for portable computer processors. While a very capable chip and no where the loser position Motorola put Apple in, IBM can't deliver the 970 in a portable form on any time table that meets Apple's needs. They can't wait anymore so they're jumping ship. It's a DAMN SHAME.

I hope that Apple has a fallback position because Intel has had problems in the past too. They need to continue building for other architectures or at least keep an AMD build going just in case so they aren't caught in a squeeze.

This is a precarious move, fraught with danger and no one has moved to Intel and survived and thrived.

I'm *VERY* unhappy this move was forced. I think Steve is doing this now because the Company has another revenue channel and now is better than later. It also has to do with being dicked by Motorola so much in the mid and late-90's. PowerPC was supposed to be a 2nd wide market standard chip but as a niche player the economies of scale aren't there thus IBM's engineering fforts are weaker than they might be. POWER itself will survive both via the Cell and use in IBM's own Workstation/Supercomputer products. Apple would be foolish to stop doing PPC builds even into 2007 just as they were intelligent enough to continue to maintain Intel builds "just in case".

They MIGHT know what they're doing and probably no one else could pull this off. I'm not happy but that doesn't mean I don't understand the business/market realities demanding the shift.

[t500]

Some good points, but I would not call the G4 and G5 a lame duck... The lame ducks are the Centreno and whatever AMD is calling thier budget chip.

I love my Apples and I'm not afraid to say it!!!

Celeron, not Centreno ( I know its a wireless chipset)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Small market share. While the market share which was eroding for many years seemed to bounce back to a degree but its still small. While Steve played up the ease of porting applications, how many companies will want to support two sets of applications running on the same platform.

Um, why would that make a difference?

While mathmetica can get the version up and running in a little while - do they want to, i.e., just because they can does not mean they will.

It's not an issue of whether or not they can or will. They already did.

Current sales. Your starting to see a number of threads about not buying a G5 or returning their current machine. Like it or not the G5 (and G4) is a lame duck processor. Who will want to invest in it when they know full well that a whole new platform will be around the corner.

That would have been the case no matter what the next-gen mac had in it. Had Steve announced the G6 processor or 3 GHz G5s the same thing would still be happening.

Price. We've always seemed to pay a premium for Macs for a variety of reasons. I think it will be harder to justify that premium now that they are on the intel platform.

Why? The cost of the processors will go down which means the cost of the hardware in general will go down (maybe only slightly). But even if it didn't you're paying for the user experience, and that's not going to change.

How will Apple prevent their software from running on non-apple hardware. If they didn't (couldn't?) stop pear-pc how much more difficult will it be now that the hardware will be the same.

The same way they do now... There's more that distinguishes mac hardware from PC hardware than just the processor.

[Ruahrc]

Those are good points Maflynn. I agree with them as well. Despite their best efforts to ensure that their new OS X runs only on Apple hardware. having OS X run on the same hardware as Windows is undoubtedly going to make it easier for people to get OS X to run on their run-of-the-mill machine.

Also the fact that OS X will essentially be running emulated on an x86 machine (?) is probably not the best way to get max performance out of it? I guess 10.5 (or 10.6) will need to be completely re-written native on x86's. Of course then that screws all PPC users. I guess that they will need to come up with some form of Classic again.

Ruahrc

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Ruahrc

Those are good points Maflynn. I agree with them as well. Despite their best efforts to ensure that their new OS X runs only on Apple hardware. having OS X run on the same hardware as Windows is undoubtedly going to make it easier for people to get OS X to run on their run-of-the-mill machine.

Also the fact that OS X will essentially be running emulated on an x86 machine (?) is probably not the best way to get max performance out of it? I guess 10.5 (or 10.6) will need to be completely re-written native on x86's. Of course then that screws all PPC users. I guess that they will need to come up with some form of Classic again.

Ruahrc

It will not be running in emulation. Steve quite plainly stated that OS X is and has always been a full cross-platform OS. It does and will run natively on x86.

[dru]

Originally Posted by kilmanjaro

To those that are complaining about the switch: At the current rate at which AMD/Intel are producing faster chips (especially AMD) it wouldn't be long (and it may have already occured) before x86 processors overtake the G5's "speed advantage". IBM has been very stagnant over the last year or two and the speeds just aren't getting much faster (but definately hotter).

This is not TECHNICALLY true. IBM have parts that are far faster performers than current G5's but they just don't fit into Apple's pricing needs. The Power4 that the G5 derives from, for example, is dual core but there's no way that's ever going to work in a Mac laptop and in this marketplace laptops are H-O-T sellers. It just isn't compatible with Apple's requirements. Apple's lucky in this regard and I commend Steve and his troops for keeping their options open.

So it isn't a problem of the PowerPC architecture or IBM not being able to 'keep up' in terms of speed as much as Apple's needs for LOWER POWER solutions simply not being met. This is ironic considering PowerPC was started out specifically to be lower power than Intel. It's very disappointing IBM hasn't been able to rise to the engineering challenge in this case.

Let's not all go get pissed at IBM for dropping the ball. The G5 is a very solid chip. They're not as bad as those twits at Motorola during the 90's. We're not BEHIND. We aren't at 3 GHz but even unkind benchmarks like AnandTech's show we're doing comparable well and the G5's quality. Those same benchmarks show how desperately Mac OS X needs to improve thread handling.

Besides, Apple might find itself coming back to IBM / POWER / PowerPC someday.

[axlepin]

Originally Posted by dru

This transition's going to PISS a *LOT* of loyalists off.

uh-huh...loyalists to what, exactly? chip loyalty?
Loyalty to Apple is based on 2 primary factors: the OS user experience and the quality of the hardware.

Sounds like what a lot of people are saying but not voicing is that Apple is committing some kind of techno-adultery by using another chip and that's just plain silly.

If that's your trip, you better make darn shure that every component inside your Mac is Mac and Mac-only, and of course it won't be because Apple doesn't own every tech factory on earth.

This is not what to get upset about. What WOULD be to get upset about is if apple continued to make PPC-based Macs, but ship them with Windows installed on them.

Get it?

a

[kilmanjaro]

Originally Posted by dru

This is not TECHNICALLY true. IBM have parts that are far faster performers than current G5's but they just don't fit into Apple's pricing needs. The Power4 that the G5 derives from, for example, is dual core but there's no way that's ever going to work in a Mac laptop and in this marketplace laptops are H-O-T sellers. It just isn't compatible with Apple's requirements. Apple's lucky in this regard and I commend Steve and his troops for keeping their options open.

So it isn't a problem of the PowerPC architecture or IBM not being able to 'keep up' in terms of speed as much as Apple's needs for LOWER POWER solutions simply not being met. This is ironic considering PowerPC was started out specifically to be lower power than Intel. It's very disappointing IBM hasn't been able to rise to the engineering challenge in this case.

Let's not all go get pissed at IBM for dropping the ball. The G5 is a very solid chip. They're not as bad as those twits at Motorola during the 90's. We're not BEHIND. We aren't at 3 GHz but even unkind benchmarks like AnandTech's show we're doing comparable well and the G5's quality. Those same benchmarks show how desperately Mac OS X needs to improve thread handling.

Besides, Apple might find itself coming back to IBM / POWER / PowerPC someday.

But IBM *did* drop the ball. It's as if they just forgot that their G5 was going to eventually have to go into a laptop. I'm not saying they don't have other chips that would work, but Apple's intentions have been clear and I'm sure Apple has worked with them. The intended roadmap was detailed to them I'm sure, they just haven't been able to get them the cpu they needed.

In regards to the speed debate - it's exactly that...a debate. I don't consider a PM G5 to be considerably faster (or slower) than a comperable PC. Most benchies I've seen don't show a considerable difference either way. One test leans towards mac, and another towards PC.

[rhombus]

Jobs says that Intels's roadmap is better than IBMs. Fair enough, but where is Apple's roadmap for future product releases. This secrecy crap is getting old. If they want people to stay on the platform during this transition, then why don't they say when the first Intel PowerMac will be available, if they will be anymore PPC PowerMacs, etc.

The condescension Apple have for their customers at the moment now is unbelievable. The PowerMac page still says: "The PowerPC G5 out-shoots the Pentium 4 in a battery of tests. But it’s in the rough-and-tumble of real-world performance that the G5 really shines — shredding the PC’s reputation in the process." Is this page going to stay the same until 2007?

[holsteinson]

It was the only move available for Apple or die!

PPC chips do not have IBM full R&D for the last 2 years since they sold most of their shares in it, specially with NO PB chips available for the next release of PB's hardware

Hopefully Apple will also work with AMD so they arent stuck in a couple of years with Intel

I wrote about it 1 month ago here Now who is the troll?

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Um, why would that make a difference?



It's not an issue of whether or not they can or will. They already did.



That would have been the case no matter what the next-gen mac had in it. Had Steve announced the G6 processor or 3 GHz G5s the same thing would still be happening.



Why? The cost of the processors will go down which means the cost of the hardware in general will go down (maybe only slightly). But even if it didn't you're paying for the user experience, and that's not going to change.



The same way they do now... There's more that distinguishes mac hardware from PC hardware than just the processor.

1. Small markey share means that companies that support windows and macs are less likely to incur an added expense when the applicaiton is already available for the PC.

2. Mathametica did recompile, but recompile and undergoing the cost of releasing if for the general population. I used them as an example, there are plenty of other software companies that may use this as an excuse not to support macs anymore. For instance Adobe has continue to seem resistant to supporting the mac perhaps they will use this as an execuse to drop them out right. How about MS office how willing will microsoft be to release office on for the mac now that its on the intel platform?

3. while your right, I think the the verocity and volume is due to such a huge change

4. Price Apple's small profit margin and small market share means the price is likely to remain close to what it is. Apple invests heavily in R&D and that costs money.

5. PearPC runs OSX how much easier will it be on the intel CPU

Mike

[anamexis]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

2. Mathametica did recompile, but recompile and undergoing the cost of releasing if for the general population. I used them as an example, there are plenty of other software companies that may use this as an excuse not to support macs anymore. For instance Adobe has continue to seem resistant to supporting the mac perhaps they will use this as an execuse to drop them out right. How about MS office how willing will microsoft be to release office on for the mac now that its on the intel platform?

If you had watched the keynote, you would know that the director of the Microsoft Mac development department there, as well as a lead developer from Adobe, both fully supporting the switch and saying they would maintain universal binaries for at least 5 years. The adobe rep said something along the lines of, "it's about time."

Edit: From the MacWorld article: Microsoft's Roz Ho and Adobe's Bruce Chizen both took the stage to reaffirm their commitment to the Macintosh platform. Ho said that Microsoft has been "working with Apple for some time" to create future versions of Office using Apple's Xcode tools, and will create universal binaries accordingly." Chizen called Apple's decision to move to Intel "great," and gently chided Steve Jobs: "What took you so long?"

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

1. Small markey share means that companies that support windows and macs are less likely to incur an added expense when the applicaiton is already available for the PC.

How is that any different from the current situation? Companies port their aps to OS X now, and they will continue to do so after the switch. If anything, switching to x86 will make it easier and more cost-effective for them to do so, so there is no reason that this will hurt Apple.

2. Mathametica did recompile, but recompile and undergoing the cost of releasing if for the general population. I used them as an example, there are plenty of other software companies that may use this as an excuse not to support macs anymore. For instance Adobe has continue to seem resistant to supporting the mac perhaps they will use this as an execuse to drop them out right. How about MS office how willing will microsoft be to release office on for the mac now that its on the intel platform?

Both Adobe and Microsoft have already stated that they approve of and support this move.

4. Price Apple's small profit margin and small market share means the price is likely to remain close to what it is. Apple invests heavily in R&D and that costs money.

Yes, and because of that the experience of using a Mac will remain vastly superior to the experience of using a Linux or Windows machine. That's currently the only thing keeping me from dumping Apple in favor of Linux, and switching Apple to x86 isn't going to change that in the least.

5. PearPC runs OSX how much easier will it be on the intel CPU

If PearPC already does it, then what's the issue? Do you really think that Apple hasn't already thought about this issue and that they'd go ahead and do it if there was a serious risk of people running pirated OS X on any old x86 box? Apple aren't stupid. They know what the advantages and disadvantages of this move are, and they're aware of the implications of the Mac OS running on non-Apple hardware (remember the clones?). I assure you that this won't be a problem.