[zerostar]

Originally Posted by shmerek

I think the switch is also about DRM and all that crap. Locking your box down so that apple can deliver online movies and **** like that and apple couldn't do that on the PPC. Intel is all over that ****

Yeah I don't think the DRM has been explored too much here, but online HD movies in H.624 and 5.1 that transfers to an Apple set top box (with a bonus H.264 HD-DVD player built in) is a REALITY with solid DRM. I am thinking High-speed wifi streaming H.264 video to a set top box to watch on your HD-TV with optical digital audio support.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by zerostar

Good points, Who knows the reasoning, but Intel may have been a forced move, the G5 with IBM may have been a last ditch effort to NOT go x86?

Too bad IBM didn't have better progress or a good chip for the Powerbooks, I am sure no one wanted to fail, thats just they way it goes.

Hopefully if Apple is moving to 'plan B' with the Intel switch, they are lining up AMD for the new 'Plan B' any maybe one day Motorola or IBM will be back in the picture with suture chips somehow?

I can see Apple perhaps sticking with G5 XServes?

[PacHead]

This is what SJ said in the keynote:

1 watt on PowerPC = performance rating of 15
1 watt on Intel = performance rating of 70

Apple will still release new G5 upgrades, but they're obviously planning for the future, and the powerpc chip is going to reach it's limits, so time to change to something better, as IBM are doing a bad job with their current chips.

If Intel can make a faster and better chip than IBM, then go for it ! Faster macs for mac users will only benefit mac users ! Who gives a crap about which company made the chip. May the best chipmaker get the job.

I bet some of the same naysayers and hysterical people who are making all sorts of dumb predictions will be wetting their pants when the first ricidulously powerful powerbooks begin to arrive next year.

It will still be awhile (quite awhile actually) before any Pro Mac uses the intel chip, so hopefully all of these ridiculous, drama queens will be dumping their old macs. Perhaps it is a good time for me to pick up that dual G5 I wanted. It will suit me fine for a few years, until I can purchase some crazy fast, dual xeon ProMac or something like that.

[pliny]

Originally Posted by PacHead

This is what SJ said in the keynote:

1 watt on PowerPC = performance rating of 15
1 watt on Intel = performance rating of 70

Apple will still release new G5 upgrades, but they're obviously planning for the future, and the powerpc chip is going to reach it's limits, so time to change to something better, as IBM are doing a bad job with their current chips.

If Intel can make a faster and better chip than IBM, then go for it ! Faster macs for mac users will only benefit mac users ! Who gives a crap about which company made the chip. May the best chipmaker get the job.

I bet some of the same naysayers and hysterical people who are making all sorts of dumb predictions will be wetting their pants when the first ricidulously powerful powerbooks begin to arrive next year.

It will still be awhile (quite awhile actually) before any Pro Mac uses the intel chip, so hopefully all of these ridiculous, drama queens will be dumping their old macs. Perhaps it is a good time for me to pick up that dual G5 I wanted. It will suit me fine for a few years, until I can purchase some crazy fast, dual xeon ProMac or something like that.

I Second this post esp the part about powerful laptop queens.

[zerostar]

Lets see my last mac was a Dual 500 G4, this new one is a Dual 2.5 G5 I should be good for 3 years, or time for all this to sort out anyway.

If I had my G4 today, I would get a Dual 2.7 G5 NOW and not worry about 3 years from now when I will want to buy a new machine anyway.

[TailsToo]

What will be trouble for Apple will be the pricing... An Intel-based Mac vs an Intel based PC must be close in price or customers will pass on Apple. They can no longer expect to get the premium that they are today for their machines.

[Spliffdaddy]

None of the stuff that makes a Mac desireable will change. Windows is Windows - regardless of the hardware it runs on. Apple is Apple - in spite of the hardware it runs on.

If it's the 'Intel' nomenclature that disturbs you - rest easy knowing that ANY x86 processor is capable of running the Mac OS. I don't see any reason there can't be a AMD 64bit processor in Apple's future. Or, God forbid, a Cyrix (aka, VIA)....they have those really cool religious names for their CPUs, ya know

[MallyMal]

Here's my take. I'm have both platforms but I prefer Mac because of OS X. I do not care if Apple runs on a Intel or IBM chips as long as said chips are fast and keeps getting faster at a quick rate. I don't have any loyalty to any brand I simply like what works best for me.

That said, IBM seems to have allowed the G5 to stagnate and I'm not just talking about not hitting 3GHz. I'm talking about not being able to release mobile and dual core versions of the G5. Not being able to add more cache to the chips in 2 years. Sure, maybe the G5 has a better architecture than the P4. But architecture doesn't matter if I can't get the chip. At least Intel has mobile chips, dual core chips, and have added more cache to their chips to boost performance. If IBM was going to hurt Apple why the hell won't Apple switch?

I find it funny that a lot of people in these various threads hate Intel. I find it even more funny that a lot only hate Intel because Apple told them to. Basically they fell for Apple's marketing and now feel betrayed because Apple reversed their position. Shouldn't they be angry with themselves for blindly believing the marketing? This is also why I said many times that Steve Jobs should not publicly bash the competition. It is unprofessional and you never know when your "enemy" will be become your ally. Simply put, this sh!t is business and none of the folks on this board should be taking it personally.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally Posted by MallyMal

I find it funny that a lot of people in these various threads hate Intel. I find it even more funny that a lot only hate Intel because Apple told them to. Basically they fell for Apple's marketing and now feel betrayed because Apple reversed their position. Shouldn't they be angry with themselves for blindly believing the marketing?

yeah, i agree.

intel has produced 3ghz chips. they have done a hell of a lot more than either motorola or ibm. so why are we hatin' for?

all these years we've done our best to tell ourselves the PPC is good enough when we knew we wanted something better! so shut up now and let's rock and roll. i'll still be using apple in 2010 and I will agree with Steve that either Intel or AMD are both better than IBM or Motorola.

[Spliff]

OS X on Intel vs PPC (Xbench scores)

Some of you might be interested in these preliminary benchmark results.

[demograph68]

Good post MallyMal. That's my position as well.

[EvilKell]

This is extremely interesting to me. I'm the co-founder of intelforums.net, which was nuked by a hacker not too long ago. At this time, we haven't elected to re-start the forums, just as a little background.

I don't know too much about PPC architecture, but what I do know is there is a lot of mis-information on here about the Intel architecture or doomsayers regarding the future of Mac performance.

I sat through the entire WWDC 2005 video on the Apple website. Perhaps those of you who didn't or those of you who didn't care to listen would benefit from some of the information I'm writing.

Intel's Pentium 4 offerings have been 64 bit capable since the intial release of the socket 478 Prescott series Pentium 4 processors. The technology is built into the chips, and anybody that spent much time examining the actual architecture would be able to spot the fact that the chips had way too many transistors that were unaccounted for. The current LGA 775 socket processors have 64bit capability turned on for commercial users aimed at server usage. Intel has not released a 64bit mainstream chip in part because there is almost no use for one currently.

For those of you talking about Itanium... do you know how huge a flop Itanium has been? Itanium has no 32bit compatability, and it never will without a complete redesign. Think nVidia Ti 4600 when DX9 came out. The 64bit only limitation has chased huge groups of potential users away. Itanium is a server processor only, and I can't imagine at thousands of dollars each that they will ever find their way into PCs, even with a redesign.

Pentium 4 is currently looking to be a dead technology. Netburst architecture has failed Intel. Though Intel still has too much money invested to abandon it completely (read why Apple has not completely abandoned PPC) it became clear as day with the killing of the Tejas codenamed processors that Netburst could not be significantly pushed forward due to rapidly increasing heat. The heatsinks on Intel's Pentium 4 processors are huge. The all copper Zalman 8000 series Al/Cu heatsink weighs over 800g. The current 3.6GHz Pentium 4 LGA775 processor has a maximum heat dissipation rate of over 150watts. The reason Netburst has been unsuccessful is power loss. As the layering became thinner, down from .13 micron in the old Pentium 4 Northwood to .09 micron in the Prescott, and .06 micron in the expected Tejas processor line, there was power leakage. They could not effectively seal the processor layers, and power loss resulted. This power loss created a need to increase core voltage, which in turned raised temperatures greatly. The only option for the Tejas line would have been radical new cooling, and it was too expensive or unrealistic to expect in the PC environment.

Also, Intel's dual core technology has not shown any advantages worth noting considering the price discrepancy.

Now, what is good about Intel's designs then? Hehe. Pentium III. To be more specific, a very much revised Pentium III known as Pentium M. Yes, that's where Pentium M comes from. The Pentium M processor line is ridiculously powerful, especially considering the heat dissipation rates. It's why Pentium M powered laptops own everything else. The Pentium M processor is faster than Pentium 4 clock per clock, 1.5-2.0x faster. It's about clock cycle efficiency. With the long pipelines necessary to obtain extreme high clock speeds afforded by Netburst technology, huge caches are needed to feed the processor in order to maintain a filled buffer. Cache creates heat, and it's very expensive. Pentium M has a short pipeline compared to Pentium 4, and it's an extemely efficient design. Couple the extreme efficiency per clock cycle of the Pentium M processor with a large, albeit very slow, cache, and the performance cannot be denied. The best part about Pentium M is that it's designed to be a mobile processor. High latency cache reduces efficiency to save power. The speedstep technology that controls core voltage on the fly reduces efficiency. There are a host of features in Pentium M that slow it down... and it's still 1.5-2.0x faster than Pentium 4 per clock. That means a desktop version of Pentium M, not designed specifically to give you 6hrs of battery life on a laptop will be much faster yet. It's what Intel enthusiasts have been waiting for. The lack of 64bit processing doesn't bother me at all right now. Maybe in the future, but then again, Intel had 64bit capability setup on their Pentium 4 processors 2 years ago, they just didn't have it switched on. Intel is horribly notorious for being a steel trap when it comes to development. Pentium M is obviously what Jobs was talking about in his presentation of processing power vs power consumption. It's unknown how well Intel's dual core mobile chips will perform given their desktop chips' poor showing.

So why not AMD? AMD has production problems up the yin-yang. Ask any AMD Fanboi that waited months to get their hands on an AMD A64 processor they wanted. AMD's A64 processors beat Pentium 4 hands down in gaming, and in applications designed specifically to showcase architecture used by AMD. Intel's hyperthreading technology is a mega asset when running multiple applications at the same time, and in a lot of cases, that's more than enough to close the gap in real world performance, provided you're not a gamer. So why go with a possible performance advantage by choosing AMD... only to face the prospect of running into the same situation you're in now. Production issues that won't go away? Besides, Pentium M owns Athlon 64 in performance as well, it's not just giving a royal beat down to Pentium 4, folks.

Onto the comments about viruses. You're still running OSX, not Windows. The Windows operating system is a complex interface designed primarily with educated users in mind. In order to make it user friendly, Microsoft turns everything on. With approximately 90% of the overall PC marketshare, x86 based chipsets have almost all the viruses designed to attack x86. Windows XP is very stable, and quite safe... but only if you're an expert and you know how to set it up. Internet Explorer is about 75% of the problem anyway. It's a virus collecting machine.

Onto Linux. Have you ever used Linux? Didn't think so. If you think XP is a pain to work with, you're in for the horror of your life trying to run on Linux. Linux is not for the faint of heart or those who wish to simply plug 'n play. It's a much more complex operating system that demands you actually understand what is going on, and in some cases, demands you actually write drivers by hand. That depends of course which version of Linux you're using, and what hardware you're connecting. To be honest, it's a computer nerd/techie OS. Designed to thwart the evil giant corporations with it's trendy and difficult interface. It may be growing in marketshare, but it's by no means a mainstream OS.

Anyway, my feelings boil down to this:

1) Intel's x86 performance has been significantly better than PPC overall for quite some time.
2) PPC is at a dead end, and Apple is trying to get whatever they can back out of their investment.
3) Delaying the roll out would hurt developer interest in creating universal binaries.
4) Immediate roll out would lead to disaster because developers would not be ready.
5) Intel offers the absolute best, by FAR, in performance vs heat with Pentium M.
6) Intel has the production capacity to keep the Macintosh on the shelf and ready to sell with the latest technology and performance.
7) OSX was originally built to run on x86 processors, and is fully compatable with Intel's processors right now.
8) Apple has been pushing developer code that would be very simple to adapt to Intel processors, the instance given in the video was a 2hr timeframe for Mathematica to go from not knowing why they were showing up at Apple with their source code to being up and running on an x86 Mac platform.
9) This will give Macintosh a crack at the PC market that it would NEVER have with PPC processors.
10) This will likely give Apple a crack at Windows with OSX as by what they're saying, OSX may very well run on the Intel Pentium 4 PC i'm using right now.
11) This change will allow Apple to focus on what is profitable for Apple, rather than desperately trying to stay competitive and relying on unwilling or incapable partners.
12) The Macintosh will remain a Macintosh... only it will be faster, run cooler, and cost less.

So why are you complaining, other than the part that Apple is basically admitting defeat in the processor race? It's true, I am enjoying this a little.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Spliff

OS X on Intel vs PPC (Xbench scores)

Some of you might be interested in these preliminary benchmark results.

On a preliminary, developer-only machine.

[newsushi]

Well, it's certainly been an interesting day.

I, however, don't really think it's as big of a deal as many are making it out to be. Yes, the car is getting a new engine, but the steering wheel and pedals are still the same.

There are things driving this change that we know nothing of. Obviously, there's been doubt in Apple exec's minds for a long while if they've been developing os x with x86 in mind all along. A very small percentage of IBM's profits come from chip manufacturing. The "mother of all thermal problems", getting a G5 in a laptop may have been insurmountable. And getting a G5 to clock 3Ghz may have melted the sleek aluminum casing surrounding the PowerMac.

But let's not forget the fast-growing laptop arena. Fully 1/3 of Intel's sales now go to laptops. That's up from only 1/5 several years ago. As computers continue to become more and more powerful, this percentage will only increase. Have you checked out Apple's laptop lines lately? The only difference between their "entry-level" iBook and "top-level" PowerBook is Combo v. Superdrive, Mirroring v. Extended Desktop and a measily .34 Ghz. After two years with the G5, the PowerBook line has topped out at a stilly 1.67Ghz G4 and 167 Mhz bus.

IBM won't or can't deliver the performance needed to carry Apple's laptop lines into today...much less tomorrow, which is only a day away.

Apple execs have probably been watching other manufacturer's laptops take off (in speed and popularity), leaving their own lines lagging behind, and knew that to keep up, something would have to change.

The PowerMac G5, while a beast and awesome performer, is a relatively small percentage of Apple sales. The assessment was probably made that in order to appeal to the growing majority, the PowerPC architecture would have to be abandoned for something that could carry all of Apple's lines into tomorrow.

That said, I doubt VERY seriously that Apple would lightly abandon 64-bit processing. Intel was probably able to show that they could build the chips that Apple needs, from low-power entry level chips for iBooks and eMacs, to mobile powerhouses for PowerBooks and 64-bit processing monsters for the PowerMac line. The specific chips may not be rolling off of the line yet, but my theory is that Apple has been waiting to unveil this change since os x was first released, waiting only for Intel to be able to show that those chips were ready to hit the production line.

PPC was a dream. It was a dream of a superior architecture that met a bitter end due to manufacturing problems...and most likely design and thermal limitations.

I view today's announcement with cautious optimism that in 2 years, I'll be able to update my then-aging 12" Powerbook to something that deserves to be called "Power" -- something that REALLY is a desktop replacement.

One more point of interest. I read an AP story several months ago noting that iPod and iTMS sales would soon outstrip (and go far beyond) all other Apple products. So even if Apple hardware goes cold over the next two years, they'll probably be better off throughout the lull than they were 2-3 years ago.

All of this is merely speculation on my part, of course.

-NewSushi

[typoon]

Originally Posted by d0ubled0wn

Linux won't run any of these so I'm not interested…


For me, using a Mac was all about the apps and the easy to use gui with a minimum of problems. That was all. I cared nothing about the architecture of the cpu. I think it's silly that anyone would, unless your profession is writing compilers or hand-tuning assembler code. It's certainly disappointing that IBM couldn't keep up with the Joneses. They obviously didn't try hard enough. What I do look forward to is that Intel and AMD will continue to be competitive against each other and produce faster and faster products.

I totally agree with you.

[Spliffdaddy]

But will the Mac OS run on this circa 1999 dual Celeron Abit BP6 with a pair of 466's overclocked to 500MHz ?

This machine just oozes character....I chose it over my P4 2.8 @ 4GHz 'Deliverance' machine that utilizes a chilled-water-cooled 560watt TEC array capable of -70F on the CPU core. I can tell you a little about heat dissipation in the P4...

Slow and efficient Pentium M OR fast and inefficient Pentium 4 ?

Sounds like a lose-lose scenario for Apple.

The current dual G5's are rated near 200w and use liquid cooling - making a 150w P4's heatsink seem suprisingly lightweight and compact.

I doubt the PowerMac will move to x86 anytime soon. Apple's laptop lineup would GREATLY benefit from some Pentium M motivation, however.

[pliny]

Apple is doing the right thing. They went with an advanced and powerful architecture with the PPC; but the entire time, the manufacturers have been having problems getting the chips out in quantities and with timely advances. That's not to disparage the architecture; just the manufacturing process.

I still don't see how IBM is going to deliver these PPCs to MS and Nintendo and the Cell to Sony when they can't even deliver on a smaller scale to Apple. Horrible track record.

And what PPC workstations are MS going to use to develop their new Xbox games?

"Legacy" G5's?

MS--> PPC
Apple-->Intel

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by EvilKell

This is extremely interesting to me...

Thanks for taking the time to post all that, it was very informative. I'd heard rumblings about Pentium M but had no clue about its potential. Too bad SJ didn't go into specifics about this.

[an0therdumbsn]

wow the news was not taken happily.
all the jokes in his speech came off very desparate.
i am very bummed, only about 1 year have i owned a mac and i now feel dumb for blindly following vauge apple news leaks and for saving up for an imac.
thank god i didnt get approved for the apple credit account....
audios it was fun

[an0therdumbsn]

i really hope this wwdc kicked his ego down a notch

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by an0therdumbsn

i really hope this wwdc kicked his ego down a notch

I hope so too, though I have no illusions about him reversing this suicidal course.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I hope so too, though I have no illusions about him reversing this suicidal course.

I don't think it's suicide. Neither does a friend of mine who is just as big a Mac fan as I am.

The big problem will not be Apple, but *OUR* reaction to it.

Please, why NOT wait a bit to see what happens? It's not like our current machines are instantly obsolete... I can still do the things on my machine today that I did yesterday.

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I hope so too, though I have no illusions about him reversing this suicidal course.

[Kerrigan]

As Mac fans, we are all inclined to over-react to anything Apple does. I've over-reacted to this as well. I don't think this will be the end of the Mac.

Whatever the case, it gives me the excuse to run out and buy a new Mac so that I can get my full 2-3 years out of it before I replace it with a Macintel.

[typoon]

The other thing is now when people look at a Mac or a PC and they see that a Mac is running at the same speed as the Windows PC they might say to themselves they might have to give Apple a look. People want things that a bigger and better and many don't really care about quality. Why do you think we've all used Macs for all these years. Because the make a QUALITY OS and overall system. The systems will still be quality that we expect but it will be running a different processor. Compared to Windows OS X is STILL IMO far superior to it running on Intel or not.

This might also dispell the notion for many users that you can't use regular "PC Parts" to upgrade your Mac.

Regular consumers look at the numbers. 3.6 GHz to them IS Faster than a 2.7 GHz no matter how good the 2.7 Processor is. It's just a fact. They don't care that The Mac G5 can run do 64 bit or that the Frontside bus is 1/2 the processor speed. All they see is the 3.6GHz and the 2.7GHz and they buy the 3.6 because it's a larger number so to them it is/should be faster.

If it helps Apple sell more Macs I'm all for it. Like I said before, I'm tired of Explaining to Windows users and regular users why our 2.7 GHz is Faster than a 3.7GHz P4. They will see the same numbers and to them a Mac other than the OS won't be any different than the speed of their PC and it might make them switch to the Mac.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

yeah, i agree.

intel has produced 3ghz chips. they have done a hell of a lot more than either motorola or ibm. so why are we hatin' for?

all these years we've done our best to tell ourselves the PPC is good enough when we knew we wanted something better! so shut up now and let's rock and roll. i'll still be using apple in 2010 and I will agree with Steve that either Intel or AMD are both better than IBM or Motorola.

a) XBench would be running in Rosetta, and not as a native app.
b) It's a dev system
c) I don't think he is supposed to be spreading around benchmarks.

[EvilKell]

I doubt Jobs was authorized to talk about a desktop version of the Pentium M processor. Quite frankly, it's a little bit of a black eye to Intel, and Intel is trying hard to pull profitability out of the Prescott core Pentium 4 processors while it can. You see, Pentium M is based on Pentium III technology. It's a little embarrassing to be going back to an old architecture 4 years after you try to abandon it and label it as a budget processor, lol. It's deja vu all over again. When Pentium III Tualatin core was released, Intel had to quickly revamp Pentium 4 and jack the price up on Pentium III. The reason? The little Tually was making a joke out of their new high end performance chip, lol. Already committed to Netburst, Intel had to continue down the Pentium 4 or become a laughing stock, which is what I'm sure they're trying to do avoid becoming right now. It's also the reason that Pentium III - M became Pentium M, no doubt. Anyway, the shift is inevitable at this point. Take a look at the performance of the Pentium M at Anandtech below. Eye opening to say the least.


I see a 4GHz Pentium 4 user above called Pentium M slow but efficient.... Apparently, very little investigation into the performance of the Pentium M was made. The Pentium M processor is not slow but efficient. It's a processing juggernaut.

Look at the little Pentium M 2.13GHz toast the Pentium 4 3.7EE and hang with the A64 FX-55 in gaming and many business applications. Granted, it's not always the top performer, but it's a mobile chip that hasn't even been setup for high performance. Even so it does finish top 5 very frequently, and occationally bests all other desktop chips, including the FX series and EE series.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2382&p=3

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

http://chicane.myftp.org/Videos/empire.mp4

I thought you were a man of your word? I guess you lied.

[EvilKell]

Originally Posted by typoon

...If it helps Apple sell more Macs I'm all for it. Like I said before, I'm tired of Explaining to Windows users and regular users why our 2.7 GHz is Faster than a 3.7GHz P4. They will see the same numbers and to them a Mac other than the OS won't be any different than the speed of their PC and it might make them switch to the Mac.

It's even harder to explain that 2.7GHz is faster than 3.7GHz when it's really not. Even the 2.7 dual core G5 is merely equal at best to the quickest dual cores available from Intel or AMD. For use in server applications, it is apparently far behind.

That being said, I'll buy into trying to explain why 2.6GHz on an AMD FX-55 processor is faster than 3.6GHz on a Pentium 4.

[k2director]

Anybody know how Intel chips (the ones likely to be found in a Mac) handle dual-CPU work?

I know nothing about CPU/architecture design, but remember reading somewhere that IBM's PowerPC was designed for dual CPU work, whereas x86 chips weren't quite so good at it.

Can anyone clear this up? Since I'm most interested in Apple workstations, I'm curious if a future dual CPU Intel Mac will have the same gains (over a single CPU) as a PowerPC equivalent.

[osxisfun]

Welp next year their _laptop_ chips (ney. powerbook chips) are going to be dual core ...

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=259074

Assume the same with their desktop

[powertrippin]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I thought you were a man of your word? I guess you lied.

Knock it off

Oh I get it. I can't be a dick, but the redneck blue collar budweiser GM fanboy is allowed to be.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by powertrippin

What?

Ah, tasteless and a liar!

[dpfenninger]

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...

[thunderous_funker]

I think its clear that in the short term Apple was clearly thinking of PowerBooks and iBooks when they abandoned IBM. There is no hope there.

Right now I don't know what is on the desktop chip horizon for Intel but clearly they must have made a helluva sales pitch to Apple so I'm guessing they've got some killer gear slated for down the road. Expect PPC workstations from Apple to continue for a while.

I have to say that now that the initial shock has worn off, all I can think about is the possibilities. I seriously serioulsy hope Apple unveils some new intel hardware in the near future just so that the market gets a clear picture of what to epxect. If they wait until next year to show off something, I fear that panic and paranoia might do Apple serious harm. Just give a glimpse of what to expect to allay the fears.

How about a new Pentium-M PowerBook for xmas? Not only would it sell like crazy, it would quiet most people's fears about the future.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

How about a new Pentium-M PowerBook for xmas? Not only would it sell like crazy, it would quiet most people's fears about the future.

Yeah, I wish they could have released that today. The PB really needs a better chip now. I really look forward to the Pentium M PB.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Ah, tasteless and a liar!

Could you find it in your heart to please stop baiting Ca$h? Thank you.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by dpfenninger

...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?"...

That's a good question. But remember, the Apple box will only run the Windows version "just fine" if you run Windows. I don't care what processor is inside my Mac, I will not be running Windows on it. Plus, it's easier to develop in Cocoa than for Windows, and you get a lot of great features for free. Ease of development and the power of the machine might, in fact, cause a lot of Windows developers to begin moving to Mac.

Chris

[d0ubled0wn]

Coincidentally, laptop sales in May accounted for 53% of all computer sales and it marks the first time portables have overtaken desktop sales. Apple needs to remain competitive in this market. It's going to be a long 365 days…

[Randman]

Originally Posted by MallyMal

Yeah, I wish they could have released that today. The PB really needs a better chip now. I really look forward to the dual-core Yonah PB.

Fixed.

Kilbey and Ca$h: Take your crap to chat or pm. No one cares about your silly pissing contests.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Could you find it in your heart to please stop baiting Ca$h? Thank you.

Yes. I realize it is quite petty.

But it's so easy! Like fish in a barrel.

But alas, it has been exhausted. I will stop.

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by Randman

Fixed.

Kilbey and Ca$h: Take your crap to chat or pm. No one cares about your silly pissing contests.

Agreed. Done.

[JHromadka]

The most annoying part will be the opening chime changing to that annoying Intel chime

/ was at the keynote
// cautiously optimistic

[Randman]

Thanks.

[EvilKell]

It's more likely that Apple solicited Intel than vice versa. Considering the planning that Apple has made i.e. the "Just In Case Scenario" the move to x86 technology has likely been in the works for a long time.

Apple has been repositioning itself in the marketplace for a few years now. Apple is looking forward to internet sales from Podcasting and the iTunes website, along with continued growth in iPod sales. This move gives them a chance at a greater marketshare in the world of personal computing as well. They have been unable, despite enormous efforts to really make a dent in personal computer sales. This move removes a ton of overhead cost for Apple in it's Macintosh development. What I think remains to be seen is what type of motherboard this new Intel based Macintosh will run on. My best guess? Intel chipsets. Apple, like Intel, is not going to be a fan of overclocking, and Intel chipsets are rock solid in terms of reliability.

I forsee Apple OSX being available for personal computers in the future as well. I'm not necessarily sure why people feel that Macintosh will not be able to compete with the likes of Dell, Sony, Gateway, Compaq, and Hewlitt Packard in the PC market. First off, selling OSX itself would be a profitable venture as there are many Windows users that would gladly switch to a different operating system. In addition, using Intel based chipsets and microprocessors would reduce the cost of a Macintosh significantly. The rest of the internals between PC's and the Macintosh are very simliar. I can't find a good reason the Macintosh would have to be priced higher. Can you imagine how much revenue an OSX PC version would generate? Billions of dollars. Not to mention the positives for Macintosh owners if this was to happen. How much more likely would software companies be to make sure their applications worked with OSX if marketshare was at 50%? I might be missing something, but I would imagine Bill Gates would be wetting his pants, if he didn't already have more money than god.

The actual markup and profitability of the base computer is non-existant in the personal computing market. Apple, I'm sure, has realized this and will continue to focus profitability onto periphrials, and upgrades in regard to new computer sales.

One thing I can promise. If OSX runs on x86, Apple will not be able to prevent it from being run on at least some PCs. There are people that live to make stuff like that work in the PC world. They'll spend day and night cracking how to make it work. I mean, we're talking people that will literally re-write BIOS' and do hard soldering to re-enable features on graphics cards. i.e. turning the ATi RADEON 9500 into a 9700.

[awaspaas]

Originally Posted by dpfenninger

Apple is still a HARDWARE company

Damn, I guess he's right.

[Agasthya]

This is going to be so awesome. I can barely wait for the new machines. I was going to buy an iMac G5 this August but there is no way in hell now. I will just buy my iMac P4 (with HT!) next summer and I will dual boot it with Windows. Also, if Microsoft continues development of VPC, that is totally going to kick some ass. Good times ahead.

It's also going to be great when Microsoft, Sony, and Fanboy, Inc. all miss their shipdates on their consoles because IBM is too busy dicking around.

[Randman]

iMacs probably won't be out until 2007.

[besson3c]

I think you guys are looking at this from a very geek centric perspective.

1) Most users don't really understand the difference between processors, Mhz ratings are just meaningless numbers

2) Most users do not benefit from faster processors, since most users use their machines for typing and email, and other basic stuff

3) Most users buy computers because of their capabilities, what it means to them... the processor driving the computer is virtually meaningless.

The people who care about this are us, and naive users who think that they'll benefit from a 6 Ghz computer for their email.

The point is, I think people like Millenium who are predicting an Apple suicide are really over-reacting. I respect your ideology and your beliefs of PPC being a superior architecture (this goes for all of you), but how about a little perspective here?

[Agasthya]

Originally Posted by Randman

iMacs probably won't be out until 2007.

Don't steal my happiness.