[Link]

I'm really not as big an opponent to the Intel-based Mac move as you'd think, even granted my sig. That, said, I'm a bit more irritated with all the BS that's flying around right now because of it! This speculation, in the form of "Well, the dev kits use BIOS so the shipping machines will use BIOS too!!!" and "Apple is REALLY into DRM now that they're using TPM!" is beginning to irritate me.

Then there's the "let's be more in touch with our PC using brothers now that we'll be using PCs too" mentality that's spawned because of this. You can deny it all you want, but the surge of +5 ratings I'm seeing on spymac's computer setups with people posting cheap dells, poorly built homebrew machines, and well -- just about anything down to intel stickers on macs, is really beginning to get annoying.

Get with the program, if Apple intends not to let OS X run on "PCs", and judging by the "attempt" they made, they do intend this, then you won't be running it on a "PC", "PC zealots" will still make fun of you for using a computer that runs OS X regardless of whether or not it's Apple (aka whether or not you're breaking the terms of your license), and -- even if you do run it on a PC, you're "running it on a PC". There's been plenty of argument to why Apple makes "better machines" -- even with the poorer specs, than Dell, HP, sony, etc.. maybe even IBM, and I know that you pro-Apple-computer people didn't all vaporize overnight.

What I'm trying to say is something that doesn't just go for MacNN itself, but for the whole Mac community, so hear me out here! Don't be such hypocrites! I'm seeing so much "overnight change" even now, that it's really beginning to bug the heck out of me. If you want to like the Netburst architecture all of the sudden -- something that's always been criticized for having too many steps, "fake dual processor mode" that's known to slow things down, cost too much, put off way too much heat (130w upwards), ironically something that no "Apple said that IBM isn't as thermally efficient!" arguer seems to ignore, or well,... that they're based on the archaic X86 architecture. (Your Point of View here may vary)..

Suddenly the P4 (even if all signs point out that Apple won't be using the currently selling ones) -- is this "thermally efficient" "super fast" processor that "blows a dual g5 out of the water". If I came on this forum and said such a thing about a P4 machine a year ago, and insisted upon it, I'd probably have "banninated" under my name and locks for "stars".

Apparently now it's acceptable behavior. Why?

Steve Jobs said so.

At least lighten up. The Intel-based macs will be great, but that doesn't make the PPC-based macs any worse.

[The Godfather]

If the first Intel iBook encodes my iMovies faster than the last G4 iBook, I will be sold.

[OpenStep]

[Chuckit]

Are all 596 of OpenStep's posts that stupid picture?

Oh well. The upside is that they all violate the image guidelines, so they should very shortly be tookinated™.

[OpenStep]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Are all 596 of OpenStep's posts that stupid picture?

Oh well. The upside is that they all violate the image guidelines, so they should very shortly be tookinated™.

Gud

[Lateralus]

I sincerely loathe having to say this, but...

I agree with you Link.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Netburst still sucks. Pentium Ms are getting better. Hyperthreading sucks. Dual Cores are gonna kick ass on any properly threaded application (almost every aspect of OS X is). IBM's been making chips that get as hot or nearly as hot as Intel has been putting out. Not really going to change all that much (except a few apps are going to start out really slow)

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Link

I'm really not as big an opponent to the Intel-based Mac move as you'd think, even granted my sig. That, said, I'm a bit more irritated with all the BS that's flying around right now because of it! This speculation, in the form of "Well, the dev kits use BIOS so the shipping machines will use BIOS too!!!" and "Apple is REALLY into DRM now that they're using TPM!" is beginning to irritate me.

Then there's the "let's be more in touch with our PC using brothers now that we'll be using PCs too" mentality that's spawned because of this. You can deny it all you want, but the surge of +5 ratings I'm seeing on spymac's computer setups with people posting cheap dells, poorly built homebrew machines, and well -- just about anything down to intel stickers on macs, is really beginning to get annoying.

Get with the program, if Apple intends not to let OS X run on "PCs", and judging by the "attempt" they made, they do intend this, then you won't be running it on a "PC", "PC zealots" will still make fun of you for using a computer that runs OS X regardless of whether or not it's Apple (aka whether or not you're breaking the terms of your license), and -- even if you do run it on a PC, you're "running it on a PC". There's been plenty of argument to why Apple makes "better machines" -- even with the poorer specs, than Dell, HP, sony, etc.. maybe even IBM, and I know that you pro-Apple-computer people didn't all vaporize overnight.

What I'm trying to say is something that doesn't just go for MacNN itself, but for the whole Mac community, so hear me out here! Don't be such hypocrites! I'm seeing so much "overnight change" even now, that it's really beginning to bug the heck out of me. If you want to like the Netburst architecture all of the sudden -- something that's always been criticized for having too many steps, "fake dual processor mode" that's known to slow things down, cost too much, put off way too much heat (130w upwards), ironically something that no "Apple said that IBM isn't as thermally efficient!" arguer seems to ignore, or well,... that they're based on the archaic X86 architecture. (Your Point of View here may vary)..

Suddenly the P4 (even if all signs point out that Apple won't be using the currently selling ones) -- is this "thermally efficient" "super fast" processor that "blows a dual g5 out of the water". If I came on this forum and said such a thing about a P4 machine a year ago, and insisted upon it, I'd probably have "banninated" under my name and locks for "stars".

Apparently now it's acceptable behavior. Why?

Steve Jobs said so.

At least lighten up. The Intel-based macs will be great, but that doesn't make the PPC-based macs any worse.

What people dont realize is that Mac is really the OS / Software not the Physical machine. Hardware is hardware, there was a PPC version of Windows NT 4 even. What made Apple different orginally was a nice package of software and hardware that went together. When OS X Came out from day one it was designed not to be dependent on hardware so Apple/Macintosh became just Software. The point is, all the things you love and hate about your user experience is with the software. Turn your Mac off and put it beside a WinTel box and you will find the Mac as useful as the WinTel Box when they are both off, dead weight just better looking. Its all about the OS, which means it dosent matter what machine its on as long as it runs the same and great it wont change a dam thing

[The Godfather]

Athens, you worry too much about cheap Macs. You even wish that you could run OSX in your eMachine. With x86, prices will go down, due to the cheaper CPU, and engineering cost. You will see: Apple will fire 10,000 computer engineers in 2006, because they don't need to design motherboards anymore. Lastly, Apple is of comparable size to Dell, and as such will have the comparable mass-producing benefits. And the savings will go to you.

[Lateralus]

Bzzzt! Incorrect.

The fact that Intel's CPUs are cheaper than IBM's is not a fact, it's a misconception. IBM's CPUs are cheaper across the board.