In your opinion, how has the Intel transition gone?

[ebykm]

Originally Posted by fryke

"twice the price of kick ass system" ...?

one could custom build @ half the price of an imac (£800 - 2.0 ghz 17") with top quality components( but no legal os x).

While I think the Mac Pro is not exactly the cheapest on the block

when u custom build (using tyan or supermicro mobo) or buy a dell, the table turns upside down, mac pro being the cheapest .

I haven't seen a better AIO than the iMac for a similar price

True, there isn't any.

MacBooks are doing great (although _there_ Apple _should_ put quality checks first...)

ya, macbook prices could have been more competitive(sub $800).

[ebykm]

well, i think apple have done better than last time (68k->PPC)...... and who knows they might even switch to a better processor (AMD or even another RISC chip) without even announcing. hint: Universal Binary...... who knows what it is capable of.

[Lt Major Burns]

there are no RISC chips in development, or even for future development that are at all competitive as a platform at the moment, or even in the future fr apple 'switch back'. it would also be very bad business, as it would indicate no thought or direction from above.

and i really can't see amd being competetive with intel for a few years yet, AMD were only the best because intel had become complacent, as many market leading companies do become. fortunately, they got scared and started to think properly again.

[chevy]

Originally Posted by ebykm

...
But now ?, OS X, sexy looking design and nothing more........ well some folks reply they're running it on their $400 PC.
...

So you're speaking about desktop. True, Apple doesn't have a low cost desktop solution. The Mac mini is nice but not lowest cost... and it's becoming older. The lowest end iMac is nice too but is not lowest cost neither. And for that type of young boy machines, flexibility is an asset.

Now is this a market where one can really make money ?

Apple is very strong in the portable market, and has the best integrated desktop solution (my iMac 24" is very competitive in price and performance).

[Sunnz]

Not sure if my comments are useful, since I have only been start using the Mac platform since Apple used Intel chips.

I do the usual web surfing stuff at home and programming at school; the CDs had everything I needed for programming (GCC, Java, X). I had to write some documents as well (though not with MS Office, I ditched it after the several days.)

For me, I didn't have to cares what chip it is running, almost everything I needed has gone universal, with Rosttesa took care of the rest: Ada compiler, Fireworks. I just wish that the GNAT Ada Compiler can go universal soon so that I can actually create universal binary in Ada... but not huge problem.

P.S. I actually wanted to get an iBook in mid 2005... but they still haven't got anything better than G4 for laptops at that time, so I got a HP instead... I waited for something better, in my mind I was thinking perhaps some kind of G6 chip that has better performance per watt that goes into a laptop... then the Intel MacBook came out at 2006.

So I think the Intel transition is much needed, especially for the laptop market... I guess the G4 was good at its first release, but when you talk about 2006, it _has_ come with a better chip.

[fryke]

You're exactly right, Sunnz, I'd say. It was mainly the notebooks where the issue of performance/watt was worst and most noticeable. Of course, in the past we've seen other transitions. I'd say the intel one was the easiest by _far_. I just notice that I'm repeating myself already. (You know, that *VERY* long post by me above...)

ebykm: I think the whole subject of hardware having been much better in the (long gone) past does _not_ really have to do with this PPC2intel transition. I'd say it's worth its own thread even. The quality downward-spiral in my opinion started with the Performas of the PPC time, the clones back then in combination with the switch to PowerPC from 68K, when the OS just wasn't ready for that jump. But it's an overall "computer market" thing, really. Back then, Apple took more time to carefully pick and choose which suppliers, which technologies to use. Part of why Macs were incompatible with generic PC hardware was that Apple made _better_, though incompatible, choices. However: This didn't exactly _work_ very well for them. Apple could've died back then! People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality. Computers had become "normal" business. So Apple had to react. And they did. The iMac was inexpensive AND good at the same time. No SCSI, yep, but it wasn't for the SCSI-wanting crowd, anyway. No LocalTalk, no Serial Ports - but USB. Apple did the right thing back then. Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty. (That's a saying in German, not sure if it exists in English. To die in beauty, an attack on someone's failure to see that change is needed, maybe even at the cost of some once-important ideals.)

[ebykm]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

...... even in the future fr apple 'switch back'. it would also be very bad business, as it would indicate no thought or direction from above.

I don't think so, apple used make fun of intel processors in their ads. It's all about making use of the best technology at the right time. If someone comesup with a better processor and other technology, i don't see any reason for not utilising it.

Originally Posted by fryke

...People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality.

what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price.(eg. 17" 2.0 ghz imac costs, £800 in uk, dubai, singapore and malasia. but other companies are selling their products almost same or better than U.S prices here, except in uk)

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by fryke

Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty.

In other words you'd rather have a "not-so-great-quality" MacBook than no Mac or Apple product at all. And about this saying, maybe if you write it again in German, it might make more sense (at least to those who speak German, which I know at least a dozen exist).

EDIT: Oh, and what this thread is really about:

Yes, I think the transition from Intel to PPC went really well, considering it was a lot faster than anyone expected. Many apps arent universal yet, I know, but most are, and for those who arent, well... what do you think Rosetta is for? I think why most of the Adobe/Macromedia stuff isnt universal yet is also because they never expected it that fast, so they concentrated about other stuff (bug fixes, CS3), but its actually not an excuse since in 2005 they said they were going to... I just realized that I'm kind of speaking against myself here! Just trying to say, all in all, the transition PPC 2 Intel went great.