# Please don't call it a Macintosh



## Adonsa (Jun 7, 2005)

Fellow mackers,

If it contains an Intel chip, it won't be worthy of the name Macintosh.  It'll be an abomination. 

Recommendation to Apple - name it something else.  

Do any of Apple's board members or other leadership ever read this website?

Regards,
Adonsa


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

Couldn't agree more. With an Intel inside, I don't think you can call it a Mac or Macintosh anymore.

I don't know about board members of Apple, but I think some important people at Apple come by here from time to time.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

So does that mean a 680x (whatever 68k.. you know what I mean) isn't a mac because it's not PPC?

I share the pain of hearing this news, but simply because i fear for those of us with "new" PPC machines not getting full potential due to limited support from mainly third party developers, but also from Apple in the long term..

Intel != Microsoft. they aren't the devil. yes, the PPC architecture is "better" in some ways. but a really great CPU can't stand still for five years and still be really great.


----------



## DevilRocks (Jun 8, 2005)

Yea, i do kind of agree with you guys and see what you are saying. I just dont see why they dont make a ppc version and an x86 version. Well they are, but it sounds like they are going to stop making ppc chips. If they keep doing both couldnt see it being such a problem i guess. In some ways it is kind of disapointing, But if you think of it positivlely, maybe we will be able to find a way for the x86macs to be able to dual boot with windows  lol. Somehow i think you will be able to, windows may not be very stable but you can run almost anything on it lol.
Who knows
I just hope jobs isnt making a big mistake!


----------



## elander (Jun 8, 2005)

If we should stop calling it Macintosh because they changed the cpu, we should have done so in the eighties, when they changed from 68000 to 68020, or in the nineties, when they switched from the 680x0 series to PowerPC.

The "Macintosh" experience isn't about the cpu inside, it's about the interface, usability and style. What is under the hood is irrelevant as long as it works and gives us the performance we need. Who built the processor really doesn't matter for the user experience.

Get over it and move on.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

an intel processor won't make it into a pc 






it won't be able to run windows natively.  it'll be possible, but it won't turn into windows because of a processor. the processor doesn't know what it is doing, it just crunches numbers for the OS. it's a blind slave. it'll be just as maccish, and it'll still be a Mac, (not a macintosh, that name is dead)  the bit that will change will be the "power" part of it.

if it makes it run good, i like it.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 8, 2005)

Well said Lt Major Burns!

I can't believe these cry babies who suddenly think that because an internal part of a computer has changed that their whole computing experience has come crashing down!

Open up you're mac and you'll see a world of different brand names in there. 

And think about this - everyone who watched the keynote was blind tested for the first half hour or so as Jobs ran his demos on an Intel equiped MAC! Did those people who are now crying foul feel a little stupid when Jobs smirked on stage and told everyone that the show was being run from such a machine?! Basically - Apple could have switched out the chips on Macs 5 years ago by the sounds of it and if they hadnt told anyone we'd all be sat here on our MACS running on intel chips! ha!

Whats the most important thing about Macs? The OS! - The computing experience that Apple gives us by building a great OS and putting together the exact hardware that then runs the OS the best - like Jobs said - Tiger 'SINGS' on intel! Second to the OS comes form - and does anyone here think tht those two things are going to be compromised by having 'intel inside'?! Seriously?!?!? You bunch of jokers!

Suck it up! enjoy your Macs and enjoy the idea that future Macs now have a new spring of life with the new chip partnership!


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

An Intel CPU will never be as robust or as strong as the G5 is. Fact. Apple was ahead with technology with the G-series processor.

Think different.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 8, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> If it contains an Intel chip, it won't be worthy of the name Macintosh.  It'll be an abomination.
> 
> Recommendation to Apple - name it something else.


Actually, I've suggested that Apple call it just _Macintosh_.

No additional name should be added (like _Power_ when we switched to PowerPC processors).

 

As for what some people consider _worthy_... they really aren't in any position to say. Only Apple decides what is and is not _worthy_ of the term Macintosh.

I remember people being in the same state of denial when Apple started having talks with IBM (the evil empire) to develop the PowerPC.

Statements like:_"If it contains an Intel chip, it won't be worthy of the name Macintosh.  It'll be an abomination."_​brings back memories of those days. Just replace the word Intel with IBM, and were back to where we were 12 years ago.

Of course when we finally had systems shipping with IBM processors in 1994, people bought them up.

Sorry, but other than speed, the processor in a computer is an invisible component of the computer from the end user point of view.

And on the speed end of things, we'll have to wait and see. Apple is not replacing the G5 at the high end of the product lines until 2007. Intel has until then to put out something that will impress us.

As it stands, Intel has shown Apple something to make them believe that by that point they'll have something that can replace the G5 at the high end.

And as someone who has been running PowerPC and Intel systems side by side with the same operating system from Apple for the last 5 years, I can say that the user experience really isn't any different based on the processor running the systems (other than, again, speed).

As for telling the difference between the platforms when running, here are two shots of my systems. One is based on the PowerPC 604e and the other an Intel Pentium. And it is the same application (Create) copied to both systems.



 



_Which is which?_​
As for which platform I prefer... _PowerPC_.


----------



## solrac (Jun 8, 2005)

You guys are dumb.
The processor has nothing to do with the "Macintosh"
The Macintosh is Mac OS X. The processor will not change the use of Mac OS X. I don't care if it's PowerPC, G5, Intel, AMD, or some new Playstation Cell Chip. I will choose whichever runs OS X best.

Also, OBVIOUSLY Intel has major new products coming out. Anyone comparing the 3.6 Ghz Intel P4 to the G5 or AMDs is shortsighted. Intel will be coming out with a 64 bit chip and it will kick ass and match or improve upon AMD, and probably be equal or better in performance to the G5 and use LESS power so that Apple can give us next gen powerbooks.

And I bet Apple wants to port all the games over to OS X so that the argument that "windows has all the games" will one day be dead.

Obviously Intel is coming out with something awesome, that we know nothing about. And like I said above... I don't CARE what it is... as long as OS X boots up and runs fast, and doesn't burn my leg hairs off.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

solrac said:
			
		

> You guys are dumb.
> The processor has nothing to do with the "Macintosh"
> The Macintosh is Mac OS X. The processor will not change the use of Mac OS X. I don't care if it's PowerPC, G5, Intel, AMD, or some new Playstation Cell Chip. I will choose whichever runs OS X best.



Uhm, *cough* the Macintosh is the whole computer and its design. Mac OS X is to my knowledge only the operating system. Of course, this is where it comes down for the end-user, but it's still the OS.


----------



## solrac (Jun 8, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> Uhm, *cough* the Macintosh is the whole computer and its design. Mac OS X is to my knowledge only the operating system. Of course, this is where it comes down for the end-user, but it's still the OS.



WRONG.
The Macintosh experience is the operating system. Period. And to a lesser extent the case designs.

Pretty case and Mac OS X = mac. Motherboard, chip, RAM, video card.... those are all blind slaves that make no difference to the mac experience other than speed, as someone else said.

The box and the software. Nothing else matters. As long as apple makes it look cool, lightweight, run fast, and not overheat, there is NO SACRIFICE OF THE MAC EXPERIENCE, and moving to Intel is included in this statement. NO MAC EXPERIENCE IS SACRIFICED. Get it through your heads!


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

solrac said:
			
		

> WRONG.
> The Macintosh experience is the operating system. Period. And to a lesser extent the case designs.
> 
> Pretty case and Mac OS X = mac. Motherboard, chip, RAM, video card.... those are all blind slaves that make no difference to the mac experience other than speed, as someone else said.
> ...



Well, OS X comes on a DVD. This is a shiny round object with a hole in its centre. Yeah. The data for the *OS* is on this object.

Of course, the system is the experience for the user. OS X makes it all round and smooth. 

But the Mac experience is also made of the computer itself, its style, its design. Their design is timeless. That's also what adds up. But in the end, it's what the user sees, it's the OS. But it's not entirely all.

And for the sacrificed thing: I've read a benchmark an hour ago... The Intel-Mac couldn't get to the performance of a PowerMac 2.5 GHz processor. So speed seems to have gone down a little. And for the rest? Well, they changed the processor, yes. For me it's bad, because I don't like Intel at all. So I'm not gonna buy an Intel-based Mac.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 8, 2005)

I agree: it's the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, 100%. Remember that Apple has not always been the only company making Mac hardware. My old Power Computing PowerCenter Pro is as much a Mac as my Power Mac 9600.

Hell, back in the pre-G3 days, Apple's hardware kinda stunk. Power Computing and Motorola made the _real_ systems.


----------



## solrac (Jun 8, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> And for the sacrificed thing: I've read a benchmark an hour ago... The Intel-Mac couldn't get to the performance of a PowerMac 2.5 GHz processor. So speed seems to have gone down a little. And for the rest? Well, they changed the processor, yes. For me it's bad, because I don't like Intel at all. So I'm not gonna buy an Intel-based Mac.



The speed was slower on the Intel because it was using Rosetta (the binary translator.) The speed will be up to par after developers recompile their Apps.

As for not liking the Intel... LOL
That's like ... so dumb. I can't even think of an analogy. The Intel is not an engine. It's just a number-cruncher. Why do you not like the shiny little number-cruncher?

Perhaps you don't like some employees at Intel? That would make more sense.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

For me it's more than just Mac OS X. It's how keyboards have the right 'feeling' to them. It's how the design of the machines is so superb that using other makers' PCs feel like cheapo-stuff - even if they cost the same or more. It's how the computers are virtually silent (I've never had a wind tunnel G4, though...). Notice that I haven't mentioned the CPU so far.

Apple will quite certainly _not_ turn to creating beige boxes delivered with 9$ keyboards and a PS/2 mouse only because they're adopting intel's CPUs (and probably some motherboard stuff). And frankly: I haven't seen much problems with intel's CPUs after the initial Pentium errors that made the press. I've seen many Microsoft problems, but we're not adopting _that_.

To state it's only the OS is wrong, in my opinion. Back when I was using Rhapsody DR 2 on both a PowerMacintosh 9500/200 and a noname AMD K6/200 machine, they almost felt the same. But it was things like keyboard and mouse that didn't exactly match. Well, as I said: Apple will deliver Apple keyboards and mice with those machines. And it's quite probable that you can use your favourite USB mouse, too.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 8, 2005)

If Macintosh is the OS, then they stopped being Macintoshes when System 7 came out. Or was it 8?, 9? Way back at 5? I can't remember. 

You guys that suggest that the 68000 to 68020 change, or even the change to PPC, is anything like a change to intel might be surprised. (But then again, I might be). Reading the Univeral Binary document tells me this will not be as easy of a switch as Jobs is suggesting. Anyone who has run Windows NT on an alpha should know that it is easy enough to make a machine that looks like it works. Whole different matter actually using it.

And while everyone on both sides is hand wringing about the performance of the two lines of chips, no one has noticed that Jobs claims this change is based on the performance of _future_ chips. I'm not trying to say that no one noticed that he said it. I'm just surprised that no one sees the problem with the claim. Jobs has no idea what the relative performance of _future_ intel vs PPC chips is. He doesn't care. He just wants to stick it to IBM for leaving him twisting in the wind over the 3GHz PPC.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 8, 2005)

Well said.



			
				fryke said:
			
		

> For me it's more than just Mac OS X. It's how keyboards have the right 'feeling' to them. It's how the design of the machines is so superb that using other makers' PCs feel like cheapo-stuff - even if they cost the same or more. It's how the computers are virtually silent (I've never had a wind tunnel G4, though...). Notice that I haven't mentioned the CPU so far.
> 
> Apple will quite certainly _not_ turn to creating beige boxes delivered with 9$ keyboards and a PS/2 mouse only because they're adopting intel's CPUs (and probably some motherboard stuff). And frankly: I haven't seen much problems with intel's CPUs after the initial Pentium errors that made the press. I've seen many Microsoft problems, but we're not adopting _that_.
> 
> To state it's only the OS is wrong, in my opinion. Back when I was using Rhapsody DR 2 on both a PowerMacintosh 9500/200 and a noname AMD K6/200 machine, they almost felt the same. But it was things like keyboard and mouse that didn't exactly match. Well, as I said: Apple will deliver Apple keyboards and mice with those machines. And it's quite probable that you can use your favourite USB mouse, too.


----------



## solrac (Jun 8, 2005)

pjeski said:
			
		

> Why are the pro-intel guys like solrac and parb.johal@ante calling people names? I haven't yet seen the reverse yet. Hmmm



Well, I called obsession over the chip "dumb".

Now, the anti-intel guys have been calling it the PUTRIFICATION of the macintosh.

Now THAT'S name calling! And to our beloved Apple, no less.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 8, 2005)

Yea, Solrac, calling an intel Mac "Putrified" (smirk) is as rude as calling someone dumb. 
Sorry for the edit on my post. I'm not trying to make you look insane. The comment you quoted really didn't belong in my post, so I deleted it before I saw your reply.


----------



## pds (Jun 8, 2005)

@racerX
I'm going to guess the bottom one is the 604e. It looks like it's easier on the eye.

I agree, basically, the insides do what the OS makes it do, so there shouldn't be a lot of change. But somehow the idea of a clean open architecture of the chips Apple uses (from the 68x's through the risc chips and the g5) has been part of the _je ne se quas_ of using the machine. All mental, but I enjoy my neuroses, thank you. I will lament the passing of a friend. RIP PPC 

@fryke
Absolutely! It's not just the OS, it's the build, the panache. I don't think the panache-guys are going to jump ship the way so many forum rats say they will. Cupertino will still be the home-town of cool products, even with intel insides. People will see just how dull Dells really are.

Dual core laptops, transitive powered desktops, secure media machines - woot! Makes it hard to hold a wake!


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 8, 2005)

Then the blame lies with IBM for putting Apple in second place.  Motorola did the same thing.  What else was Apple going to do?  It almost died (for real) in the 90s because it wouldn't be open to other technologies and stuck with Motorola even after they treated Apple like a second class citizen.  If you look at the Macs even up to right before Steve came on board, they had sub-chips that were from Intel and AMD.  So what is the big deal??  So the CPU changes.  We're talking *Apple* here.  They'll be able to take Intel's best and make it better.  They did so with 68K and PPC processors, they will do it with the Intel ones.

Whether it's 68K or PPC or x86, it will still have the spirit of the Mac in it becasue of Apple.  I say keep the "Macintosh" moniker.

This is from a long time Apple fan since my Apple IIc.


----------



## appleman.design (Jun 8, 2005)

from what i read on the web.. the "rosetta" bench marks are not very good-60-70, my old G4 500 does 80...LOL
hoping that apple can cut the mustard on this project... ""over and out""


----------



## Adonsa (Jun 8, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> I remember people being in the same state of denial when Apple started having talks with IBM (the evil empire) to develop the PowerPC.



Good morning, RacerX,

Doesn't the PowerPC series chip contain code develop by jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM (not just IBM by itself)?  Isn't it mostly Motorola developed code? 

And, yeah, I was in a chagrin when that happened.  PC users were laughing their asses off.  Although it turned out the chagrin was upon the PC community 'cause their beloved IBM even recognized the existance of Apple Computer.  

Whew.  OK, RacerX, may I slightly change the subject?

We're gonna hear and read a lot about speed.  "Speed is everything."
Not.

The 2nd fastest moving object in any contact sport is the hockey puck.  When it gets to the other end of the ice rink, it's still a hockey puck.  If you knock a well hardened dog turd across the ice, it's still a dog turd.  If you run PC software at a high rate of speed, it's still a dog turd.  Speed does not improve crap. 

Need proof?  I'm sitting here using a Dell D800 running windoze XP and I can prove to you 100 times/day that it's crap.  Stand here and watch. 

Steve Jobs will do what he wants to do without regard for the Mac Community; just allow me to suggest that the box with the intel chip inside be named something other than Mac or Macintosh; how about THE APPLE III ++, or about the FRANKLIN II?    

The intel staff must be ROTFL by now  - "hey guys, guess who's groveling to us now - Steve Jobs!"


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Your Dell running Windows XP is crap because of Windows XP, not the intel chip, though. Right? Just get over it. You're just angry right now. You want Apple to REALLY say: "Well, we know, it's not a Mac anymore, so we call it Suzie..." - But would THAT make any sense? It WILL be a Mac. You're not changing the subject, you're just whining on and on. And your arguments even give the answers.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> Good morning, RacerX,
> 
> Doesn't the PowerPC series chip contain code develop by jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM (not just IBM by itself)?  Isn't it mostly Motorola developed code?
> 
> ...




Yepp. Nicely said! Couldn't agree more.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 8, 2005)

Got your attention?

This switch has caused some hysterical reactions, along with comments like whatever comes of this, it won't be a Mac and people threatening to jump ship, and some equally amusing counter-reations.  I think I was in the 'jump ship' category to start with, now I just class myself as in shock.

But all the assumptions and tears aside, what do we actually know?

Future Macs will use Intel CPUs as opposed to PowerPC.  Does this make those new Macs actually overpriced PCs? No, there is more than one way to build a computer with a common CPU without the end result being the same. I'd imagine Apple will try to create distinctive hardware built better than any PC.

The problem with all this is that if Apple get lazy, they could just end up being a PC maker with copies of Windows being ran (unofficially) by users, worse still someone (of the PearPC-personality type) WILL create a workaround to satisfy OSX that it is being installed on official hardware. The beginning of a slow, agonising death for Apple I'm afraid, you're kidding yourself it you see it different, I think.  PPC does give Apple something they are going to loose - CONTROL.

My HOPE is that they will keep a degree of differentiation over standard PC hardware, enough to prevent what some have described as putrification of the platform.

Existing apps will work with Rosetta. Wrong. G3 apps SHOULD work, no altivec, so that was all a waste of time. Basically, a recompile, or tweek until it does is all developers need to do, how many will is another matter. Fat binaries are NOW the future.

I'd like to open this up for discussion, what is your view, what do you know, what kind of machine will the Mac be in 2006,2007..  still a unique machine with it's own special hardware and software? Or just one of infinate, bland PCs which will surely mark the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it?


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 8, 2005)

UPDATE:
The latest I've read indicates (going back to my previous point) that OSX will NOT run on PCs but Windows may work on Mac. THIS IS BAD. It's a clue that Apple may indeed be degrading itself into a PC maker, IF this is so, I see no good from it.

I'm reminded of Revenge of the Sith when Padme remarks how people are blindly clapping at their own demise. All I can say is: 
"So this is how [Apple] dies, with thunderous applause [from it's fans]"


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 8, 2005)

If Apple willing to let MacOS X install on off generic PCs. Apple will lose control over hardware. That why in the past Apple killed mac clone licenses. Which is good because we can compare Apple HW vs PC HW and see who the faster.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 8, 2005)

> Your Dell running Windows XP is crap because of Windows XP, not the intel chip, though.


that and dell.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 8, 2005)

I'd say, with the switch to Intel, Apple has passed the Point Of No Return. From my point of view, even if it doesn't seem likely that much to all of you who are supporting the Intel-switch, this marked the beginning of the slow and painful death for Apple Computer Inc. The PowerPC for the end-user (and office-users too) was probably one of the most original inventions ever done. It gave them control, it was above the PC-level and defined the industry standard. Now Apple is downgrading themselves to the PC-level.

Well, if Steve thinks it was the right step to do, be my guest, but I'm not going to buy an Intel-based Mac, that much is certain. You who support the Intel-thing may stay with Apple, no problem, but the joy is not gonna be for long.

Let's meet in about 2015 (ten years from now) again and see if we can say "Yeah, Apple was great until they switched and began to vanish" or "Do you have the new Apple yet with a P5 in?"

I think the first one will be the question asked then.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 8, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Your Dell running Windows XP is crap because of Windows XP, not the intel chip, though. Right? Just get over it. You're just angry right now. You want Apple to REALLY say: "Well, we know, it's not a Mac anymore, so we call it Suzie..." - But would THAT make any sense? It WILL be a Mac. You're not changing the subject, you're just whining on and on. And your arguments even give the answers.




I competely agreed with you. Its have nothing to do with INTEL. XP cause intel choked. The main problem is XP itself therefore Window XP is crap! Remember all the hardwares made by other companies not from Apple. Apple only designed the motherboard for what Apple want this hardware to be designed.

It still Macintosh. But but Macintosh married with Intel (Macintosh + Intel = Macintel) Hell no!  I wont allow call this Macintel! *&^#*@*&


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 8, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> UPDATE:
> The latest I've read indicates (going back to my previous point) that OSX will NOT run on PCs but Windows may work on Mac. THIS IS BAD. It's a clue that Apple may indeed be degrading itself into a PC maker, IF this is so, I see no good from it.
> 
> I'm reminded of Revenge of the Sith when Padme remarks how people are blindly clapping at their own demise. All I can say is:
> "So this is how [Apple] dies, with thunderous applause [from it's fans]"



I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

If you could still get a PC cheaper than an Intel Mac with Windows already on the PC, why would you want to wipe out OS X and install Windows on an Intel Mac??  I can see the reason maybe for dual booting for development reasons or for running something like Virtual PC using an actual disk partition instead of an image, but to solely run Windows???

The same goes for those that install Linux over Mac OS X on a newly purchased Mac.  What is the point??  PPC Linux much farther behind in terms of support than x86 Linux.  You'd be better served with OS X.  Or again, a dual-boot setup would work here for development purposes (even though it's not necessary to do so on either PPC/Intel Macs).

I don't see people spending the money to do this.  If they want to buy the Intel Mac, they are buying it because it has Mac OS X and it will have the option to use Windows if they want.  Again, this wil mainly appeal to the geek crowd as Joe Average will most likely either stick with what's installed on the Intel Mac, or purchase a Windows PC from someone else instead.

Again, this is not the end of Apple as we know it....only a new beginning.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Homunqlus: "I'd say, with the switch to Intel, Apple has passed the Point Of No Return. From my point of view, even if it doesn't seem likely that much to all of you who are supporting the Intel-switch, this marked the beginning of the slow and painful death for Apple Computer Inc. The PowerPC for the end-user (and office-users too) was probably one of the most original inventions ever done. It gave them control, it was above the PC-level and defined the industry standard. Now Apple is downgrading themselves to the PC-level."

Hogwash! The PowerPC was above intel's processors back in the days of the G3. It wasn't at G1/G2 (at least not _really_) and you certainly remember the year of the G4/500, when Motorola couldn't advance it? I clearly remember the days of the G4, when we were hoping for a G5 for YEARS, but it didn't come. Then it came, and it was good (well, it closed the performance gap), but now that's a non-scaler, too!


----------



## Gig' (Jun 8, 2005)

Who really cares as long as it's an Apple ? 

Just because Macintel or Appletell (refering to wilhem tell) or whatever is not quite related to Mac or Macintosh doesn't mean much. 

It's the "combo" OS+Hardware we are using and enjoying not it's nickname ?! Sounds like people relate to a nickname and for how long now? rather than an Apple Computer that "confusion" for some might arise.

Long Live Apple and thanks to Steve to make sure it'll be around for year to come ...


----------



## designer (Jun 8, 2005)

So price of Mac will be decreased?


----------



## chadwick (Jun 8, 2005)

I know one of the Apple exec said they wouldn't stop people from running Windows on Intel based Macs, but I'd like to know technically how that is going to be possible.

We're assuming, probably correctly, that most of the core Macintosh architecture is not changing. That means OpenBoot, possibly an Apple/Intel derivitive chipset, and other hardware differences that means the system won't fit the "PC-xxxx" specifications. Windows just won't install and run without appropriate drivers in that case. Will the motherboard support ACPI? If not, then Windows won't even see it and it won't work... And I doubt very much many hackers would bother trying to write Windows chipset drivers to make it work.

Now, getting Mac OS X to work on other x86 hardware will have much more of an interest and since Darwin is open source there is a reasonable change people will be able to hack around enough to make it happen someday.

My two cents... but I'm sure those with access to the Intel devkit will be trying Windows out to see what happens anyway.


----------



## ocmacman (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm not to sure about cross platform or cross system compatability. But who cares what chip it is running on as long as it has the look and feel of a Mac. Also all the tweaking they have done to the software in the past to compare speeds, well heres the test on the same chip. I don't have a problem with it either way. 

According to Jobs they have been secretly embedding intel code in the OS, starting with OSX, so I am sure they have done alot of speed testing and performance testing... The system is UNIX. UNIX has run on intel chips from the beginning so why not, intel can supply the chips IBM cannot it sounds like a business decision to me.

 It is the environment that we adore not the chip. I always wondered why Apple went one way and Gates another. If they would have combined the two we would not be as advanced today, I am sure of that. It is the interface, as it were, that makes a Mac a Mac. And personally I think it blows Windows out of the water, no competition. and when the PC people find out that they can buy a Mac and not be a traitor to the PC cause Apple is going grow in leaps and bounds. Its a great time to buy Apple stock. 

If they did as well as they did bucking the tremendously strong draft winds competing with Windows just think how they will fare without the pressure. Jobs has performed well, keeping the monster on track, then again the pressure may have acted like a brake to keep it moving at a manageble speed, now we'll see how the machine handles at break neck speeds. if the calculations are correct it will dominate, I have no doubt, but if wrong even a little it may tumble out of control. I have faith in Jobs, He may have just found a way to break free from those shackles.

 I would think the creative and progressive minds that have always been associated with Macs would see the possibilities. But alas I guess the strongest of the Apple users are getting old and have trouble seeing the future. We are (I include myself because I started in 1988) who we are, if you move to a new city does it change who you are? No, a peoples character remain the same, as will the Macintosh feel. 

It will grow and change in time no matter what chip it runs on, I didn't hear this much whinning when the OS went to Unix. Thats about as big a move toward intel and the others as one could go, but look at the rewards. Pull your heads out and smell the fresh air, the train is coming. Your either part of the solution, or part of the problem, Time will tell.
Sorry for the book.

ocmacman


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

Firstly, yes, Rosetta is slow.  i read those benchmarks. they are programs built for powerPC

read the bit where it benchmarks aqua, quartz and core image (the OS)  the intel is faster.

now i don't have to make up shit about how G5 is better than P4, i realise that it was never a strong processor.  it's reached it's top end 2 years after it's release. pentium 4 has been going 4 years now. and it's still going.

Secondly, if you *could* run windows on your mac, would you _want_ to? i mean come on!  you're all taking bloody stupid pills.  You *can* run linux on there. do you? no. because it's shite (sorry to nix fans, but it's just not the same ball park as paid for software, there's just so much more R+D, and quality engineers. you couldn't get open source Motion, for example)


----------



## mw84 (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm pretty new to using macs but personally aslong as I can get a beautifully designed case, with the bits inside running mac osx, I don't mind who makes them. Might sound a bit stupid but the only reason I switched and will stay with mac is the OS. If it ran on other systems for example the VAIO VGN series of notebooks, which I think look pretty nice and for the most well priced, I'd buy those too.


----------



## lbj (Jun 8, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> Let's meet in about 2015 (ten years from now) again and see if we can say "Yeah, Apple was great until they switched and began to vanish" or "Do you have the new Apple yet with a P5 in?"
> 
> I think the first one will be the question asked then.




You've got a date.

Maybe at that time you can also explain how your still using OSX ("for life") without ever having purchased a newer Mac.

Yeah, I'm interested to see how that plan worked out for you.


----------



## Krevinek (Jun 8, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> Doesn't the PowerPC series chip contain code develop by jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM (not just IBM by itself)?  Isn't it mostly Motorola developed code?



Actually, PowerPC is based off of the Power series of chips by IBM, with Motorola-suggested additions. Plus, it isn't code stored on a chip, it is circuitry (I nitpick )



			
				HomunQlus said:
			
		

> I'd say, with the switch to Intel, Apple has passed the Point Of No Return. From my point of view, even if it doesn't seem likely that much to all of you who are supporting the Intel-switch, this marked the beginning of the slow and painful death for Apple Computer Inc. The PowerPC for the end-user (and office-users too) was probably one of the most original inventions ever done. It gave them control, it was above the PC-level and defined the industry standard. Now Apple is downgrading themselves to the PC-level.



Not really. This assumes the hardware will be entirely generic and commodity to the point of worthlessness (like Dell). Straw man argument (or close enough to one).



			
				Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> Secondly, if you *could* run windows on your mac, would you want to? i mean come on! you're all taking bloody stupid pills. You *can* run linux on there. do you? no. because it's shite (sorry to nix fans, but it's just not the same ball park as paid for software, there's just so much more R+D, and quality engineers. you couldn't get open source Motion, for example)



Actually, I would be willing to in a dual-boot environment, or through hardware virtualization. Seriously, if I could be able to do development for my client, and have my own pretty Unix OS... on the same machine... that is worth its weight in gold for me. I know quite a few people who would buy Apple because of this as well. ("I can only afford one machine, but I want the game support Windows has.")

Additional: Still, I will be getting a Mac Mini very soon, and then a Macintel laptop when some decent ones come out.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 8, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> I'd say, with the switch to Intel, Apple has passed the Point Of No Return. From my point of view, even if it doesn't seem likely that much to all of you who are supporting the Intel-switch, this marked the beginning of the slow and painful death for Apple Computer Inc. The PowerPC for the end-user (and office-users too) was probably one of the most original inventions ever done. It gave them control, it was above the PC-level and defined the industry standard. Now Apple is downgrading themselves to the PC-level.
> 
> Well, if Steve thinks it was the right step to do, be my guest, but I'm not going to buy an Intel-based Mac, that much is certain. You who support the Intel-thing may stay with Apple, no problem, but the joy is not gonna be for long.
> 
> ...



Firstly, it's a shame the admins moved my thread into this one, I wanted to have a particular debate separate to the one of this thread... well...

I can understand your anger at this, I am caught between hope and rage myself.

For me, at this current point (and truthfully I don't know how I will feel next week, month or year) I feel:

If the end result is an Intel based PC called a Mac, I'll cut my losses and go back to Linux, that's the truth, because a PC called a Mac WILL go the way of the dinosaurs by 2015 for sure.

If the end result is an Intel based Mac which is not a MERE lowly PC, which can also run Windows (or other 64bit Intel OS) with some nice virtualisation techniques, but still a protected platform, then I will stick with it for sure.

I want to know whether the Intel-Mac will be unique or just another PC.


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 8, 2005)

*yawn* mac users sure get upset easily. i shrug at this new development. most software will work alright with rosetta, mac provided software (nearly everything i use) will work fine from day one, most developers will be intel-ready in time, macs were bad for gaming to begin with, and maybe games and office will actually work better. if a few hackers want to mess with their motherboards to get osx to work on pc, go ahead. i'd rather just stick to a secure, stable, and lets face it, prettier mac.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 8, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> Good morning, RacerX,
> 
> Doesn't the PowerPC series chip contain code develop by jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM (not just IBM by itself)? Isn't it mostly Motorola developed code?


The initial was largely based on IBM's POWER processor... and though aspects of the original PowerPC 601 were codeveloped by IBM, Motorola and Apple... it was still an IBM chip.

Infact, you can separate out which PowerPC chips came from which company. The PowerPC 601, 603, 604/604e and the G3 used in most Macs were made by IBM. Many PowerPC 603/603e were made by Motorola and the G4 (other than a short production run early on) were totally Motorola chips.

But the foundation of the the PowerPC is IBM technology.

Further, even after Apple had started working on the PowerPC with IBM and Motorola, Motorola was still trying to win Apple back with the 68060 processor. Apple hedged their bets by making the logic boards of the 6100/7100/8100 able to use either the PowerPC 601 or the MC 68060 processors. Motorola came up short, IBM's chips shipped with those systems.



> The 2nd fastest moving object in any contact sport is the hockey puck. When it gets to the other end of the ice rink, it's still a hockey puck. If you knock a well hardened dog turd across the ice, it's still a dog turd. If you run PC software at a high rate of speed, it's still a dog turd. Speed does not improve crap.
> 
> Need proof? I'm sitting here using a Dell D800 running windoze XP and I can prove to you 100 times/day that it's crap. Stand here and watch.


Last I heard, Apple was not going to be selling Dells.

But I use an IBM ThinkPad everyday. I have since 1999 and it has been a perfect work horse of a system. It never crashes and I never worry about it.

Why is it different from another Pentium running PC out there... It has been running an Apple operating system all these years.



			
				pds said:
			
		

> @racerX
> I'm going to guess the bottom one is the 604e. It looks like it's easier on the eye.


 Hmmm... 
 Well you had a 50-50 chance. I don't see all that much difference... other than one is Rhapsody 5.1 (from 1998) and the other is Rhapsody 5.6 (from late 2000).

 But your right, the second one is the 604e system.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Firstly, it's a shame the admins moved my thread into this one, I wanted to have a particular debate separate to the one of this thread... well...
> 
> I can understand your anger at this, I am caught between hope and rage myself.
> 
> ...



Thanks for supporting me!

The Macs I have got now were the first ones - and the last ones. I'm not gonna buy a Intel-based Apple machine _(I avoid using the term Mac from now on for Intel based Apple machines)_. I also will go back to Linux with an AMD CPU - the only option left for me.




			
				lbj said:
			
		

> You've got a date.
> 
> Maybe at that time you can also explain how your still using OSX ("for life") without ever having purchased a newer Mac.
> 
> Yeah, I'm interested to see how that plan worked out for you.



What is it with you guys complaining about my Mac OS X for life thing? Mac OS X is in my opinion pretty close to perfect. However, in 2015 there will probably be Mac OS XI or even Mac OS XII - I probably won't have an Intel based Apple machine by that time. So, Mac OS X is the system I gonna use until the very end. Meanwhile I will start to change back to Linux.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 9, 2005)

i can't believe you're going to make your entire computing life worse and worse, subjecting yourelf to linux and blankly boycotting apple because... what? they changed a component?  don't you think you're taking this a bit to strongly?  if i can run Virtual PC at nearly full speed, and if my Mac (yup) runs better, faster and for longer, then i'll be a willing intel customer. it's only a bloody chip after all. you're flying off the handle. stop whinging and look at the brightside. apple, and all of us, have been f*cked over by IBM.  this is the solution. PowerPC is different, but also completly unscalable. it has no future. computing is all about future.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

I'm making my life better by choosing to have choice. Linux is completely scalable, and you have the choice to have it the way you want it. I'd say I'm still on the good side.


----------



## fryke (Jun 9, 2005)

Yeah, but you'd still be using X86 or X86-64 processors, just like us Mac users. You're really just sulking, aren't you. If you think Mac OS X is nearly perfect, then I _really_ don't see the reason to go linux. Unless you really think linux _is_ better than Mac OS X.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

Yes, I am on an X86 or X86-64 Processor. But it'll be AMD, not Intel.

Also, I do not think that Linux is better, but if OS X only runs on an Intel, for me personally I have no other choice as Linux. I don't wanna see Windows again, Mac OS X runs only with a chip I don't like, so only one choice left. AMD with Linux.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 9, 2005)

oh my god. you do realise that AMD's x86 chips are clones of Intel's IA32 architecture right? in software terms, it'd be like using Windows and saying you hate MacOS..


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 9, 2005)

AMD are no different! it's still a bloody x86! it's slightly stronger now, but it won't be in the long term. Linux is stable, but there's no bloody software for it, unless you really love open source amateur rubbish.  you really are just sulking now.  you're throwing macOS away because it's running on a different chip. probably a much better chip, by the time it gets on the shelves.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> AMD are no different! it's still a bloody x86! it's slightly stronger now, but it won't be in the long term. Linux is stable, but there's no bloody software for it, unless you really love open source amateur rubbish.  you really are just sulking now.  you're throwing macOS away because it's running on a different chip. probably a much better chip, by the time it gets on the shelves.



Amateur rubbish huh? Well, Linux is continuously developed by people who also were involved in creating the Internet... Linux is quite capable of competing with OS X and Windows. Read more about it, see screenshots... If you after that still think it's amateur rubbish, you haven't understood the meaning of Open Source.

And yes, AMD is an X86 processor. I don't care about that. I *don't* like *Intel*. I *do* like *X86*. That's a difference.


----------



## Cat (Jun 9, 2005)

> And yes, AMD is an X86 processor. I don't care about that. I don't like Intel. I do like X86. That's a difference.



From Wikipedia:


> x86 or 80x86 is the generic name of a microprocessor architecture first developed and manufactured by Intel.
> The architecture is called x86 because the earliest processors in this family were identified only by numbers ending in the sequence "86": the 8086, the 80186, the 80286, the 386, and the 486. Because one cannot trademark numbers, Intel and most of its competitors began to use trademarkable names such as Pentium for subsequent generations of processors, but the earlier naming scheme has stuck as a term for the entire family. The extended version of the x86 architecture introduced with the 386 is called x86-32 or IA-32, an abbreviation for Intel Architecture, 32-bit.



x86 == Intel processor

Wikipedia:


> The company [AMD] started as a producer of logic chips in 1969 and entered the RAM chip business in 1975. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of the Intel 8080 microprocessor. [...] In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of the 8086 and 8088 processors.





> I don't like Intel. I do like X86. That's a difference.


 Not much of a difference though.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

I don't think you all get it. No use for me to continue the discussion of my dislike of Intel.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 9, 2005)

I only dislike Intel because of their management staff. They picked up Alpha engineers for crying out loud, and brought the NetBurst architecture to the world. Big whoop-dee-doo. AMD picked up the other half of the Alpha team and what did we get? K7, the first Athlon which spanked the Pentium 3.

To the best of my knowledge, Intel is the only chip maker that puts their CPUs on the same bus in a multi CPU board. That means they all share the same bandwidth. Stupid.

NetBurst (Pentium 4) was rushed, and it was very obvious. Willemette was just very sloppy and the P4 didn't start to look better until Northwood, but then Intel goes and screws it up again with Prescott.


One last thing: you'd be very naive if you think Linux and various OSS software is developed by amatuers. Many OSS programmers are employed by companies like IBM, heck even RedHat trades stock in the public market. And if it weren't for OSS developers, we wouldn't have FreeBSD, Mach, and even the work done on Darwin.

Do you like Safari web browser? *cough* KHTML which was made by OSS programmers. I could go on.


----------



## Cat (Jun 9, 2005)

There is nothing much to "get" here: in seven pages of bitching and moaning and repeating "I don't like" you have only once come close to telling us WHY:

"An Intel CPU will never be as robust or as strong as the G5 is. Fact."

Well, indeed.  Could you somehow give any reasons for this bold statement? The G5 is a quick hack, an adapted POWER processor with Altivec grafted on. The Intel processor going into the first intelliMac next year will be quite a bit ahead of current Intel processors and alos quite a bit ahead of the G5, which is already pretty old by processor standards. The G4 and G5 have both proved not to scale very well, the Pentium line has scaled extraordinarily well, admittedly with some hacks. However, Intel has developed a new line based on the Pentium M. The desktop versions derived from the Pentium M core leave both current Intel and the G5 in the dust wrt. power efficiency. The previsions, not the rumours, tell us that the intel PowerMac will probably use dual core processors at around 4GHz and this perhaps again in a dual configuration. What is bad about that? Intel, AMD, Apple, Microsoft are all alike in the respect that they are commercial companies, interested in profits etc. Their image can help them to gather the sympathy of customers. Playing the underdag can help your sales. What differentiates Apple from other computer or OS producers is their quality and attention to detail. Do you think that is going to be lessend by their teaming up with the leading processor manufacturer? I think not, but perhaps you can give some valid reasons for your position. Then perhaps not, and it is only an emotional, irrational outburst.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 9, 2005)

I have no problem with linux. it's great and all that. but for a desktop OS that "just works" it has a long way to go. It's developed by geeks, not UI experts.

and whoopy do, the chip is made by intel. does that mean you wouldn't use a G5 XServe because it has an Intel controller or whatever the hell it is, inside?

Yes, intel have made some mistakes. But what company hasn't had blunders?

as for the single bus. the Dual G4s were on a single 100/133/167mhz bus..


----------



## fryke (Jun 9, 2005)

Lycander: The UI to Safari, though, is not open source.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> Amateur rubbish huh? Well, Linux is continuously developed by people who also were involved in creating the Internet... Linux is quite capable of competing with OS X and Windows. Read more about it, see screenshots... If you after that still think it's amateur rubbish, you haven't understood the meaning of Open Source.
> 
> And yes, AMD is an X86 processor. I don't care about that. I *don't* like *Intel*. I *do* like *X86*. That's a difference.



First, everyone COOL DOWN!!

"bitching and moaning" is not a comment worthy of these boards.

We are fighting over IFs and MAYBEs!!  YES, Apple are moving to a new CPU, we do NOT know the implications yet.  YES, it's emotionally testing for some of us, but keep it in perspective.

HomunQlus, I'm happy to support you because you have a genuine concern and worry, as do I.  If people took their heads out their a**es and actually listened rather than fling excretia we'd all be happier.

BTW guys, Open Source software is NOT amateur rubbish, I take enourmous offence at that, I have been a 100% Linux user since 94 and the contribution of 'open source' has been enourmous to computer development and a comment like this is embarrasing to read and betrays a degree of ignorance.

A few of you need to come down off that gleeming mountain and realise people settle on the variety (while we still have them) of computers and platforms because of complex reasons, not always logical or rational or understandable to others.  I do not like Microsoft, I do not like Intel too much either, I don't like the way they operate, I don't like the way computers have developed in the last 10 years under the shadow of Win-Tel dominance.  A lot of people do not like them either.  Some like myself, built our own machines at a fraction of the cost of "PC" makers, using AMD processors and Linux as they suited our tastes, views or philosophies - it's not black and white.  MANY bought Macs.  Apple sold it's DIFFERENCE as part of the whole experience we have bought into.  For many, the change to Intel is a betrayal of principles or beliefs.  For me personally, I am scared Apple are just going to make Mac branded PCs, the blind here seem to be willing it to happen.  Apple have not helped by saying that Windows COULD run on it, if natively, then the Intel-Macs WILL BE PCs!

For people who love UNIX and despise Intel (or simply do not want to use their processors) this move makes Apple another PC maker, the only remaining selling point becomes the OS. Sorry to rock your world, but if Apple becomes a PC maker and Windows runs on it albeit with a bit of effort, THEN it is inevitable that OSX will be running on Dells etc. it may not be easy, it may require software but it WILL happen, why even bother with another Mac? For it's cult status? What status? It will be just a PC!!

If it's going to cost me £1,200 for a Mac "PC" OR under £300 to put my own PC together with an AMD chip and Linux, perhaps with a wee PearPC-type OPEN SOURCE hack to install OSX in a VM or partition, I WILL do it. So will MANY others, that will only speed up Apple's decline.

So I can understand the concerns, they ARE valid, not whining you blind fools, this is a major thing!  Especially if you've invested energy, time and HARD EARNED MONEY in it.

HomunQlus, I say enjoy your current machine(s) and be patient until we have more concrete information as to whether the new Macs will still be unique machines or just PCs with an Apple badge on it, in which case, we won't be the only ones who leave Apple's platform.  Doesn't the XBox run a PC CPU? Doesn't make it a PC, similarly a 68000 in an Amiga didn't make it a Mac ;-)


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 9, 2005)

Homunqlus, I thought you'd be above crying "fire!" 

fjdouse: I do build my own computers. And I've both experienced Windows and Linux. Linux is stable but lacking. I'm sure I could find things if I combed deep, but I'm not an open source or unix guru. I'm a typical end user. Well, I build my own comps, but thats not hard. So windows it is. Its easier, and common. And I didnt like it either. Buggy, unstable, slow, much malware. Changing to Firefox from IE helped some, but not enough. So I bought a Powerbook. Two main reason: the features and OSX. Plus its pretty and light, but thats another story. I like this, its my favorite computer yet, but its still unable to play games. Except a few slow ports of old games. 

Switching to Intel is not the end of the world. While the chip maker is Intel, which some dont like, mainly because of its connections to Windows, but some because of how they handle things, there's a difference. They're not going to slip a P4 into a pretty case and call it a mac. Most likely, it will be a new chip, better designed than the Pentiums, and mostly unable to load Windows. Virtual PC may work much better, but getting Windows itself on it will take alot of work that the average user cant do. Getting OSX on a regular PC will probably be even harder and may even require mucking around with the motherboard. Only dedicated people will get it to work, and then it will lack the stability of a mac running OSX. If they're that desperate for OSX, let them be. Chances are they were going to get a pirated copy anyway.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 9, 2005)

> Sorry to rock your world, but if Apple becomes a PC maker and Windows runs on it albeit with a bit of effort, THEN it is inevitable that OSX will be running on Dells etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RacerX (Jun 9, 2005)

Cat said:
			
		

> "An Intel CPU will never be as robust or as strong as the G5 is. Fact."
> 
> Well, indeed.  Could you somehow give any reasons for this bold statement? The G5 is a quick hack, an adapted POWER processor with Altivec grafted on.


I can give you one *very* good reason to believe this for the near (next couple years) future... Apple isn't putting the first Intel processors in their high end systems.

If the Intel processors were so much faster than the G5, then we would be seeing a top-down transition plan... which we aren't. What we have is a bottom-up transition, which means that Intel has promised Apple that by 2007 they'll have something that can replace the G5.

People are taking an emotional view of this, but this is the logic of the situation... Intel has nothing short term, but something up their sleeve for a couple years out.

Apple's high end desktops are going to remain driven by the G5 until 2007, that is not saying much for the Intel processors in the mid to low end models that are going to be delivered first. 

The G4 is really the first processor on the chopping block, and the only one that can currently be replaced with some form of benefit.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

Pengu said:
			
		

> ok. we know the dev machines use a phoenix bios. but i can't imagine apple moving BACKWARDS from OpenFirmware to a BIOS.
> 
> now. tell me where you are going to buy a motherboard that has OpenFirmware on it??



I'm sure I've read somewhere that OF won't be used, but the point is irrelevant. I'm probably wrong.



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> better yet. f^%k openfirmware. tell me who is going to write the kernel extensions and device drivers to make OSX run on your piece of shit dell you seem to love so much.
> 
> sure you can run OSX in a vm. i can stick leather seats into a 1950's crapbox car. doesn't make it any better to use.



OK, immature use of useless expletives aside, calm yourself. If PearPC's creators can create an environment for OSX in software, they (or someone similar) can do an even easier job once OSX is native to Intel. In fact the only thing which really makes PearPC non-viable right now is the fact it has to emulate the PowerPC chip, take that out of the equation and use the x86 in the host PC and you'll have pretty good execution speeds.  Good enough for many, who won't give a stuff what hardware they are running as long as they can use OSX as well.



			
				Pengu said:
			
		

> Linus Trovaldus doesn't use a G5 for the OS does he? he uses it for the outstanding hardware. a CPU change wont alter the build quality.



Let's see what he will be using after 2007/8. Anyway, build quality? A PC is just a PC, anyone who is above user-level knows that. I can build a better PC myself than most manufacturers. The OS running on it makes it stable provided the hardware is reliable.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 9, 2005)

I found very interesting article from website. It have information about future of PowerMac and Powerbook. Check it. 

Introduction

Now that the shock from the Apple-Intel announcement has had some time to set in, it's time to take a look at what this means for the Mac platform in the near- and long-term future. I've tried to make the present article a complement to John Siracusa's article on the transition, which means that I cover different ground and I address a few of the questions that he raised. Specifically, this article is focused on the CPU hardware part of the Apple-to-Intel transition picture, with some thoughts at the end on what it all means. Because I've saved my more general remarks on the significance of the transition for the article's conclusion, we can dive right into the technical details first.

Read More:
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

Interesting, doesn't answer the point I've been asking, as to whether this means Apple will be just a PC maker.

I actually one of the comments posted was quite apt...  "but you know, the mac *has* lost it's mojo."

Although it raised something which I've not seen mentioned yet (I may have just missed it). The iMac which is currently a 64bit G5, right? will become a 32bit Intel?  People wanting a 64bit PowerBook aren't going to get one are they? 64bit Intels are quite far down the roadmap compared with the current PowerPCs, or am I wrong?

Anyway the original premise of this thread, that Apple should abandon the name Mac, I am finding myself in agreement with.  If Apple are going to make PCs, they aren't Macs...   and I really, really won't want one.  Such a shame, I'm beginning to fear we will get PCs in the future from Apple, not those wonderful machines with a mystique as the article mentioned, which can generate such loyalty, ripping out the processor could rip the very soul out of the Mac.


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 9, 2005)

nah, its still a mac.

g4s need to be gotten rid of. and i have faith that intel will far outdo the g5 by 2007. so i'm not worried at all.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

What I do find amusing is how we now have the "unquestioning" Mac fans who are now saying how good Intel is and how bad PowerPC is.   A few months ago, this was heresy and the complete opposite was true, spouting statistics and benchmarks and roadmaps. Now a complete flip.

Is it because Steve Jobs says so?  I find it hypocritical in the least.


----------



## Elliotjnewman (Jun 9, 2005)

all we are doing here is trying to guess what the future holds, and we are basing so many opinions on 1 simple fact: Apple will be using intel in the future. thats it. The bottom line is that we dont know what these two companies have in the pipeline. We dont know whether you will be able to buy osx on pcs, or run native windows on a mac. All I recommend we do is enjoy what we have in the present, top class os, and great hardware, from a really top class company. WAIT to see what happens in the future, everyone stop freaking out!


----------



## RacerX (Jun 9, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> What I do find amusing is how we now have the "unquestioning" Mac fans who are now saying how good Intel is and how bad PowerPC is.   A few months ago, this was heresy and the complete opposite was true, spouting statistics and benchmarks and roadmaps. Now a complete flip.


Well, you can't look in my direction for that one... I still think the PowerPC 970 series is a great chip.

I have always liked IBM's processors and was unhappy when Apple went with Motorola's G4 and tied everything to Altivec. I was happy when Apple went back top IBM with the G5 but found it questionable to still be tied to Altivec (as it is something that IBM has never shown much interest in).

On the other hand, I've never had any problems using any processor (I'm not a processor bigot). I have systems using the following processors:MC 68030
MC 68040
MC 68LC040
PPC 601
PPC 603e
PPC 604e
PPC 750
MPC 7410
Pentium
MIPS R3000
MIPS R4600sc
MIPS R4400sc
MicroSPARC​On the other hand, I will not use Windows (or any Microsoft products). So this move doesn't effect me in any way other than Apple moving away from the processor company I like the best.

And I don't think Intel has anything today that can replace the G5. We'll see what happens in 2007.


----------



## ZP (Jun 9, 2005)

have faith, i was scraced too( still am a little),but if intels road map happens it schould be good, if it does not then im not sure where we are.We need to see that ibm said 3ghz pm, not there, G5 pb, not there. Jobs had a good reason to switch It intel,IBM stop doing what the said what the would do, hopeful intel can give apple what it needs, if not lets go back to ppc. I like ppc more but if its not going to make a good computer we need intel( or the best chip out there). im ready to try it ,if Jobs is, 2 out  of 2 of the big change(os9 to osx, and the Motorola MC to PPC went well, this one might too. Time will tell, i'll be with apple for ever, and if apple dies, i'll try linux


----------



## Pengu (Jun 10, 2005)

um. someone tell me where S. Jobs said they will replace the PowerMacs with Intels last??


----------



## MrNivit1 (Jun 10, 2005)

didn't... although the power consumption/performance slide comparing PowerPC to Intel chips does suggest that the powerbook line (which needed a proc change/upgrade the most) will be the first to move to intel.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Yep. Also if you look at it this way: The PowerPC G4 is long overdue for a replacement, whereas the G5 certainly has a bit more life in it. FreeScale might provide Apple with a dual core part, but even then, the Pentium M (and evolutions of that) will run cooler. So the iBook/Mac mini/PowerBook/eMac will probably get those.

intel is moving the desktop/server processors towards using a Pentium M base, too, but this will take a bit longer. But that'll end up in PowerMacs and Xserves towards the end of 2006 and 2007, be dual core and X86-64, which'd fit a G5 replacement.


----------



## lurk (Jun 10, 2005)

Another good data point is that the developer stuff for intel is all 32 bit.  I cannot believe that they would take as big of a step back from the 64 bit stuff on the PowerMac.  "Sorry you can only have 4 GB of memory" won't cut it.

Once the low end has moved over then we can look into moving to the newer intel 64 bit processors that are scheduled to be coming out toward the end of the transition period.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 10, 2005)

Lycander said:
			
		

> One last thing: you'd be very naive if you think Linux and various OSS software is developed by amatuers. Many OSS programmers are employed by companies like IBM, heck even RedHat trades stock in the public market. And if it weren't for OSS developers, we wouldn't have FreeBSD, Mach, and even the work done on Darwin.
> 
> Do you like Safari web browser? *cough* KHTML which was made by OSS programmers. I could go on.



the definition of amateur is, simply, someone who works for free. no one gets paid for most linux, and the fact there is no one system only introduces instability. it is amateur. i apologise for the "rubbish" statement. it's not rubbish, but i do feel it's not finished, and it's not a fully-viable OS replacement yet. because there is very little software for it that appears to be past what a normal company would pass for beta.  "MacOS is the worst operating system in the world, except for all of the others"

So my argument that it would be silly to discount the Mac, which is the most accomplished consumer computer in the world, just on the premise that some windows users will get hold of it, or that the chip isn't as strong as PPC. it's stronger, in some areas. they can fit a very good one in a laptop, for example.  there's a future for apple and intel. 

there isn't a future for IBM and apple. i said, when the 360 was announced as using PPC, and then the PlayStation 3, that IBM (famous for a short supply) was going to have alot of work on their hands.  sony and microsoft have bottomless pockets. apple was never going to be front of the queue at IBM with that kind of competition.  

wait and see, and decide in 2007 if the switch is detrimental to apple.  people are dimissing this change before they've even heard the whole story. we have so little to go on.

don't forget that apple has always gone in this direction at heart. IBM was apples biggest rival in the 80's. then they sold their soul to the enemy by using IBM chips for a decade. and the Mac OS, which was the individuality of the mac died in the last transition, replaced with a nicely skinned UNIX


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

lurk said:
			
		

> Another good data point is that the developer stuff for intel is all 32 bit.  I cannot believe that they would take as big of a step back from the 64 bit stuff on the PowerMac.  "Sorry you can only have 4 GB of memory" won't cut it.
> 
> Once the low end has moved over then we can look into moving to the newer intel 64 bit processors that are scheduled to be coming out toward the end of the transition period.



Yeah I've been thinking about that, I'm sure I've raised the issue and nobody has addressed it.

I guess we'll have to pretend that Apple never did have 'the worlds first' 64 bit desktop machine after all (although I've had a 64bit Sun sat here for years), along with ah-hem AltiVec.



@Lt Major Burns (is that a joke?, if not sorry ;-) )
Interesting observation about OSX as a skinned UNIX, as a UNIX professional I'd say OSX is the best UNIX out there and something Mac users should take great pride in, I know I do.  As for your idea of what an amateur is, I completely disagree, I have done much work professionally without a fee, doesn't make me an amateur.  Stating that software produced by open source is basically unfinished and amateur really shows that you do not really understand it at all. But, what do I know about UNIX and Linux, with my qualifications and the fact I've been using Linux since you were probably nine years old ;-) But this is hijacking the thread and OT, perhaps that would be better discussed in a new thread.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Is it REALLY this hard to understand that the processors which will be used in iMacs/PowerMacs/Xserve _will_ have the 64bit extensions, because Apple's talking about June 2006, not "next month"?


----------



## pds (Jun 10, 2005)

Maybe they don't know what "roadmap" means. The change is to ensure that Macs are top notch "for the next ten years.."

Nothing about the announcements means that we should all of a sudden feel the G5 machines aren't top notch now. 

I wonder if the iWhiners have actually seen the keynote. In one year the intel will be three times more powerful per watt than the ppc will be in one year. It's all about what each company will be able to deliver down the "road". Computer development is not like life. Life is about today, computing is about tomorrow


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

I haven't a problem with the roadmap or even the switch, I can even see it as being the best thing ever. My own doubts/fears are about the type of machine made, which the iBlind don't seem to see or care about.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 10, 2005)

the type of machine made, hopefully, will be, when properly done, identicle to current machines, or a redesign going forward.  the way i see, the only thing that is changing is the chip, and some of the logicboard around the chip. there's no reason for it to be any different. when you turn it on, it'll still go BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!, before going to a grey screen with a grey apple in the centre, before booting into a faster version of OSX.  when in osx, the possiblity of VPC turning into a viable product, instead of 386-emulator, is very tempting. being able to run, say, HL2 at nearly full computer speed is very tempting.  other than that, nothing will be different, only the universal coded apps run faster than your old PPC mac


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Now, THAT is what I want!

BTW, don't put too much faith in VMs for games, I used VMware on Linux for years, games were a no-go.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 10, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> I guess we'll have to pretend that Apple never did have 'the worlds first' 64 bit desktop machine after all (although I've had a 64bit Sun sat here for years), along with ah-hem AltiVec.


Well... why?

Apple did have the first 64 bit Desktop computer. They were out and in people's hands, why should we pretend that it didn't happen?

And I've had an Indy (both  64 bit hardware and software) sitting here since 1999... but it is no more a desktop computer than any Sun ever made. Both Sun and SGI sell workstations and servers, not desktops. There is a difference.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Well, I think a lot of us who have G4s were expecting that in a year, we'd have G5, i.e. a 64bit batch of machines coming, I expected my NEXT Mac mini to be a G5, I anticipated I'd be using 64bit machines by 2006.  The iMac is what I'd call a standard Mac, it's G5 right now, but does anyone know for sure what CPU will replace it? Or even my mini?  By what I've gathered, the mini will be first to go Intel and will be replaced by a 32bit Pentium.  It seems to me, without some documentation with facts that the transition causes a bump on the road to 64bit, I thought we Mac users would beat the PC world to it, not too sure now though what with G5 replacements being chalked in for 2007, maybe Q4.

(Yes there is a difference between desktop and workstation, although the terms are frequently interchanged incorrectly.  But I doubt most will know, I've had a hard job just getting people to understand the diffence between PC and Macs!)


----------



## Pengu (Jun 10, 2005)

you can't expect Apple's cheapest computer line to suddenly jump into 64 bit.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Also, people should by now get that going 64bit does not per se result in better performance.

If I just make myself blind and dumb for a moment: If I'm a PowerPC fanboy and hate intel's guts like crazy and think that Apple will release slow-as-molasses halfly emulated 32bit mobile processor machines to us to replace the oh-so-shiny Macs come June-in-a-year - yes then I can relate. But I'm neither blind nor dumb. And quite certainly Steve Jobs isn't blind and dumb either. He was talking about slowly replacing the G4 and G5 chips with what intel has to offer one year from now.
If you've been following the technews, it's VERY clear that intel goes dual-core for mobile and desktop processors and it supports the somethingsomething-64bit-extensions that AMD has introduced and are supported by Windows. This last point is important now for Apple. Because if Microsoft supports that with their OSs, it means that the technology will be developed further.

Let's go back two years. How IBM and Apple were proud of the G5 shows that Apple has NEVER intended to easily give up on the PowerPC processor. Go back in time on this very forum and read some threads about X86, intel and AMD. Before the G5, Apple was severely lacking processor power, and the name "Power" PC was basically a joke, since Apple's machines could only compete as notebooks back then. The PowerMacs were using overclocked G4s that needed cooling like crazy. But IBM, with the G5, breathed some life into the PowerPC as a desktop processor. But the happiness was a short one. Is it so long ago that we moaned and bitched about the G5 not reaching 3.0 GHz - and not only that, we also had to accept that in almost a year since the 2.5 GHz LIQUID COOLED (i.e. overclocked) PowerMac, Apple could only deliver a less than 10% faster processor in the highend machine. Still better than "the year of 500 MHz", back when Motorola couldn't deliver with the G4 and IBM danced around it with its G3s which scaled much better in the same time.

It is MORE than time to tell AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) goodbye. Sometimes, it's just not worth it to say "but we were right". Because it doesn't really _help_ any longer.

For now (or again rather for June 2006 and the near future), Apple has chosen intel to be the main processor factory for Apple's Macintosh computers. Yes, this might change again sometime in the future. But even if you're really agitated about it and think you wouldn't EVER live with an intel CPU in one of your Macs: I always thought Mac people were open-minded enough to think differently. At least a bit. Let them bring out the first X86 or X86-64 Macs. Let them at least _state_ why they think (a year from now!) why people should buy these machines. And then try them out. Throw the apps at them that you actually need to use. And see for yourself if it's still a Mac that you're using. I would bet quite some money that those machines will be good.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

mmh, I sincerely cannot tell if you've directed that at me or were just contributing generally to the thread. Personally, I don't care about the Intel move, I just don't want Apple making x86 PCs and palming them off as Macs, I can't see it happening, but there are signs and I never thought they'd drop PowerPC, so what do I know?  Unlike those who are saying I will never buy an Intel-Mac, I will wait and see what happens, my purchases planned within the next couple of months are on hold, I think a lot of people will be waiting.  I will look at the specs of the machines as we get the details and evaluate whether to move to it or not, I hoping to be running or awaiting delivery of an Intel based Mac mini this time next year.  I can't be fairer than that.


Pengu: "you can't expect Apple's cheapest computer line to suddenly jump into 64 bit."
I don't think that's what I was saying, I expected when I ordered my Mac in march?!? that by the end of the year the G5 laptops would appear and that the eMac and Mac mini would follow by mid to late 06, that may have been over-optimistic, but at least I had a bit more optimism then, eh?  Now the 'lower' Macs will not get 64bit CPUs until.. what? 2008 or later?  I just thought it would be quicker.


----------



## mkwan (Jun 10, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> the type of machine made, hopefully, will be, when properly done, identicle to current machines, or a redesign going forward.  the way i see, the only thing that is changing is the chip, and some of the logicboard around the chip. there's no reason for it to be any different. when you turn it on, it'll still go BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!, before going to a grey screen with a grey apple in the centre, before booting into a faster version of OSX.  when in osx, the possiblity of VPC turning into a viable product, instead of 386-emulator, is very tempting. being able to run, say, HL2 at nearly full computer speed is very tempting.  other than that, nothing will be different, only the universal coded apps run faster than your old PPC mac




the [BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!] really cracked me up...no offense Burns


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Maybe they'll switch to the intel jingle.


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 10, 2005)

Oh my junk! How about we go to McDonalds and get you guys a waaahmburger with some french cries.

"Oh its not a mac anymore blah blah blah" Suck it up. How could this be bad? The G5 was good yes, but IBM kinda gave up on it. So no development of a chip means in the end it's crap. And don't even start that @#$% about OS X versions not being able to go past 10.4.9.....


----------



## wnowak1 (Jun 11, 2005)

I am actually excited about the Intel switch.  With dual core 64bit cpus coming out, I think we will see a nice speed increase.  I predict a wider range of video cards, smaller laptops and hopefully tablet macs...  

For the people that whine about the intel CPU, I can bet that when Steve Jobs was running the demos,  you thought it was a regular mac untill he announced that it has an intel.  If it runs good, then what is the problem with the CPU ?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 11, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Now, THAT is what I want!
> 
> BTW, don't put too much faith in VMs for games, I used VMware on Linux for years, games were a no-go.



finally! we agree on something!   i am designer, and i've loved design since i was a nipper. Jonathan Ive is one of my heros. i read about him after he did all the stuff straying from beige boxes, and just saw a shining light.  the G5 is a bloody masterpiece of design, perfect in every way (well, nearly. needs 2 more usb2... ), as is the g5 imac, and the mac mini, and his keyboard, and his screens. amazing.

i don't think Ive has it in him to settle for going backwards - no designer can!  the replacement for the Powermac is going to be incredible.  it is not going to be a pc, it's going to be the finest mac you'll ever see.

linux appeals to the engineer because it is a very scalable OS, it's very strong, and can be very fast. MacOS is less so, but it appeals to the designer more, because it was designed to look amazing. linux's UI was created, and it works, but it wasn't designed from the ground up - it's developed to fulfill the need, like a pc.

macs are designed. from the ground up.  that is a mac. the power of design.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

wnowak1 said:
			
		

> I predict a wider range of video cards



I love the way people are making predictions about the video chipset!!  On what basis?  I see the situation being no different than today unless Apple does everything I don't want them to do and start churning out PC compatibles...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> finally! we agree on something!



LOL! We are probably in agreement on the whole thing if you break it down, we're looking at the same thing from two perspectives, that's all   Anyway, only a fool is rigid in his views.



			
				Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> macs are designed. from the ground up.  that is a mac. the power of design.



Yes, of course if Apple do start making PC compatibles, that claim of being designed from the ground up will not be valid, since they will be built from the existing PC specs and reference designs...  I am keeping my fingers crossed, I have a feeling a year will be too long to wait..

I'm making a prediction, we may see Intel Macs in a little over 6-7 months.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 11, 2005)

we won't have pc compatibles. that just would be a bad strategy.  apple know their strength is in their difference.  it hopefully is going to be just a chipset change.  there is no logic in a complete uturn and making a pc. it's going to be a mac with an intel processor.  the video card change won't happen either. it's lucrative to keep a tight grip on that, and the high end cards are usually released for apple anyway.  plus you get high-end connectors already, not VGA or s-video rubbish.


----------



## fryke (Jun 11, 2005)

I guess that would make a nice surprise, if they'd show us a Mac mini with intel at MWSF. But if Steve says June 2006 at WWDC, that's probably going to be it.

_fjdouse: "of course if Apple do start making PC compatibles, that claim of being designed from the ground up will not be valid, since they will be built from the existing PC specs and reference designs..."_

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with using a tested chipset that goes well with the CPU. For the cheaper models (Mac mini, iBooks, eMacs), integrated graphics and sound will probably be their way to go. (Yes, that's an assumption, but integrated graphics is what's in the development box currently.) Although I, too, would like those to keep older ATi Radeon or nVidia chips on board as the graphics, if intel can deliver similar performance for much less, I'd rather see those machines get lower in price and/or make better profit margins for Apple.

I guess our basic difference is that you see PC compatibility as a flaw, whereas I see it as a chance for quicker development.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> we won't have pc compatibles. that just would be a bad strategy.  apple know their strength is in their difference.  it hopefully is going to be just a chipset change.  there is no logic in a complete uturn and making a pc. it's going to be a mac with an intel processor.  the video card change won't happen either. it's lucrative to keep a tight grip on that, and the high end cards are usually released for apple anyway.  plus you get high-end connectors already, not VGA or s-video rubbish.


OK, we have an agreement! What you are saying is what I want to see!
But, how do you account for the comment that Windows could be installed? People are assuming this means natively, into a partition which can be booted, or more importantly installed via a bootable CD, which DOES mean the machines will have to be PCs? or at least, close enough to a PC to still be within spec.

I'm hoping this was just an unguarded comment from Apple and they are actually meaning within the confines of a VM, the details of which are still under wraps.


----------



## fryke (Jun 11, 2005)

*sigh*... What makes people think an intel chip and an intel chipset has necessarily only VGA and S-Video connectors? You can have a perfectly PC compatible motherboard with FW, USB2, DVI, SPDIF (don't remember the exact name, that sound thingie), fast RAM and S-ATA II. It makes NO sense to me whatsoever to actively make it incompatible with Windows.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 11, 2005)

now that the hardware is getting close to being a pc, it will make it easier to run windows.  whether booting into windows will be possible is another thing entirely. at the moment, all the specs point to the specs that windows needs: x86 processor, some compatible ram, a compatible harddisk etc... it will be possible, just as it's possible to run windows on your mac now, through VM. it'll just run a hell of alot better, as it actually has an x86 instead of emulating it


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 11, 2005)

to fryke: the reason i mentioned the vga/s-video thing is that is what most off-the-shelf pc gfx cards still have. the mac-compatibles already have dual dvi, or dvi/adc

although i don't really know what i'm talking about. i havent bought a pc card since a geforce 2mx


----------



## fryke (Jun 11, 2005)

Well, basically the Mac cards offer what Apple needs. On the PC side you get _that_ but also a lot of cheaper cards. Plus more highend cards, too. You simply have more choice, and that's what's been lacking on the Mac side, quite clearly. (Plus the prices were off.)


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 11, 2005)

k


----------



## wnowak1 (Jun 12, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> I love the way people are making predictions about the video chipset!!  On what basis?  I see the situation being no different than today unless Apple does everything I don't want them to do and start churning out PC compatibles...



On the basis that Intel pumps out more CPUs than IBM does.  Hence, you'll see newer products from Mac more often.  Instead of waiting for nvidia or ati to make a special mac video card, why not use what PC's use?  Nvidia and ATI make more video cards for the pc market at a much faster rate than their mac counter parts.  You won't see mac compatibles built because Apple has the rights to the mac and control what machine has os x running on it.  I doubt they'll screw up like IBM did with IBM compatibles...


----------



## jonparadise (Jun 12, 2005)

I was as surprised as most people about the Chip change.

However, I got over it in a few minutes. I really think some of you guys need to get outside a bit more. There are far more important things in life.

To help sum it up, our entire household has a Mac each (2 Powerbooks and 2 iBooks), I told the other three what was happening and the responses I got were...

'So what?'
'I don't really care'.
'Did you get the milk?'

These are normal, everyday Mac users who just use it because the OS is easier to pick up and far more superior to others, NOT because of the chip inside.

I do think this wil harm sales for Apple, but not too greatly, the Regent Street Apple store is still booming. In fact, I'd say 80% of customers haven't even heard what is going on, and quite frankly wouldn't give a stuff if they did.

Just by the fact we are in this forum means we are in a niche of people who love Macs.

The rest of the general public really don't follow whats happening, and never will.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 12, 2005)

IBM is not kinda give up..  Xbox 360, PS3, and other will have 3.2ghz from IBM.  The main problem the price is very expensive compared to Intel. Thats why Apple decided go for Intel.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 12, 2005)

price? yes. it's nothing to do with IBM focussing on CPUs for a) high-end SERVER markets and embedded markets like consoles. that is nothing to do with it at all!

steve is putting us through all of this, just to save $2.00 per CPU.


grow a brain.


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

I'm not even sure what or whom you're attacking right now, Pengu. But that doesn't really matter. I'm pretty sure it wasn't _one_ thing that made Steve switch to intel this time. But _about_ the pricing... NYT said it was that IBM asked more money to even _develop_ future PowerPC processors aimed at desktops and notebooks. So even if the PPC 970fx costs more or less the same as a highend Xeon processor... But like I said. There's more than enough reasons. Price. Development costs. Custom R&D around the chips. Switching more Windows users. IBM not delivering year over year. And certainly Steve Jobs' ego was also part of it. He doesn't like to have to apologise in public for a mistake IBM made. Or two. Or again. And neither would you...


----------



## Pengu (Jun 12, 2005)

> IBM is not kinda give up.. Xbox 360, PS3, and other will have 3.2ghz from IBM. The main problem the price is very expensive compared to Intel. Thats why Apple decided go for Intel.



that is the post i was referring to... money will most likely be a factor, but not a price for each CPU, more like a price to continue developing a CPU that is going the other way to what you want (embedded markets, and highly-customised for consoles..)


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

okay. clearer now.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> there's no reason for it to be any different. when you turn it on, it'll still go BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!



It's a sad day, here is the new chime from the dev kit....

http://www.macilife.com/audio/Macintel_Startup.m4a


----------



## Cat (Jun 13, 2005)

Wasn't the BONNNNNNGNGGGGG done in OpenFirmware? OF is gone in the Intellimacs ...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

No OF in 'PC' Macs AFAIK, I've been told it's a standard BIOS.  But who knows?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 13, 2005)

BOOOONNGNNGGGNGNGGdoodeedooding? NOOO!!! that's terrible! that must be removed! then again, you should only hear that every 6 months or so....


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 13, 2005)

LOL! Honestly Im think I kind of like the new jingle. Of course it's not the awesome usual Mac start up chime but it's kinda nice.

God knows I'd take it over having an Intel Inside sticker.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

Great eh? LOL!

Lt Major Burns, I do declare dear sir, you have added BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!! to the Mac vocabulary ;-)


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 13, 2005)

thank you. glad to help

*funk*


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 14, 2005)

Burns, hush.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 14, 2005)

Actually, my mini hasn't BONNNNNNGNGGGGGed in ages, I've no idea why though


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 14, 2005)

isn'tthat indication of something seroius? then again, if it works fine other'n that, then nothings to worry about is it?

actually now i've looked at the site satcomer pasted to me, it looks like you could have turned it off.... have you?


----------



## fryke (Jun 14, 2005)

My PB's start chime's been on and off lately, too. I think this has only happened with Tiger for me... But then I don't often reboot, anyway, and it could just be a stray error of some kind...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 14, 2005)

No, I don't remember doing that, I love the BONNNNNNGNGGGGG, it produces a direct physical, calming effect..


----------



## Carlo (Jun 18, 2005)

elander said:
			
		

> If we should stop calling it Macintosh because they changed the cpu, we should have done so in the eighties, when they changed from 68000 to 68020, or in the nineties, when they switched from the 680x0 series to PowerPC.
> 
> The "Macintosh" experience isn't about the cpu inside, it's about the interface, usability and style. What is under the hood is irrelevant as long as it works and gives us the performance we need. Who built the processor really doesn't matter for the user experience.
> 
> Get over it and move on.




Elander saved me typing all this out..

I cant believe how some people are up in arms about it.. 

The cpu changed but the computers are the SAME!

Your operating system is the same, it will be fast if not faster, your apps will run the same.. Your system will run cooler and be just as stable if not more so.

Intel is not the problem here, they dont build bad products.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 18, 2005)

I wonder if we are ever going to see a name change in the same fashion as
Apple --> Macintosh
(or rather Apple --> Lisa --> Macintosh)

Is the Xserve simply "xServe" or is it "Macintosh xServe"


----------



## fryke (Jun 18, 2005)

Well, it was the Apple "I", "II" etc., just like the Apple "Lisa" and Apple "Macintosh". As for the Xserve, its full name is Apple Xserve, Mac ain't in it. Just as with the PowerBooks and iBooks, btw. (Early PowerBooks had both "Macintosh" and "PowerBook" on display, but the "Macintosh" was lost one day.) But they're still "Macs". So even if the PowerMac line with the move to intel would, say, be called "Xstation", they'd still be Macs. Since all computers from Apple that run Mac OS of any version are considered Macs.

And yes, I find the thought of not calling these forthcoming Macs Macs more than a bit strange.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 18, 2005)

[OFF TOPIC]My BONNNNNNGNGGGGG is back, it may not have gone, it's possible I just haven't heard it, I don't reboot much[/OFF TOPIC]

Where did this 'Xstation' come from, I've missed something?!?!


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 18, 2005)

To me, it harks back to the old NeXTStation from NeXT Computer.  I had mentioned this in another thread and I think fryke was the same person who was leading us into that.  I hope I'm not mistaken, but this seems to _deja vu_ to me.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 18, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> we won't have pc compatibles. that just would be a bad strategy.  apple know their strength is in their difference.  it hopefully is going to be just a chipset change.  there is no logic in a complete uturn and making a pc. it's going to be a mac with an intel processor.  the video card change won't happen either. it's lucrative to keep a tight grip on that, and the high end cards are usually released for apple anyway.  plus you get high-end connectors already, not VGA or s-video rubbish.



I've had to really think twice about posting this, but...  better out than in as they say...

We've had a really bizzare conversation this afternoon with a tech guy (obviously I'm not going to give his name or where he was) at Apple as our neigbours Mac went belly up and needed some AppleCare doo-dahs. After, the subject of Intel came up, he reckoned quite a few colleagues have been looking for new jobs, more are planning to leave. He said that Apple have made the most stupid move in their history and it's nothing to do with the reasons given in the keynote, he said he and others watched the keynote and they had to switch it off before it was finished, some of them were actually crying, some "were furious shouting Jobs was talking nonsense".  He reckons "it's being presented as just a simple CPU change" which is no big deal but in fact it's a whole hardware u-turn and it's an enormous climb down and a major deal, they'll be slightly better than today's PCs but "they are in effect PCs based on Intel reference designs" which _will_ run Longhorn (as I noted -I think?!?!- elsewhere with EFI) although they aren't supposed to say that, naturally. We didn't say much really, I just chewed my lip nervously while listening in, he seemed to have a lot to say himself. They (the Apple staff there) say it's a sneaky way of making massive cutbacks longer-term in hardware R&D. He said "everything that made Apple great is ending" and morale was the worst he'd ever seem, but publicly they'll spin it in a way which sounds great. I was totally crestfallen after, I must admit, I also found it stunning that he was so candid and probably in earshot of others who obviously must feel the same.

I'm not going to get into my old arguement about future Macs being PCs by another name, the tech guy *confirmed* that, but I thought it maybe of interest to put those comments out there.  I know on another thread at least one other and I said our confidence was shaken, seems we're not alone.


----------



## fryke (Jun 19, 2005)

Yeah. People are constantly afraid to lose their jobs sometime in the future, and changes in strategy often strengthen such fears. It's logical. You can tell them that they should try to overcome their fears and act instead of waiting for the death bell. Either get active within Apple (save your job!) - or without (quit when ready). Happens all the time - all over the world. Nothing "special Apple" about that.


----------



## profx (Jun 20, 2005)

What a rediculous thread.

I would invisage that apple are infact on the verge of giving up on producing hardware. Maybe they will have someone that slaps an Apple Sticker on the beige box as it roll down the production line - not really caring if he gets it straight or not (much like the window license, intel inside and made for xp stickers).

What a bunch of arse. Honestly. Apple is not just about the OS or the look of the box it comes in. It is about the complete package. The box, graphics card, network, firewire, memory and supprise supprise - the CPU.
Its all made by independant manufacturers - Apple puts it all together in such a way that all the components work together. That is the crucial point. 
Beige boxes are made of parts that are designed to do their thing - not a lot of consideration is given to making sure that all the bits work together not against each other.

Apple is the glue that brings together components in such a way so that they just work! This is much the same reason that a beige box that some guy assembles for you from the corner store at dirt cheap prices has "issues" when a branded unit by HP tends to be more reliable. Apple takes that idea further by also making the operating system. The complete package.

From a consumer point of view I dont really care what components the package is made from, so long as it all works and provides an excellent experience.

From a developer point of view, Apple is really pushing their luck. I feel that the transition from 9 to X only really finished last year, now asking them do redo all their code again (yes i know its supposed to be really easy with xcode 2.1). From what i have seen and heard Apple have done an excellent job of trying to make it easy. But they have put Metrowerks out of business over night. Alot of developers dont use xcode for development so it is alot of work for them to change their entire programming style and environment to xcode. 

I hope that now we have an OS that will last for the next 10-15 years before a major overhaul and a hardware platform "with a good road map" that the Mac platform will become a stable and trusted environment to develop for. 

It will be interesting to see how many previously windows only apps are ported across (im thinking games). 

This can only strengthen Apples position.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

Well, for such a 'rediculous' thread, you sure have plenty to go on about


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 20, 2005)

profx said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see how many previously windows only apps are ported across (im thinking games).


yes, this is my biggest clincher, even if they're not natively macos, without chip emulation bogging things down, VPC should become a very worthwhile and valuable resource - the advantages of the wider market and more available software, without the disadvantages of virus/spyware, as it's completely self-contained in macos. that's a nice prospect.

btw, does anybody know if VPC running on an intel chip would get decent access to the graphics/sound etc?


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

I'm sure you asked this before, my experience of virtual machines where the host and guest processors are identical is that games are an absolute no-no. Usually (well, in every case I've seen) only the CPU is shared, everything else is emulated for reasons which I can't be bothered to type - too hot here ATM.


As for Window programs being ported BECAUSE of the CPU change, why? how? What's different? Anything which COULD be ported could be ported now (apart from a few obvious exceptions.)


----------



## fryke (Jun 20, 2005)

Well, let's not think about gamers only. Sure, they're a big part of the cake, but let's just forget about that for the moment. I'm thinking about all those smaller and bigger apps that would gain a _lot_ of performance running in a virtual machine rather than an emulator like VPC. Things like small business software etc. While VMs might not be for gaming, for those apps that just don't get ported to the Mac (and don't rely on great 3D graphics performance), VMs will be _the_ solution. Converting PC users to Mac users will just become easier that way.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 20, 2005)

like IE when you can't access a website because of active-x....


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Well, let's not think about gamers only.


I try not to think about gamers at all.

I don't see why VPC get's such bad comments, I actually think it's not too bad, I run that sorry excuse of XP in it with no problems, getting Linux to install in it is slow as hell and Solaris.. well, I had to give up, which I was not too happy about.  But for XP and IE and those who have a dependancy on a "critical" Windows app, I find it quite acceptable.  I think people are getting unrealistic expectations of what a VM will deliver on an Intel Mac, I owned and ran VMware on Linux for years, which was an excellent product (faster than the Windows version too) but still far far slower than native installs, I did try some games but it couldn't even handle certain DOS games well - on modern PC hardware, and anything with sound ran like a horrible nightmare.  Yes, a VM on an Intel Mac will deliver some more speed than VPC now, but don't expect too much.


----------



## fryke (Jun 20, 2005)

Well, I don't think VPC is bad. But a VM that hasn't got to emulate the processor gives better results. That's clear, isn't it.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

I wasn't directing that at you ;-) It was a general observation. Yes a VM on Intel Mac will be better, I was just hinting that people shouldn't expect the world of Windows multimedia and games to open to them.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 21, 2005)

k, thanks. would be nice though....


----------



## abraham_aiza (Jun 22, 2006)

well...

I turned to pc/mac a while ago, my mac was my rest place, while i was married to my pc for work (EXCEL FOR MAC IS PLAIN HARD AND SLOW).

well im dualbooting on bootcamp, and believe me, the ultimate multimedia experience u can have on windows, same goes to gaming, nice work done on the drivers!!!!


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 22, 2006)

Amazing the difference a year makes, doesn't it? 

There we were complaining about how this would be the end of Apple, and now we're singing the praises of Intel Core Duos and Core Solos and being able to run Windows and Mac OS X on a single computer....even the Apple Mac/PC commercials are pushing that! (Although I think they should REALLY focus on getting people to switch to Mac OS X primarily. )

My how times have changed.


----------



## abraham_aiza (Jun 22, 2006)

Well:

That is quite true, while some ppl will buy a mac for its killer hardware, many more (like my case) will buy it cus several aplications, mostly buisness (im a pc guy from 8am to 7pm, i mean, dress like so and do those tasks) run not as good in a mac, like excel formulas, are diferent, and i know excel for pc formulas already, my pc has amazing 10 gb H.D LOL,and the rest is for my beautyfull, bullet proof, stable Mac. the only thing i miss on mac os after running xp is the sound driver, for some weird reason, it is louder on the pc, and if u conect external speakers, the lap top ones will not stop playing, so when mixing music (my passion, hobbie,LOL) it is good as a monitor, wonder if i can do this on mac os....but anyway love the time i switch to mac os, best system ever!


----------



## fryke (Jun 22, 2006)

If you read through the thread, you'll see that not _all_ of us were thinkin' like that, nixgeek.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 22, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> If you read through the thread, you'll see that not _all_ of us were thinkin' like that, nixgeek.



Yeah yeah yeah....nitpicker. 

BTW, I include myself in that group of naysayers who finally turned over....although I still love the PPC platform.


----------



## hawki18 (Jun 23, 2006)

I have been a Mac user for less that a year!  I have all ways heard it is the OS that makes the experience better it does not crash.  The OS does run smoother than Windows I agree.  Also I have to agree with Fryke the style and key boards too.  It was not the hardware that was causing the Windows issues.  Mac switched to Intel get over it before IBM it was Motorola right and Steve keep on bringing out new hardware and software out. Only now there is a new CPU running the show.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 23, 2006)

hawki18 said:
			
		

> I have been a Mac user for less that a year!  I have all ways heard it is the OS that makes the experience better it does not crash.  The OS does run smoother than Windows I agree.  Also I have to agree with Fryke the style and key boards too.  It was not the hardware that was causing the Windows issues.  Mac switched to Intel get over it before IBM it was Motorola right and Steve keep on bringing out new hardware and software out. Only now there is a new CPU running the show.



Personally, I'm over it.  The Intel Core series of CPUs have definitely proven to be top notch as far as performance and power usage, and Conroe and Merom I'm sure will deliver just as much, if not better (especially with 64-bit computing ).

However, that doesn't take away from what I like about the PPC platform.  It's the same reason I still like the 68K Macs.  They were special in their own way...not just because of the software, but the hardware as well.  Sure, Apple and Mac OS X didn't benefit much from the PPC, but it's still a great platform for other operating systems, especially Linux.  I find a certain elegance in the hardware design (not that I know the inner workings, but just enough to sound like I know what I'm talking about ).  Just my chump change on the subject.


----------

