# I'm over it.  Are you?



## cfleck (Jun 8, 2005)

So I was quite disturbed by the Intel announcement the other day, but I'm over it.  I'll accept it and so long as Apple continues to make a better product than the other guys, I'll continue to buy.

I just started this thread to give everyone else a chance to "redeem" themselves, so to speak.  If you made a comment or 5 that you've since gotten over regarding this issue, feel free to post.  Its like AA only not at all.  Group support!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

i've accepted it. PowerPC failed to measure up. Long live the faster Macs! (i'm going to call it a Mac just to wind up HomunQlus)


----------



## lbj (Jun 8, 2005)

No kidding.  It's a chip folks, nothing more, nothing less.

The PPC chip made my Cube/iBook/iMacs no more a Mac than did their respective power cords.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 8, 2005)

I am caught between two views. I accept it because I have no choice.  I think people who are just saying it's a chip issue may not realise fully the implications yet.


----------



## lilbandit (Jun 8, 2005)

More worried about Ireland qualifying for the World Cup in Germany next year, I spent 4000 on a 1994 Mercedes s-class to drive there next year with a group of friends. Some machine, it has armoured windows! Long story short, Ireland drew 0-0 against Israel and kissed goodbye to qualification. Now I've got a 4.0 litre armoured tank sitting in my driveway with nowhere to go!!!


----------



## Fred-Leonard (Jun 8, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> So I was quite disturbed by the Intel announcement the other day, but I'm over it.  I'll accept it and so long as Apple continues to make a better product than the other guys, I'll continue to buy.
> 
> I just started this thread to give everyone else a chance to "redeem" themselves, so to speak.  If you made a comment or 5 that you've since gotten over regarding this issue, feel free to post.  Its like AA only not at all.  Group support!



It depends if the rumor is true.
I have heard it will be a x86 pentium.
If this is the case, GOODBYE APPLE!

If Intel is going to just manufacture the next G6 chip and take over where IBM left off, then it will be OK, but if Steve Jobs has gone senile and decided to use an x86, it's all over!

Look at all of the articles on Apple's own Web site. The G5 kills the Pentium.
Anyone who knows about the internal workings of the chips knows why.
The x86 chip has to bank-select like mad and it takes many more clock cycles to accomplish what can be done in less than half on a modern Mac chip.

What about the 4GB maximum RAM barrier?, no linear memory access?, IRQ's?, and everything else we hate abount the PC? (Ever try to put more than 4GB RAM in an Intel server?)

This would be a 20 year leap backwards!
The PowerMac is a true SuperComputer, the fastest are running near 20 gigaflops. The Intel PCs can't even come close.

Hopefully the Pentium rumor if false.
If it turns out to be true, anyone want to buy a PowerBook? I will be switching to a Sony laptop.


----------



## imajoebob (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm in tune with Fred.  If it's simply an "Intel Inside" for Apple I'll (try to) keep an open mind.  If it's just more x86 garbage then this two year-old PowerBook will have to last a long time.  I understand about the frustration with speed, but since a 2.5GHz PPC still runs circles around a 3.5 Pentium, what's the problem?  And the Pentium hasn't had more than a 10% increase in speed in the last year, has it?  And the G5 is a stable, proven 64-bit chip.  Name three people running 64-bit Intel.

My sinister side says that Jobs is just ticked off at IBM for not making the speed hurdle.  If Apple had been able to come out with an XServer with a 4 or 5GHz G5, there wouldn't be an Intel server installed on the planet.


----------



## imajoebob (Jun 8, 2005)

By the way Fred, don't get a Sony.  The VAIO is almost as pretty as an Apple, but about as sturdy as a 1973 Fiat.  I've smacked, whacked, kicked, and even dropped this poor PowerBook off a 4-foot tabletop with no noteable damage (except to my nerves).  With a VAIO that's called the "Doorstop Manouever."


----------



## lbj (Jun 8, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> I think people who are just saying it's a chip issue may not realise fully the implications yet.



And I think people who are declaring this a confirmed sign of the apocalypse may not realize fully the implications yet.

No one will truly realize fully the implications until a final production Macintel hits the streets.

Everything else until then, everything, is just conjecture and needless worry.

Why don't we wait until we see one to actually judge it?  Or is it just more fun to condemn something sight unseen?


----------



## Ceroc Addict (Jun 8, 2005)

I was over it from day 1. IBM clearly dropped the ball - 2 years after the 3GHz forecast and still no end in sight.

What bummed me out was that this news took up almost the complete keynote (made up for by the aside that it'll be possible to add labelled chapter markers to podcasts). I wanted _some_ kind of product announcement (e.g. as long as they're going Intel, they might as well have announced that they were making a four button mouse too  ).

It's ridiculous how this has brought all the haters out of the woodwork.

Now, if Apple had actually announced that they were _dropping OS X and shipping all future Macs with Windows installed_, I'd be throwing furniture around the room...

Kap


----------



## pipermalibu (Jun 8, 2005)

I agree with everyone that a 2.5 PPC runs circles around a 3.5 Pentium...BUT... the general consumer like big numbers. The eyes start to gloss over if you try to explain why 2.5 PPC is better than 3.5 Pentium.... its all about marketing. 
How about vac cleaners that tout how many amps the motors are. What the f**k that has to do with suction and cleaning power I have no idea. But some marketing genius got us going down that road a few years ago. All it really tells is how high your electric bill is from running it.
Now I don't want to see general Pentiums in the box either...but I think with all other things considered, this will be a very smart move for Apple. They won't seem as far out of the mainstream if they can say Intel Inside. Let's just hope it is a processor that is not used everywhere else, is Windoze compatible (cause that will be a HUGE marketing coup) and has performance in line with todays 2.7 PPC. Knowing Apple, they never accept the status quo, and this will be no different.
Everyone needs to keep the faith!

BTW, I started as an Apple II+ user, went to the dark side for about 18 years, then came home about a year ago for good. I am an OSX user as long as OSX and its decendents are out there.


----------



## chornbe (Jun 8, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> So I was quite disturbed by the Intel announcement the other day, but I'm over it.  I'll accept it and so long as Apple continues to make a better product than the other guys, I'll continue to buy.
> 
> I just started this thread to give everyone else a chance to "redeem" themselves, so to speak.  If you made a comment or 5 that you've since gotten over regarding this issue, feel free to post.  Its like AA only not at all.  Group support!



Thank goodness. Some people are getting paranoid about this. It's just a natural, evolutionary paradigm shift. It happens. Move along... nothing to see here.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 8, 2005)

I just want to see what Intel chips they are using and benchmark them against the Dual 2.7 G5


----------



## texanpenguin (Jun 9, 2005)

They're Pentiums, as shown on the WWDC broadcast on the About This Mac Window.

It's a full change to the x86 architecture.

The PPC was designed by the A.I.M. consortium (Apple, IBM, Motorola). IBM as good as owns it now. There's a rumour (possibly authenticated) that IBM was refusing to license the POWER6 chip to Apple (which would have been the G6).


I think it's an ego move from Jobs (IBM holds out on me, we'll go elsewhere) without considering the sides properly. PPC chips (from IBM) are having a large amount of money pumped into them at the moment from outside A.I.M. - the console market, particularly. More money pumped in means that the production facilities will improve. I think 3GHz G5s aren't that far off, in that respect. The x86 strain has run its course - Intel claims that expecting 4GHz from a Pentium is unrealistic. He did say, though, that Intel was committed to Moore's Law (from memory that the MHz speed increases double every four years or words to that effect), meaning they must have a strategy. Both Jobs and Intel guy said that their future roadmap looks good.

Be interesting to read that.

I have confidence in Apple, though.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 9, 2005)

the G5 is a pathetic chip. real world benchmarks (not apples desperate propaganda) proved this.  good riddance.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

Fred-Leonard said:
			
		

> It depends if the rumor is true.
> I have heard it will be a x86 pentium.
> If this is the case, GOODBYE APPLE!
> 
> ...



It's no rumor, it's true. Apple is beginning right now to plan and build Intel-based machines.



			
				Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> i've accepted it. PowerPC failed to measure up. Long live the faster Macs! (i'm going to call it a Mac just to wind up HomunQlus)



Call it what ever you like.


----------



## Viro (Jun 9, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> the G5 is a pathetic chip. real world benchmarks (not apples desperate propaganda) proved this.  good riddance.



Generalizations are usually wrong. The G5 is an excellent chip, especially if you're into running very very numerically intensive code. Take a look at the FFTW speed benchmarks and see how a 2GHz G5 does against every other processor out there. A G5 running binaries compiled with GCC compares very favorably against a P4 Xeon nearly that has 40% clockspeed advantage that was running binaries compiled by Intel's heavily optimizing compiler. In double precision operations, the G5 and P4 were nearly equal with the G5 being slightly better. Moving to single precision and Altivec, the G5 absolutely blows the P4 and SSE out of the water. If the G5's used IBMs own compiler, which is reported to be much better than GCC, you can expect even better performance. If you think FFTs are merely synthetic benchmarks with no applications, do a Google search.

The G5s are fantastic chips. Who cares if they can't hit 3 GHz? The only reason the P4 can reach 3+ GHz is because of it's architecture. The Athlons/Opterons which share more similarity with the G5s are struggling to go past 2.5 GHz as well. If Steve Jobs really dropped the G5 because he feels IBM dropped the ball, my opinion of him will seriously drop. This will definitely be a case of smart people letting ego get in the way causing them to make stupid decisions.

I thought Apple was trying to break into the scientific and high performance computing segments. Witness their trumpeting of the Virginia tech cluster. The G5s with their incredible Altivec vector units were a God send. The G4s had good vector units but were held back by the poor FSB. The G5s with their GHz+ FSB largely made up for this short coming.

Part of my understanding for the switch to x86 is because there is little hope of getting a G5 into a laptop. This couple with the fact that Intel has the lovely Centrino makes a switch look very attractive from a laptop POV. However, the new G4 processors from Freescale (ex Motorola) have dual cores, and a built in DDR memory controller, fixing what could be all the flaws of the original G4. Why switch? Did Steve piss off Motorola too?

Like texanpenguin says, the PowerPC is really starting to take off. With all the next generation consoles using the architecture, you can bet that things will only get better. PowerPC chips could come down in price due to the extra volume. Compilers will definitely get better as the demand increases for better compilers than the current GCC. In short, this is the worst time to drop PowerPC.

Sometimes, I think Steve has 'the Voice'. It's amazing how he is able to convert the thinking of the masses in less than two days. The G5s are good chips.


----------



## Cat (Jun 9, 2005)

Attention Rumour crossing!

from Macbidouille:





> IBM has been facing huge problems with the PPC975, lately renamed 976 then 980 that has been continuously postponed.
> The 970MP processor project has been launch to avoid a big gap and a abnormal delay between processor update. But it would have been ready only by beginning of 2006 at the earliest, while IBM is still facing problems to manufacture the PPC970FX in large volume.
> Concerning the PowerBookG5, all developments have been stopped. The reason: no way to manufacture PPC970GX necessary to answer both requirements for mobility and battery lifespan. In addition, they could not setup an efficient cooling system as well as a corresponding battery.
> IBM has also decided to drop the PPC750VX which was designed to replace the G4 in entry-level computers.



Like Steve said: no 3GHz, even after two years, no hope at all for G5 PB.

On the bright side, read:

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

What about a Dual Dual-core 64bit intelliMac @ ~4GHz? Doesn't sound so bad ...


----------



## Macaholic G5 (Jun 9, 2005)

To quote H. G. Wells;



> Adapt or perish, now as ever, is nature's inexorable imperative.


----------



## Viro (Jun 9, 2005)

Macaholic G5 said:
			
		

> To quote H. G. Wells;



Will _all_ adaptation guarantee survivability?


----------



## chornbe (Jun 9, 2005)

Ceroc Addict said:
			
		

> What bummed me out was that this news took up almost the complete keynote (made up for by the aside that it'll be possible to add labelled chapter markers to podcasts). I wanted _some_ kind of product announcement (e.g. as long as they're going Intel, they might as well have announced that they were making a four button mouse too  ).



ah, but this was a developer conference, not the typical marketing/launch conference, tho'.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 9, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> Will _all_ adaptation guarantee survivability?



 Nice (also love the proverb in your sig)

I agree with your previous observation that this was a really silly time to do this.

So why do it?
1. Steve is RIGHT about the future?
2. Steve's ego was bruised and fought back?
3. Big business/money is at work and we have yet to see how it will all turn out.


I know a lot of users, especially those who are non-technical don't care about this, nor should they.  I still feel that if done wrong, this move will weaken rather than strengthen the Mac.. or Apple PC....


----------



## metro10 (Jun 10, 2005)

So I re-read page 459 in the old Big Book.... Life on life's terms.  I just really liked the Power PC 64 bit chip and all it promised.  However, this is almost as bad  as when Quaaludes were outlawed   Probably just as well and yet one more thing to get over!


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

I think my position was different even _before_ Steve showed up on that stage, and that probably helped me a lot to get over it. Living and breathing in the Mac rumour world for a long time, I knew that it was technically more than possible to do such a step. And I sat there and listened, and I said to myself: "If Steve can tell me it's _not_ going to be a harder transition than the ones before, then I'm alright with it." And from this position, Steve did a brilliant job, really. He not only told the devs _that_ it would happen, he also very clearly showed them the way. Go Xcode. Create Universal Binaries. It was a clean, smooth job done well. However: It was also clear that while developers would probably see this as a challenge and opportunity, consumers (not all of them, of course) would see it as a challenge and danger.

I guess now that he's done the right job with the devs, there'll come a show or two where Steve has to to de good job with the customers/consumers.


----------



## eleveneastgate (Jun 13, 2005)

After watching Steve and listening to this , I felt better...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 26, 2005)

Why was my post deleted?

I asked if there was anything relevant in the podcast which the above poster felt was worth debating, then post it in a summary form?  I listened to the podcast, or as much as I could and it was just two people stating opinions with nothing new in it.

As for whether I'm over it, nope, just resigned to it and resigned to the fact I'm in a minority in having concerns over the long-term implications.


----------



## Veljo (Jul 4, 2005)

I have a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 thats slow as hell for day-to-day tasks compared to my 800MHz G4 iMac (no joke), so obviously Mac OS X makes much better use of its processor. I think using Intel will be a step in the right direction for Apple. I just hope they don't put those ugly intel inside stickers on Macs 

Also I think Apple have shocked the computing world so much to (for some part) have teamed up with someone who had been a strong supplier to 'their enemies'. Apple are getting lots of attention now. People are standing up saying what the? It's exactly what Apple wants, and what they need. This is a new era of Macs.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jul 4, 2005)

this is funny... (though old)

i haven;t posted the actual image because it's a bit big - but heres a link

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/693.gif


----------

