# It's The End Of The World As We Know It



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

Just in case Apple does the unthinkable I think this is an appropriate title.

I call BS.  At least for the existing computer line.  Maybe a new device using one of Intel's XScale processors but never a Pentium!  Tablet, PDA, iPhone, video iPod...?  Who knows!


----------



## kilowatt (Jun 6, 2005)

I call it too. If anything, Intel will be building the same chips we're currently using. I sure hope so anyway - Apple might not be able to survive another platform 'flip'.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

People have suggested Apple might take the G5 to Intel but I can't imagine anyone being able to develop it any better than IBM.  They built a new billion dollar fab just for the production of Power4 based chips.  Intel would not make that kind of investment just for Apple.


----------



## Damrod (Jun 6, 2005)

I just read that Steve Jobs confirmed that in one (6th July 2006) the first Mac powered by Intel processors will be shipped.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

This is pretty sick.  It's hard to imagine a Intel powered Mac.  For the last decade we've been brainwashed to believe the PowerPC is superior to anything Intel could ever create.  I keep thinking of that G3 commercial with the Pentium II space guy on fire.  The G5 was a huge letdown.  The Virginia Tech super cluster and everything else made us believe the G5 was so superior and now Steve pulls a 360 on us.  Wow.


----------



## whitesaint (Jun 6, 2005)

OMG its true the world is coming to an end as we know it. when the best golfer is black, the best rapper is white, Microsoft is switching to PowerPC and Apple is switching to Intel, the end is near.  Today is a sad day indeed.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Oh yeah.. (Gulped) Since so many of friends will laughing at me! argh..


----------



## kainjow (Jun 6, 2005)

If IBM could keep up with the G5 development and create a mobile version, then yes it would be better, but IBM can't do that. That's why Intel is taking over. It will be so much better for Apple in the long run, and plus they'll be able to compete directly with M$.


----------



## cfleck (Jun 6, 2005)

Has it been said that this will definately be an x86 chip?


----------



## Lycander (Jun 6, 2005)

Isn't it ironic that IBM makes these desktop/server powerhouse CPUs, Motorola focuses on embedded chips, yet they can't get together to make a decent mobile PPC chip?

I'll admit I tend to be unsupportive, and call bull on a lot of Jobs' speeches and promises... but I'm genuinely suprised and disappointed by this news. I was sooo not expecting this. And right now I hope MacWorld's live update is just deceiving me.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> Has it been said that this will definately be an x86 chip?



Jobs demoed OS X Tiger 10.4.1 on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 so I'd say so.


----------



## cfleck (Jun 6, 2005)

That really pissed me off


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 6, 2005)

I think this NOOOOOOO is very approriate

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


----------



## kainjow (Jun 6, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> That really pissed me off


You'd rather go nowhere with the PPC from IBM then get faster procs with Intel? Intel and Apple know what they're doing. IBM obviously doesn't...


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

There is a developer kit that includes a 3.6 GHx Pentium 4 Mac. They will have to be returned by the end of 2006. They will be priced at US$999, and please note that these are for developers only.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

My question why M$ is going to using G5 3.2 ghz on XBOX 360.. I don't understand whats going on!


----------



## cfleck (Jun 6, 2005)

So let me get this straight.  IBM and Apple go nowhere for whatever reason, but clearly Intel and Apple have got this right?  Isn't that what everyone said when they went with IBMa couple of years ago?

Also, in 5 years, this won't be an issue for me, as I'll have moved on and bought all new software.  But right now I own MS Office and was seriously considering purchasing Adobe CS2.  However, I didn't plan on upgrading those for a long while.  Now if I get a new machine in the next couple of years, I'll have to.  

THAT pisses me off. 

Just to spark some thought, how many times have you hear that half the problem with windows is all the shitty hardware that is made and available at Wal-Mart.  Guess what?  Now every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to be flooding these forums trying to get their ACME Joystick Memory Pad RAID device to work and causing all sorts of fits for OS X.  What else is nice is that you will probably be one of them.  Right now we are spoiled by a plethora of quality hardware, but at a premium.  How much more tempted will you be to try out that Wacom knock-off when it is $20?

I wish I had bookmarked it, but not long ago I read an article talking about a number of the problems with Windows being due to its attachment to x86.  I don't know the specifics, as I didn't care at the time, but the jist was that the buffer overflows and other exploits are unique to x86 because of the architecture.  Here comes the virus software! 

Rock on!


----------



## jeb1138 (Jun 6, 2005)

The only sad thing about this is that IBM couldn't keep up.  I've wished for Apple on Intel for a long time -- http://macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189374#post189374

Two Reasons:
1.  Converts -- a near-full-speed VirtualPC (no more processor emulation)
2.  Competition -- AMD and Intel compete with each other plenty, and now they can compete for Apple's business as well.


----------



## j79 (Jun 6, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> You'd rather go nowhere with the PPC from IBM then get faster procs with Intel? Intel and Apple know what they're doing. IBM obviously doesn't...



Are you sure about that??

At the WWDC when the G5 was first released, everyone was excited because we thought the SAME thing! That IBM knew what it was doing (compared to Moto.) They told us how in a year we'd be at 3 GHz. Sounded good. Everyone sipped the koolaid and all was good.

Now two years later, we're told that Intel is the way to go. I'm just waiting for the days when programmers decide, "F**K PPC users, too much work to tweak/recompile. We'll only release an Intel version."

It'll be interesting to see when they remove their charts from their website showing the G5 running 50 - 90% faster than a P4.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 6, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> Just to spark some thought, how many times have you hear that half the problem with windows is all the shitty hardware that is made and available at Wal-Mart.  Guess what?  Now every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to be flooding these forums trying to get their ACME Joystick Memory Pad RAID device to work and causing all sorts of fits for OS X.  What else is nice is that you will probably be one of them.  Right now we are spoiled by a plethora of quality hardware, but at a premium.  How much more tempted will you be to try out that Wacom knock-off when it is $20?


Guess what? Look in this very forum itself and see how many Tom, Dick and Harry is trying to get a piece of hardware working in OSX. You're being a bit naive if you really think there's a quality difference between Mac/PC hardware. Logic board problems, laptop screens going wacky, cooling fans on the fritz, battery recalls... it happens to all computer makers. Apple isn't immune.

The only fundamental difference between any hardware or peripheral made for either Mac or PC, is the drivers. With the exception of video cards, thanks to the video BIOS. But what if this might mean we get new video cards - and even pro ones like Quadro and FireGL and Wildcats - at the same rate as PCs?

So crappy hardware and peripherals are EVERYWHERE. Just because it says Mac compatible on the box does not make it immaculate.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 6, 2005)

j79 said:
			
		

> Are you sure about that??
> 
> At the WWDC when the G5 was first released, everyone was excited because we thought the SAME thing! That IBM knew what it was doing (compared to Moto.) They told us how in a year we'd be at 3 GHz. Sounded good. Everyone sipped the koolaid and all was good.
> 
> ...



First of all, there currently isn't any mention on Apple's consumer website about this. For obvious reasons, Apple will want to keep this as "under the radar" as possible. Reality is, even if Apple doesn't tout it themselves, the whole world will know that it's coming.

And why wouldn't Apple tout it themselves now? Because it will make all PPC unattractive. Apple is going to have a hard time pushing Macs between now and the first batch of Intel Macs, because nobody in the market for a computer wants to buy a dead end platform. While it will probably be close to 2010 before developers cease compiling/releasing for PPC, it will come. If you use the 68K>PPC transition as a comparison... PPC released first in 1994 (and utilizing emulation for most non native software meant that most apps ran slower on the PowerMac 6100 than they did on the Quadra650). By 1997 (three years later) the transition was mostly complete, and developers started abandoning 68k binaries in favor of PPC only.  So a PPC Mac bought in 2006 should have a useful lifespan of 4 years before the user feels the pinch of developers abandoning the PPC platform. 

Still, for those who dont **need** a new machine, and just **want** one, it means we can easily justify waiting until 2006/2007 (or even 2008 if we don't want to endure the early adopter blues) for that next Mac purchase.

It's going to be an interesting 2 years....


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 6, 2005)

jeb1138 said:
			
		

> 2.  Competition -- AMD and Intel compete with each other plenty, and now they can compete for Apple's business as well.



Well of course it depends on one's views as to the merits of competition, it usually ends up with one winner and a whole lot of loosers, especially if Apple and Microsoft end up competing for the desktop market.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Its good news for Apple. Because many customers confused about ghz. No more about MHZ/GHZ method issues.


----------



## Ricky (Jun 6, 2005)

I've said it to all of my friends, and I'll say it again here...

It's the OS that matters, not the chip.  I simply can't use Windows for extended periods of time due to the lack of UI features, like dragging and dropping onto an application icon, for instance.  I really like Exposé too.

As soon as Windows gets stuff like that, I will seriously consider switching.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

It's the end of the thread as we know it. (Too many other threads about it already.)


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 6, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> Just to spark some thought, how many times have you hear that half the problem with windows is all the shitty hardware that is made and available at Wal-Mart.  Guess what?  Now every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to be flooding these forums trying to get their ACME Joystick Memory Pad RAID device to work and causing all sorts of fits for OS X.  What else is nice is that you will probably be one of them.  Right now we are spoiled by a plethora of quality hardware, but at a premium.  How much more tempted will you be to try out that Wacom knock-off when it is $20?



They never said anything about OS X running on anything but Apple machines.  If it did then that could be the end of Apple's hardware sales.  They better make DAMN sure that no one can get it running on some cheap-o PC.



			
				cfleck said:
			
		

> I wish I had bookmarked it, but not long ago I read an article talking about a number of the problems with Windows being due to its attachment to x86.  I don't know the specifics, as I didn't care at the time, but the jist was that the buffer overflows and other exploits are unique to x86 because of the architecture.  Here comes the virus software!



That's just wrong.  You get buffer overflows from bad programming, not from the CPU architecture.  You can get them in Apache which works on x86 and PPC and it's just how it's programmed that gives you the overflows.


----------

