# There is only ONE Reason to buy a Macintosh



## Adonsa (Jun 7, 2005)

_I may get flamed for posting this.  Flame me if you must._ 

There is only one reason to buy a Mac. 

*To have vast superiority over the* IBM-PC-AT-Clone / now *Windows-Intel
Industry Standard. *

To go to the _dark side of computing_ by placing an intel chip inside a Mac is a *putrification of the Macintosh* and an action of gross disrespect to the entire Macintosh community.

Shame on you, Steve Jobs.


----------



## Lycander (Jun 7, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> _I may get flamed for posting this.  Flame me if you must._


Nah, worst case is this thread gets locked.

There has always been only one reason to buy a Mac: MacOS. 

Hardware is just metal, it's the software that allows you to actually do something.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2005)

As shocked I was by this as you are, remember one thing.  Only the CPU is changing.  The CPU changed from 68000 series CPUs to PowerPC CPUs back in the mid 90s, but it was all still Apple.  Atari and Amiga also had 68000 series processors under their hoods, but did that allow them to be like the Mac??  Heck no.

So the CPU has changed...big deal, I'm over it.  Apple will have the final say as to how it will all be integrated, and it will STILL be better than any other PC using the same processor...so we will be looking at some interesting hardware coming down the pike.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Jun 7, 2005)

We already have Darkside-Industry Standards in our Macs for quite some time. Harddisc, ram, graphic unit, optical drive...
What Mac stands for is not Motorola/Freescale or IBM but MacOS, as Lycander mentioned.


----------



## Shookster (Jun 7, 2005)

I'm going to wait and see what the end result is rather than denouncing the new machines before they're even out.

Also, I only recently bought a Mac and the main reason for me doing so was the OS and the software available.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 7, 2005)

I'd like to think Mac users aren't as shallow as that. But maybe not, maybe it really was an elitist thing all these years after all...


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

Also, some "PC" hardware is on-par with Apple for QA, etc. HP workstations aren't bad, and I use a new HP Compaq 8230 laptop at work (i am an IT tech covering ~360 desktops over 8 campuses) and i love it.. the big let-down is Windows. sure, the "average" pc is nothing compared to a mac, but the hardware can be of the same quality and style. it's the OS that makes the big difference.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 7, 2005)

Lycander said:
			
		

> Nah, worst case is this thread gets locked.
> 
> There has always been only one reason to buy a Mac: MacOS.
> 
> Hardware is just metal, it's the software that allows you to actually do something.



You must not have had an original Macintosh back in 1984.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 7, 2005)

Shookster said:
			
		

> I'm going to wait and see what the end result is rather than denouncing the new machines before they're even out.
> 
> Also, I only recently bought a Mac and the main reason for me doing so was the OS and the software available.



Right on...wait to see what new stuff comes with the new Intel Macs...see how Rosetta performs and see the power of the new chips.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 7, 2005)

Adonsa, you are entitled to your assessment. However, if you don't like Apple's future, there are at least two other platforms out there that you can move to. Linux is free (and will work on your current Mac hardware), and Windows. Go give both a try and get back to us.

An Intel chip will change little about the Mac (once the transition is complete). However, June 2006 through December 2007 will be a very interesting (and painful, at times) time for the Mac. Most of the important apps will run OK with Rosetta, but anything with a pref pane, extension, or AltiVec code will be hosed and need a new version to be released for it to work. This list will mostly be comprised of driver software for printers, scanners, and other input devices. 

I lived through the lasts chip transition (68K to PPC), and while it wasn't a major headache, I do remember vividly that the 1st generation of PPC machines ran emulated apps slower than their 68k predecessors. It wasn't until the third generation PPC machines that enough of the software and OS were PPC native that any speed gains were felt. 

I suspect that the pain of this migration will be felt until really mid-2008.


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

"There is only one reason to buy a Mac: To have vast superiority over the IBM-PC-AT-Clone / now Windows-Intel Industry Standard."

If all that made the Mac superior to the PC were Motorola instead of intel chips, then that would be it. But actually, for many years, the PowerPC was more of a _problem_ rather than an advantage. The whole G4 era, for example. Same goes for the time when the 68K got old. The late 68Ks were actually quite good - but couldn't be advanced any more. And the early PowerPCs had to run Mac OS almost completely in emulation, even Disk I/O was emulated!

So: Let's just assume that Apple has a _little_ bit more info on where IBM and intel are headed with their desktop and notebook processors. Let's also - safely - assume that Apple has kept their options open for the past five years. I _really_ think they KNOW why to switch now. The G5 sounded like the better path to walk on when it arrived, and IBM certainly wanted to keep the Mac on the PowerPC side of things, but in the end, IBM couldn't. If you want, shed some tears to the past, but it's the present and the future that count. The present is that Apple has great hardware. The future is that Apple will have even greater hardware. And that it'll be intel chips instead of IBM's. But I'm typing this on the keyboard, not the G4 inside the PB. And I'm looking at the GUI, not the G4 processor or even the graphics card. As long as the look and feel of both the hard- and the software design stay "Mac", it's a Mac.


----------



## MrNivit1 (Jun 7, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> The future is that Apple will have even greater hardware. And that it'll be intel chips instead of IBM's. But I'm typing this on the keyboard, not the G4 inside the PB. And I'm looking at the GUI, not the G4 processor or even the graphics card. As long as the look and feel of both the hard- and the software design stay "Mac", it's a Mac.



Couldn't agree more.  Just hope Apple won't be forced to put the "intel inside" sticker on their hardware...  That wouldn't look right (i.e. hardware too much like every other PC out there).


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 7, 2005)

something i wrote elsewhere regarding a person who is saying that the mac the need 'now' won't be bought until the new intelmacs are released...

'...those people saying they wont buy a mac for a year or two are as stupid as people can get.

if apple didnt change chips yesterday and you bought a new mac today you'd expect to get around 5-6 years of real and good use out of it - before the OS and application requirements pretty much made it obsolete

guess what you dimwitted morons - even with the chip change you'll still get 5-6 years of use out of your new computer! 

doh!

apple have themselves said that they'll be supporting PPC for many years to come - and why would developers stop making stuff for PPC all of a sudden? its got a huge user base - even in 3-4 years from now the user base on PPC will be bigger - so why would they miss out on that market?!

you're a bunch of idiots....'


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 7, 2005)

> but anything with a pref pane, extension, or AltiVec code will be hosed and need a new version to be released for it to work.


Do you know for a fact that AltiVec is not emulated? There's no technical reason it couldn't be, really. It certainly wouldn't be FAST, but the software could run. I remember back on my Performa 475 I used a little gem called Software FPU to make up for my processors lack of a built-in FPU. It didn't make FP operations nearly as fast as a Quadra, but it let them run, anyway. Something similar could be done with AltiVec, and unless specifically stated otherwise, I have to assume it will be done.

I'm not sure what you mean about prefpanes, though. Why could they not be emulated? I'm not even quite sure about extensions. If the emulation layer is as seemless as the 68k-on-PPC one, then just about anything should work. Very large parts of OS 8 were 68k code, after all (even QuickDraw was only PPC-ified with 8.5!)


----------



## Adonsa (Jun 7, 2005)

serpicolugnut said:
			
		

> ...there are at least two other platforms out there that you can move to. Linux is free (and will work on your current Mac hardware), and Windows. Go give both a try and get back to us..



Hi serpicolugnut, thanks for replying.  I'm getting back to you with a partial reply.

I'm using windoze XP right now, and have been using various version of windoze since 2.0 and they all suck.  Going to the dark side because I disagree with Steve Jobs is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.  I usually defend Apple and the Mac Community when confronted by arrogant, _ we're the industry standard_ Pee Cee users.  

I have yet to try Linux, so I'll seek out a Linux User Group and try to test drive Linux.  I'll take your advice.  

May I ask you this?

Is the current (Macs being sold today) G-5 series our last chance to get a non-Intel Mac?

Thanks again for replying, appreciate your insights. 

Adonsa


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 7, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> Is the current (Macs being sold today) G-5 series our last chance to get a non-Intel Mac?


We don't know for sure, but I would expect another G5 revision between now and the time they move the pro lineup to Intel. Steve Jobs said Apple will still be making some PPC system until at least 2007. Which ones will be PPC at that point is anyone's guess, but I imagine the Power Mac G5 will last longer than the low-end and portable models, because those are the ones that stand to benefit most from the switch (since they use the weaker G4).


----------



## Krevinek (Jun 7, 2005)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> Do you know for a fact that AltiVec is not emulated? There's no technical reason it couldn't be, really. It certainly wouldn't be FAST, but the software could run. I remember back on my Performa 475 I used a little gem called Software FPU to make up for my processors lack of a built-in FPU. It didn't make FP operations nearly as fast as a Quadra, but it let them run, anyway. Something similar could be done with AltiVec, and unless specifically stated otherwise, I have to assume it will be done.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean about prefpanes, though. Why could they not be emulated? I'm not even quite sure about extensions. If the emulation layer is as seemless as the 68k-on-PPC one, then just about anything should work. Very large parts of OS 8 were 68k code, after all (even QuickDraw was only PPC-ified with 8.5!)



This information comes straight from the Intel migration guide from Apple. The rules to have working emulation are:

- It currently runs on a G3
- It has its own process (i.e. no kernel drivers or pref panes)
- The entire process must be emulated, or native (so no mix-match of x86/PPC plugins, also why pref panes won't work)

These are the limitations of the emulation, and I am not surprised in the least. SSE3 is missing swaths of VMX instructions, and the G3 is the best processor to emulate since it is a common denominator for the PPC platform. Since emulation is controlled on a per-process level (also very reasonable), plug-ins cannot run in a seperate mode from the process they are a part of. This includes pref panes, drivers/extensions, and possibly even screen savers.


----------



## kainjow (Jun 7, 2005)

As others have said, support for the PPC is not going away anytime soon. If anyone decides not to support the PPC, they are making a very unwise decision. If Apple wasn't going to support the PPC, then why make a *universal* binary format? That's the whole point of the universal binary format. Now developers can reach all the "old" PPC computers and the new Intel computers, pretty easily. If you need a computer now, buy one now. It's the same as it always has been with computers. Once you buy it, it's already old (but it'll still last you plenty of years) 

Plus, for all those who are saying the PPC is the reason why Mac's are different, get a grip. The PPC is about the ONLY thing in the Mac hardware that makes it different from a PC. PC's and Macs both use the same input (USB and FireWire), they both use the same output (VGA and DVI), they both use the same I/O (ATA, SATA, IDE), they both use the same wireless (WiFi, Bluetooth). The only differences are that they use the PPC processor instead of x86, and their graphics cards requires specific firmware/drivers, so you need Mac-specific graphic cards, although they both use AGP. So, pretty much at the core, Macs and PCs are identical, except for the processor.

I'm hoping now that they are switching to Intel that their PowerMacs will gain the ability to use third-party graphic cards (i.e. the ones you could buy at CompUSA). But won't this simply require more Mac drivers from ATI and nVidia?


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

Btw. about those prefpanes etc.: You don't really _want_ them to be emulated. But from earlier transition experiences, I can safely tell you that little free- and shareware will pop up updated for the new platform plentiful and early.


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 7, 2005)

There is only ONE Reason to buy a Macintosh...?

Actually, there is usually more than one.
Ask people why they brought a Mac and the traditional responses have been;

> For ease of use.
> Better designed product (style) / quality hardware.
> The Mac OS. (The look and feel of the Mac).
> The superior computer (This has ALWAYS been debatable).
> Faith in a company that makes BOTH the hardware and the software.
> The more user-friendly and more reliable operating system.
> Personal choice - "think different".
> Because I'm not technical and I want something that WORKS!
> The more innovative product that lasts longer (better value for money).
> ...(Plus many, many more responses).

Now, looking through that list - I can't see too many of these reasons changing at all just because of a different processor. I think the interesting thing to notice is that people are realising that what makes a Mac a Mac, isn't the hardware - it's the operating system.

Strange but true, this has always been the case. If you go back to 1984, it was the operating system and its GUI that made Mac stand out from anything else. Sure, Apple has often made some amazing, innovative hardware (Apple's always been good at hardware) that puts it's computers above the rest. But, fundamentally, the operating system is what we all LOVED about the Mac. 

I'm (starting) to think that this is a good move by Apple. Get past the initial shock - and it becomes apparent that Apple is (hopefully) trying to save us from a stagnant processor development situation - and we can't have another Motorola G4 scenario! Apple wants us to have the best processors in the near future.

Furthermore, I like where this is heading. It means that Apple will be concentrating more on software and software development. And truth be told - this is where the battle is now being fought. Apple currently tells it as it is; "OS X is the most advanced operating system on the planet!" Regardless of what processor it runs on - it's the operating system that counts. 

Maybe there is only ONE Reason to buy a Macintosh!
> The operating system - "Mac OS X".
(It's what makes a Mac a Mac)

Sure, I could buy Microsoft Windows...
But I want an operating system that; 
> works,
> is stable, 
> is fast,
> is intuitive and easy to use,
> and... has style!

Keep in mind that Macintosh computers will always distingish itself from the crowd though the use of clever innovation, use of overall quality hardware components, amazing software, and the use of form and function - to create computers that not only work better but look better too. 

Thank-u Apple for looking out for my future!


----------



## Adonsa (Jun 7, 2005)

tumbleguts said:
			
		

> > For ease of use.
> > Better designed product (style) / quality hardware.
> > The Mac OS. (The look and feel of the Mac).
> > The superior computer (This has ALWAYS been debatable).
> ...



and more.

These are some of the [excellence in computing] components that give us the one reason to prefer a Mac - * vast superority over the PC "industry standard."*

It's not just the system.  It's vastly superior hardware.  At work I have to use Dell Pee Cee's.  A few years ago I ordered 9 of Dell's pride and joy, the C 840.  Five were dead upon arrival.  The rest had serious problems.  Recently I ordered about 10 of Dell's finest laptops - The D800 (or whatever).  Two were dead on arrival, the rest had dead components or problems serious enough to call in the Dell Dude.  Hard core PC users consider this to be "business as usual."  They're quite contented to deal with crap.  Why?  Because they were raised on crap - all the way back to their pride and joy - the PC Junior.  

I respectfully have one more point to make, but have to start a new thread, now that this message thread is re-oriented to a discussion of the Altivec computer (whatever that is).  

Respectfully,
Adonsa


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 8, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> As shocked I was by this as you are, remember one thing.  Only the CPU is changing.  The CPU changed from 68000 series CPUs to PowerPC CPUs back in the mid 90s, but it was all still Apple.  Atari and Amiga also had 68000 series processors under their hoods, but did that allow them to be like the Mac??  Heck no.
> 
> So the CPU has changed...big deal, I'm over it.  Apple will have the final say as to how it will all be integrated, and it will STILL be better than any other PC using the same processor...so we will be looking at some interesting hardware coming down the pike.


Yeah Amiga actually put the Mac to shame and only one year after 1984.


----------



## pds (Jun 8, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> A few years ago I ordered 9 of Dell's pride and joy, the C 840.  Five were dead upon arrival.  The rest had serious problems.  Recently I ordered about 10 of Dell's finest laptops - The D800 (or whatever).  Two were dead on arrival, the rest had dead components or problems serious enough to call in the Dell Dude.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Adonsa


So, what was it the was broken. I don't think (could be wrong) that it is the cpu. Yeah, Dell and others cut corners and fashion shoddy work. But Apple stlii has control of the whole production process. 

I don't see where the intel chip is at fault for this.


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 8, 2005)

people sure are upset over this change. personally, I think software is more important than hardware. I came for OSX.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 8, 2005)

Adonsa said:
			
		

> Is the current (Macs being sold today) G-5 series our last chance to get a non-Intel Mac?



Steve said there are some great new PPC computers yet to be released, so no that's not the last of the PPC Macs.  The high end machines are probably going to be the last ones to be switched over.


----------



## Quicksilver (Jun 9, 2005)

Hey look at it like this. when the new computers are officially released it could be a better alternative for the average consumer to buy a computer with both operating systems rather than just one. after all Apple is supposed to be a hardware company right? 

So they can now acctually really compete with the big players like HP and Dell, etc and sell the hardware with windows in it for the people who want windows in it. But also have Mac os x pre installed in order to allow a better switch and a little exploration for those curious people who don't have that much of a curious wallet.

Now that would be a hot seller.


----------



## Esquilinho (Jun 9, 2005)

I don't care which processor is inside, as long as I can get a better performance out of my mac... should I burn in hell for this??


----------



## Lycander (Jun 9, 2005)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> Hey look at it like this. when the new computers are officially released it could be a better alternative for the average consumer to buy a computer with both operating systems rather than just one. after all Apple is supposed to be a hardware company right?
> 
> So they can now acctually really compete with the big players like HP and Dell, etc and sell the hardware with windows in it for the people who want windows in it. But also have Mac os x pre installed in order to allow a better switch and a little exploration for those curious people who don't have that much of a curious wallet.
> 
> Now that would be a hot seller.


I can tell you right now that is NOT going to happen. Companies like Dell and HP have agreements with Microsoft that new PCs sold must have an OS installed on it. Back when BeOS was still alive, they struggled painfully to get companies to ship PCs with BeOS pre-installed. Microsoft put a stop to it very easily. They simply said: "you sell only Windows PCs or we'll shut you out."

Dell did get ballsy once and offered "white box" PCs, meaning they sold systems with no hard drive, or no OS pre-installed on the hard drive.

We still don't know the technical nature of the new Intel based Macs, but just judging but the current business politics (I hate that term) of Apple and Microsoft, we're not going to see both operating systems on the same computer, at least not sold in retail.


----------



## chadwick (Jun 9, 2005)

You can order some Dells today without an OS installed, and they have several models that are "preinstalled with Linux." They don't really save anything off the price, though, and they tend to be hidden away on the site in the small business side of the things.

I've got a PowerEdge 400SC here that came without an OS, for example. I bought it last year.


----------



## metro10 (Jun 10, 2005)

What about all the glorious hype about the PowerPC g5 chip w/ the 64 bit architecture and Altivek etc, etc,?  What a load!   I should have just stuck with a $379 Dell (includes 17" LCD) and saved $3500 (G5 2.0 and 23"LCD)!!!   This reminds of when I bought my first Mac in '95 ($4000 Powermac 7500/100!) I was promised  "phone support for life" which Apple promptly dropped in 96 or '97.  Such BS-  really unbelievable.  I hope Steve Jobs sleeps well (and loses his a$$ behind this).


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 10, 2005)

metro10 you're right!

your G5 is a pile of sh*t!!! grrrr @ apple!!! that dell would have been miles and miles and miles better than a poxy G5!!!

and that 23" lcd?!?!?!?! 

what were apple thinking! drop kick that pile of trash into next tuesday!

...right?...


----------



## metro10 (Jun 10, 2005)

Quicksilver: I hope you do find a "golden apple" but don't expect to find it in Cupertino.... pi$$ed macker


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 10, 2005)

i'm coming round to your argument actually metro10

i'm going to sell my G4 powerbook - i mean c'mon!!! - no G5!??! SCREW THAT!

one of those great dells you see advertised on the back of tv guides MUST be better because its SO much cheaper!

and my ipod - rubbish!!! - iriver for me!

itunes music store?!?! who's bloody idea was that?!?!!? i'll take napster!

and who actually uses iLife?!?! what overpriced crap!

superior OS?!?!? my arse! windows xp sp2 patch heaven is the way forward!


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

Ok, well I think this thread has died.

Idiots.


----------



## metro10 (Jun 10, 2005)

I wish I could play for everyone the slick and glowing promo movie installed on all "display" G5s in stores last year.  Was not "the heart and soul" of the new G5 the IBM Power PC chip?  64 bit architecture, Altivek, etc, etc, etc,.  Steve and the Cupertino gang have pulled off one the biggest ripp-offs in history.  For all of you that have made a career out of apologizing for Apple and Jobs- open up a lemonade stand!


----------



## pds (Jun 10, 2005)

> Ok, well I think this thread has died.
> Idiots.


I think the plural is misplaced. Sarcasm is hardly mastered by an idiot.

Metro - when you throw it out, let me know where, I can send someone by to haul it away for you.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Btw.: While we're all agitated and angry, we should not forget about the board rules. Calling people idiots is not really, well, productive to say the least.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 10, 2005)

> I wish I could play for everyone the slick and glowing promo movie installed on all "display" G5s in stores last year. Was not "the heart and soul" of the new G5 the IBM Power PC chip? 64 bit architecture, Altivek, etc, etc, etc,.



that doesn't make sense. a G5 is a type of processor. the G5 IS a 64bit PowerPC CPU from IBM.

yes. the G5 was apple's "biggest and baddest".

IT STILL IS. the first Intel/Mac isn't released for another year. it'll be 2007 before the whole product line changes over.

that doesn't change how kick-ass the G5 is. i challenge you to buy one, compare it to a simmilar "Wintel" box and tell me it doesn't kick ass?


----------



## lbj (Jun 10, 2005)

metro10 said:
			
		

> What about all the glorious hype about the PowerPC g5 chip w/ the 64 bit architecture and Altivek etc, etc,?  What a load!   I should have just stuck with a $379 Dell (includes 17" LCD) and saved $3500 (G5 2.0 and 23"LCD)!!!   This reminds of when I bought my first Mac in '95 ($4000 Powermac 7500/100!) I was promised  "phone support for life" which Apple promptly dropped in 96 or '97.  Such BS-  really unbelievable.  I hope Steve Jobs sleeps well (and loses his a$$ behind this).





Tell you what, I'll give you $1137 for your Apple set up and then you can buy three sets of that Dell wonder.

Deal?


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

parb.johal@ante and metro10, sorry I called you both idiots.  Name-calling is not part of my beliefs and I have done wrong, please forgive me.

I just want Apple to start clarifying stuff about the nature of future machines, infighting with the fans and hesitation by potential buyers isn't good.

The raised emotions really *prove* how much all of us care about our platform, I hope Apple respect that trust and don't betray it, but we are talking about a company.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

Apple's been as clear as they need to be. The move to intel will start in June 2006 for users and now for developers. The PowerPC processors will be introduced in new machines until sometime in 2007, when the last line of Macs will go intel. More exact information? Not by Steve, he's been burnt by IBM and won't promise a chip he _thinks_ will be used in June 2006 but might have to be changed because of a possible (always possible) delay or something. No talk about 64bit or 32bit? That's because intel offers a choice of processors by June 2006, some of which do, others _don't_ offer 64bit extensions. What more do you need clarified?

I actually expect Apple to talk PowerPC again when they next produce a product, since Steve's been clear about that there are quite a few products based on PowerPC to be unveiled before June 2006.

A switch like that isn't easily communicable. Had they just released a Mac mini with an intel processor last week for everyone, it would have been an even greate disaster, because every Carbon/Cocoa app out there would've only run in emulation until devs had the time to at least recompile.

But a year in advance seems to be much too much time to grasp for the average user, as far as I can see the reactions. People mix current products with roadmaps and vice versa. People seem to forget completely how the PowerPC repeatedly has let us down and suddenly seem to believe it was sort of the holy grail, where it had been part of a large problem for Apple. (It attracted the geeks, but not the wide public, who _really_ thought MHz was everything and probably thought a PIII was more or less the same as a G3, because of the "version number".)


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 10, 2005)

Definition of Idiot: A foolish or stupid person.

I don't know about you - but having been seduced thru years and years of Apple marketing about the virtues of the PowerPC over anything else... to suddenly be told that it was all bullshit...

Well... I'm feeling a little foolish!


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

Well, after switching back to Mac, reading and believing (to a point) some of the propaganda, evangelising about it and shelling out SO MUCH MONEY on software that I could have bought another two Mac minis for friends or family, I am feeling like I've been played for a fool to a degree.

..and to take advantage of the Intel chips I'll have to re-purchase everything again! I guess Rosetta won't be exactly a speed demon on an Intel Mac mini?


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 11, 2005)

tumbleguts said:
			
		

> Definition of Idiot: A foolish or stupid person.
> 
> I don't know about you - but having been seduced thru years and years of Apple marketing about the virtues of the PowerPC over anything else... to suddenly be told that it was all bullshit...
> 
> Well... I'm feeling a little foolish!


The switch to Intel doesn't mean that anything said about the PPC was bullshit, it's simply that Apple can't continue to develop competitive products with anything the PPC roadmap has in store for the desktop in the coming years. Apple doesn't necessarily see Intel as a better alternative in terms of performance, but that Intel has a roadmap with a release schedule that has a steady progression forward. That Intel has performance that's close enough, equal to and in some cases better than what PPC has to offer for now and the foreseeable future and that they're able to deliver those products to market.


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 11, 2005)

Thanks "Oscar Castillo" for giving me the - "NEW" - Apple marketing blurb...

Gee wizz - the way Apple keeps changing its tune these days you have to think twice to find out which side of the fence your sitting on. 

Now look... - don't get me wrong... I completely understand that this switch to Intel is a business decision. And I might add, I think it's a very smart business decision. 
(thank-u "Oscar" for the rational reality).

However, my original point remains (see post #42 above). That being, that Apple has always been very good and successful at marketing their products. And most of us have been both seduced and comforted by powerful "PowerPC" propaganda. So, it's no wonder that this "business decision" has caused such angst within the mac community. (Even this thread was founded on the idea that the ONLY reason to buy a Mac was because of it's amazing PowerPC processor!) The irrational way people are responding has a direct corelation to the "bullshit" they have been sold. Apple's gift for marketing has backfired.

I didn't mean that what was said about the PPC was bullshit. But (in general) most marketing is. Apple continually highlighted and hyped-up the virtues of the PPC and used it as one of their main marketing reasons to invest in a Mac. Consequently, (good business or not) it comes as no surprise that people are reacting to this decision the way they are, now the tables have turned. 

In fact, Steve Jobs is attempting to directly challenge his own "reality distortion field". Whether the PPC is bullshit or not is irrelivant. We were "sold" the idea that the PPC was better than Intel (and briefly it was) - but now, we are being forced to accept the complete opposite...  yep, it's a "flux" moment.


----------



## fryke (Jun 11, 2005)

Hm. I guess it's just not that black and white. If you ever had an interest in CPU technology, it was always clear that each kind of processor had a different main goal. Back when the Athlon was new, it was clearly a beast at integer number crunching, but the PowerPC shined in floating point processing. But the months passed, the Athlon scaled well, the PPC didn't scale at all. And while the generic truth of integer vs. floating point was still true, real world applications showed that although maybe PPC was the generally better idea, the Athlon was the better performer (although not a power saving one).

I believe Apple _really_ believed in the PowerPC. It was elegant. It was "more Mac" than any processor out there. But sometimes in business you simply have to do a reality-check. According to my information, IBM wanted more money from Apple to further develop the PowerPC. Being the one main customer, this was probably simply becoming too expensive for Apple. Seeing how IBM at the same time was dancing with Sony and Microsoft (Cell being not a good option for desktop/notebook PCs, Xenon being exclusive to Microsoft), it probably just stopped making sense to push the PowerPC again and again. It's not _just_ business. I remember all too well how Apple again and again "failed beautifully", creating wonderful systems that simply were much too expensive to reach more than a niche market. If I look at what I've paid for my PowerBook 5300ce back then and look at what I've paid for my current PowerBook, I'd say I'm glad that this new PB is using standard type monitor connectors, RAM etc. instead of highly sophisticated Apple technologies that in the end only mean I have to buy special versions of accessories that _again_ cost more.

What Apple said about the PowerPC wasn't wrong, wasn't bullshit. It wasn't the whole truth and only the truth, either. That's how marketing goes. You wouldn't have wanted Apple to say anything like "Yeah, we know, our processors suck in MHz, but they make up for it in elegance"... We _wanted_ to hear that the PPC was the greatest thing out there.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 11, 2005)

I think we can all learn a lesson about hype. I have long been an uber Mac fan, like most of you. But 2-3 years ago (pre-G5) when the MHZ gap was at its worst, I started becoming very pragmatic about analyzing speeds between the platforms.

I ran numerous tests performing identical operations on multiple computers, PC and Mac. It was after doing this that I realized that with few exceptions, the faster Intel (and AMD) chips were just that...faster. For me, it was apparent that the MHZ myth was no myth at all.

Now don't get me wrong, there ARE exceptions. Look at Motion, for example. That is one amazing app with nothing can touch it in the Windows world. (In the price range anyway, and even then, not as complete as Motion in many areas).

Since media production is my business, speed is critical. PCs wipe the floor with Macs for 3D work (though Luxology is changing that tune). On the other hand, video work is quite fast on the Macs and definitely more efficient overall due to workflow and better software. MP3 ripping on G4/G5 Macs is REALLY fast. Games are not.

I could go on and on with examples. So could you guys. My point is just that I have learned to ignore marketing information from ALL sources and rely on places like barefeats.com (which seems fair even given the obvious Mac bias).

Saying the G5 is "pound for pound" better than a given Intel is a misleading argument, given that the Pentiums are so much "heavier". They easily make up the difference in theoretical technology limitations.

Apple has clearly recognized and accepted this harsh reality and decided to take it on, as painful as it may be. I have a consultant who used to work for Apple as a top exec. He told me something enlightening based on meetings with Steve, which was that Steve fully recognizes that the creative industry IS Apple. Steve/Apple see the creative industry as the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY (in spite of what this iPod phenom might lead you to believe). The only way you can appease the creative industry is with the fastest, highest end machines and top notch software to run on those machines. Apple's got the software part down (just look at how Final Cut revolutionized an entire industry). I believe Intel will help us get there on the hardware side.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

tumbleguts said:
			
		

> Thanks "Oscar Castillo" for giving me the - "NEW" - Apple marketing blurb...
> 
> Gee wizz - the way Apple keeps changing its tune these days you have to think twice to find out which side of the fence your sitting on.
> 
> ...


I think it was H.G. Wells who said marketing is legalised lying. 

You do have a point.  Steve Jobs, or lets make him our friend and just call him Steve, could squeeze a turd into a bowl with comments like "we're really excited about this.." and the fanatics will lap it up AND buy the sprinkles to go with it. Apple are great at marketing and people buy into it as gospel truth, even when it's contradictory.

As I wrote on my weblog, there are two ways of seeing this Intel move, depending on whether you buy the spin...

_Starting mid 2006 Apple will introduce Macs with Intel chips, the OS X is already ported with the Rosetta technology to run current PowerPC-based Mac applications, developers will be creating Universal Binaries to run on both systems during the two year transition.

Sounds great when put like that, especially with the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field effect.

Alternatively...
Apple are phasing out their PowerPC-based Macs as they've hit a wall, leaving current customers pi$$ing in the wind for upto 2 years. Apple have ported their OS to the PC architecture and are probably going to become an expensive PC compatible maker which will be branded Macintosh, not that the fans will know or care. Some limited support of PowerPC apps will be provided albeit slowly and provided the apps don't make use of anything that came after the G3 processor.  If you want your apps to run at speeds better than a crusty G3, you're going to have to buy EVERYTHING again! Universal Binaries, the application vendors are rubbing their hands with joy._

The truth, as per usual, is probably in the unexplored grey area in-between.   

The sick thing is IF Apple said in 9 months that the transition was to be cancelled, you'd see another flip, "Yeah well, who wants the Mac to be a manky PC?".  "PowerPC is great, it's just taken time for IBM to get it's act together, but we knew they'd come through for us".

I believe! I believe! Whatever you say Steve, I WILL BELIEVE!!


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

My final thoughts on this, as I'm getting bored of the subject now, it's been done to death on several threads and I've vented most of my rage now, are...

1. The decision, right or wrong is done and I have no power to change it.
2. Steve, aka Muaddib, the Mac-ite Mahdi, has seen the future of what Intel are offering and know things we dont.

As long as the new machines are NOT just PCs sold with hype and propaganda to fool people into thinking they are something MORE than just a PC, I don't give a stuff and will upgrade my beautiful Mac mini next year.

I'm done. ;-)  I'll revisit this in a year, if someone reminds me.


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 11, 2005)

The 5 Stages of Grief:

Denial (what the #$@#! Apple can't do that! This isn't happening!)
Anger (why? Is Apple #$%#ing with me!!!)
Bargaining (They have to be dual boot AND with better graphics cards...)
Depression (My new G5 suddenly de-valued by $2000)
Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever Apple knows is best...) 

Gee - from comments like above it looks like we might be coming around to "Acceptance".  Reading back over this thread I've noticed that some really constructive and valid points have been made - some that haven't appeared in other threads. Worthwhile.

In returning to previous comments about bullshit / marketing / & deception.
I want to clarify that in no way was I 'bashing' the PPC. Hell, I'm still stuck on a suped-up G4 Quicksilver which I still think is the bees-knees! My intention was to offer a relative but different perspective of explaining the stirred-up emotions that this issue has created. And pointing a disapproving finger at Apple's marketing department. 

From the little that I understand about processor design (cleaner/elegant/efficient/etc), I guess I'm disappointed that the PPC is unlikely to be developed further. And although that may not necessarily be the case - I'm thinking that without a relatively major company like Apple pushing for its development, its future is looking a little bleak - even despite the apparent development limitations.

As I've stated earlier, I think this is a smart move by Apple. I like the idea that Apple will now show it's worth thru software design. I really believe that what makes a Macintosh a Macintosh is (and always has been) the operating system - and not the processor inside. So, bring it on...


----------



## g/re/p (Jun 11, 2005)

Mac OS X will only run on Macs  - Apple has no plans to sell Mac OS X software to run on PCs.

Apple has no plans to sell or support Windows.


----------

