# ya'll gotta relax



## chornbe (Jun 8, 2005)

OS/x won't run Windows apps. Windows won't run Mac apps.

Just lighten up and enjoy the evolution.

It's a good thing, this Intel thing. Honest.


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 8, 2005)

thank you. we need more voices of reason.


----------



## Qion (Jun 8, 2005)

Chornbe's right. It doesn't matter what chip our Macs are running on, it's still OSX. These new Macs are going to be amazingly fast. There STILL isn't going to be any Windows market share on our platform.  

Change is good, ya'll.


----------



## Reality (Jun 8, 2005)

If they are faster then that's better for everyone. I say good.


----------



## Releaux (Jun 8, 2005)

I think this is going to be a great thing... if I can dual boot into OS X and Windows (as even Apple seems to think I'll be able to do at some point soon after the switch), that means I only have to upgrade/replace one computer moving forward. No more separate boxes for OS X and Windows/Linux! No more KVM switches! No more SMB hassles!

Add to this the fact that WINE will almost certainly appear on OS X, and I may not even need Windows at all for things like Quickbooks and other programs with either substandard Mac versions or no Mac version at all...

My only concern is that if Macs run Windows apps as well (or pretty darn close to) as Windows itself (either in dual-boot or emulation modes), developers might not see the need to develop Mac-native programs.

Still, I'm very positive about the long-term benefit of this change. I think it's going to help the Mac community in ways we haven't even realized yet.


----------



## tumbleguts (Jun 8, 2005)

Agreed.

I can't understand why all of a sudden people are so worried about whether or not Windows will run on the up-coming Intel-Macs. I mean, come-on! We all know Windows is a buggy piece of crap. If ill-intentioned idiots want to want to run it on their new Intel-Macs - who cares! This shameful display of insecurity is not what being a member of the 'Mac class' is all about. 

Take pride in the fact that Apple is securing the future so Macs have the fastest processors available for the their 'superior' machines. If you care about Apple being around and competing on any level in the next decade and beyond - seriously, this is the ONLY way to go. Out of this arrangement we will get faster and cooler processors for the Apple laptops. We will get faster processors for the desktop machines that can ALWAYS compete with the competition. And, we will most likely get access to other hardware (like graphics cards) without the relevant companies having to make specialised Mac versions. Combine that with OS X "... the most advanced operating system on the planet", and Apple is primed for a win, win situation.

To quote an earlier post;
"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." 

This is a smart move by Apple.


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 9, 2005)

chornbe said:
			
		

> OS/x won't run Windows apps. Windows won't run Mac apps.
> 
> Just lighten up and enjoy the evolution.
> 
> It's a good thing, this Intel thing. Honest.



I think that since Mac OS X is a Unix system, and Windows is a Windows system, it is pretty obvious that apps from one system won't run natively on the other one (unless you have Wine, which allows you to run some Windows apps on OS X, but there's still no way to run OS X apps on Windows though).


----------



## dixonbm (Jun 9, 2005)

I can't wait to play computer games on my dual boot Macintosh with windows on a second drive. That's the biggest thing I am excited about after hearing about Windows on my Mac.


----------



## Cat (Jun 9, 2005)

AFAIK "dual boot Macintosh with windows on a second drive" is not a certainty, at all. Schiller said that some people will probably try this, and Apple wasn't going to actively stop them. However, _running_ Windows is one thing, _booting_ windows another. You will probably be able to run windows or windows programs inside the Mac OS, but whether you will be able to boot an unmodified intelliMac straight into windows is still doubtful.


----------



## chornbe (Jun 9, 2005)

Bingo.

People are getting up in arms over something that will, in all likelihood, be difficult at best, and not possible at all, most likely.


----------



## Quietly (Jun 10, 2005)

I have a feeling that when people are sitting there with their new Dual 5GHz Multi-Core PowerMacs in a few years, they won't be pining for the old PPC macs anymore anyway...


----------



## aicul (Jun 10, 2005)

Yes, stay cool..

What counts for me is that the box remains stylish. The rest I leave to others. Look at it positively we may all be using the new "classic" iMac  

Besides, what did Apple use as a CPU before the PPC macs?


----------



## Squibler (Jun 10, 2005)

I am still not sure about this, these new Intel chips just can't be as fast as the PowerPC chips that Apple has, and is evolving.  Intel chips are cheap, they don't last as long and they definately don't deliver the same speed. What was Apple thinking? A Mac is a Mac, Mac has never ventured into the Wintel world before and they are going great. They have an amazing OS and I just think an Intel processor might ruin the OS. This developer thing, having to write codes from the ground up is a bit daunting, Mac made the OS9 to OSX change and that stirred a few people up with the transition and now they want to try and change the hardware.

Apple was known well to think different - they have just joined the Intel world and suddenly they aren't so different any more.

Don't get me wrong, I am still on Apple's side.


----------



## Quietly (Jun 10, 2005)

As far as speed goes, I think that this may be why Apple is making the switch now. Granted the top end Pentium IV is not as fast as the PPC equivalent (though there's not much in it), but I'm guessing that Intel is ready to launch it's next generation processor - and IBM have no plans for a G5 replacement.

Assuming that this is the case, Intel will leave the G5 way behind quite quickly. Apple looked at the respective Processor roadmaps, saw this and decided that the time had come for the switch.


----------



## symphonix (Jun 10, 2005)

As I said in another post...

If you're still in doubt about the Intel switch, take the time (60 quite entertaining mins) to watch to Keynote announcement of it before you make unbased claims. It'll tell you exactly what is real and what isn't.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

- There was no mention of Windows compatibility. Windows is not likely to be a priority for Apple or for almost all of the users who buy Macs. Frankly, I suspect most Mac users don't want to use Windows anyway.

- Universal Binaries and Rosetta will make the switch of hardware transparent to the end user. You'll still run the same .app file and it'll do exactly the same thing regardless of hardware. On Intel hardware, pre-migration apps will run in an emulation layer called "Rosetta" which was demonstrated running Office and PhotoShop. Post migration, the apps will be compiled to run on both platforms natively.

- The PowerPC has not been abandoned, yet. There will still be PowerPC based products in the future. For the next few years, Apple will probably use PowerPC chips wherever they are the most effective option.

- You won't be running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, either. Apple will be locking down the OS to the hardware very tightly. The reason for this isn't that they want to restrict us. With non-Apple hardware, installing and using Mac OS X may or may not be a compatibility nightmare, and they don't want people to have a bad experience of the OS.

- Finally, the impression I got from Steve's comments is that they were going with Intel because Intel have a proven record of being able to develop quickly, and ship in huge quantities, at a reasonable price.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 10, 2005)

symphonix said:
			
		

> (snip)
> - Finally, the impression I got from Steve's comments is that they were going with Intel because Intel have a proven record of being able to develop quickly, and ship in huge quantities, at a reasonable price.



If that had anything to do with it, they would have used intel from the start. Steve is only going to intel now to chap IBM's ass.


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 10, 2005)

pjeski - IBM hit a wall, development on the G5 chip just stalled - and their main customers are now the games machines makers.

why develop for apple when they are tiny slice of revenue?

plus IBM could never get enough G5 chips to apple as they needed them. their supply chain was terrible - and its well documented that it was.

those are facts.

so do you see how as a sound business decision it actually makes sense?

do you?...


----------



## pjeski (Jun 10, 2005)

parb.johal@ante said:
			
		

> pjeski - IBM hit a wall, development on the G5 chip just stalled - and their main customers are now the games machines makers.
> 
> why develop for apple when they are tiny slice of revenue?
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 10, 2005)

why?


----------



## pjeski (Jun 10, 2005)

Because no one, not even Jobs, knows how far IBM is from the next chip. And no one, not even Jobs, knows that intel is going to be any better. Jobs just knows one thing. IBM failed to deliver on the 3GHz chip. And he is going to punish them. All of you on the pro intel side have been saying that IBM does not care enough about the Apple market to perform for them. Well, do you really think intel cares? 2.4 percent of the market and intel is supposed to get worked up? Who do you think is going to get stiffed if there is a delivery problem, Dell (at what, 20% of the market) or Apple, at 2%. Apple had roughtly 100% of the Power PC Computer market. Even if games are taking a larger portion of the chips, Apple would always be a bigger customer to IBM than to intel. intel will only provide Apple with the current chips that every other PC maker is getting. They may even, (and should) give Dell first access to the best chips. Apple is nothing to intel once the news subsides. Apple is now stuck in the mainstream.

 Do you see how foolish and emotional Jobs is? Do you?...


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 10, 2005)

> Well, do you really think intel cares? 2.4 percent of the market and intel is supposed to get worked up? Who do you think is going to get stiffed if there is a delivery problem, Dell (at what, 20% of the market) or Apple, at 2%. Apple had roughtly 100% of the Power PC Computer market. Even if games are taking a larger portion of the chips, Apple would always be a bigger customer to IBM than to intel. intel will only provide Apple with the current chips that every other PC maker is getting. They may even, (and should) give Dell first access to the best chips. Apple is nothing to intel once the news subsides. Apple is now stuck in the mainstream.


Some good points there.


----------



## fryke (Jun 10, 2005)

What do you think Steve Jobs asked IBM when IBM said they could deliver a, mmh, 2.5 GHz chip in June 2004? If I take your word, he said "oh, that's a drag" and didn't ask any further. Same thing this year, when IBM happily produced a 2.7 GHz chip? You think Apple has NO MORE information on IBMs roadmap than we do? Truly?

The beautiful thing about intel, pjeski, is that Apple doesn't HAVE to be anything to intel. Intel will go on delivering more and better CPUs. Not only because they have competition "at home" (AMD and others), but also because they need to keep things alive in order to survive. Apple can buy their chips. Apple can buy AMDs chips. Apple even has the option - anytime! - to go back to IBM, should they produce a chip that's better suited for Macs. intel does _not_ give precedence to any Dell or HP around. Intel wants to sell the most chips possible, and any PC maker and Apple who chooses intel over AMD is good PR for intel, so they're constantly trying to convince PC makers and Apple that they're the best choice available for now and the future.

To say Steve's just emotional and foolish is, well, emotional and foolish.  (Sorry, had to...) If you really think the CEO of Apple is an emotional and foolish person, you should look at the past five years of Apple's success. In hard times. With the PowerPC often being too slow and/or not even available in quantity. You think that was all lucky punches? Think again. Do you?


----------



## pjeski (Jun 10, 2005)

Fryke, it;s clear that you are pro-intel. I own stock in intel. I do not care that intel will be supplying Apple with chips because it will make no discernable difference to the bottom line. If you've noticed, the news hasn't caused a rush on intel. It doesn't matter what Jobs knows that we don't. He still cannot see the future.

As far as switching back at any time, surely you know better than that. Developers are going to have to put forth alot of effort into the conversion. Unless Apple switches back before the PPC is phased out (like the 68000) and no one is making "universal binaries" anymore, the switch back will be just as painful as the switch to intel. 

As far as Jobs success, the "past five years of Apples success" was purely the iPod. Apples stock price went up when that dynamo hit the market. Look at a five year chart of Appple's prices. If it weren't for the iPod, do you think Apple would have had the price spike in the last year? Do you?...

Yes, the iPod was a lucky punch.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 11, 2005)

no, the ipod only really took off in the last 18 months. when itunes 4.5 came out for windows.  no, the biggest thing to jump start this was steve jobs. his business sense revolutionised the company. the iMac was his idea. it sold a million units. the "lets make macs look good" was his idea. jobs came back in 1997-1998.  look at the product lines since then - the B+W g3 (sexy), the imac, the new keyboards and mice, the metal powerbooks, the ibooks!  The gorgeous displays!  the fact that he consolidated the macs line up to (basically) consumer desktop, consumer laptop, pro desktop, pro laptop helped a lot. steve jobs turned a failing company into one that is very, very strong.   3% market share does't sound much, but they are, after all the biggest windows-independant computer manufacturer.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 11, 2005)

And what, coincidentally Apple's share price started climbing 18 months ago, but it wasn't related to the iPod? Don't kid yourself, man. I like alot of the things that Jobs has done. But that does not make him infallable and this is clearly a mistake. 

Whatever you believe, when the G5 came out it was much better than anything intel had. Maybe intel will be ahead on this next generation, but another generation of RISC processors will come out and it will likely be better than intel's offerings. But now, no matter what happens, the Macintosh will never be better than the competition (better looking, maybe) because everybody will have the same chips.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

I just hope we don't inherit that nasty 'CPU insecurity' that PC users have..

"New processor! Must have, must have..  Extra 5MHz, must have, must have!!"

The Mac platform (to me at least) as always been about choosing (and paying the premium for it) a great piece of kit to serve for a good number of years, more of an investment. I hope the transitory, disposable, throw-away economy of the PC doesn't rub off on us (although I detect the traces here among some already).


----------



## chornbe (Jun 11, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> I just hope we don't inherit that nasty 'CPU insecurity' that PC users have..
> 
> "New processor! Must have, must have..  Extra 5MHz, must have, must have!!"



Gosh, how I love living outside the mold. I have several computers in my house:

iBook g4 1.33
eMachines 500mhz pIII running Linux
no-name clone with PIII 866 running Win2k
Dell p4 1.8ghz (3 yrs old) running Linux (removed the Win2k partition)

I don't have anything because it's the biggest, bestest, fastest, shiniest - I have them because they fit the purpose for the price I paid. I paid more for my iBook than for the Dell, but it was worth it for the portability, the sexiness, the dvd burner, the OS and... yes, iPhoto is one of the reasons I purchased a Mac.

Yeah, the generalized populace you speak of is out there, but not all of us fit it


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 11, 2005)

Hence why I qualified it "I just *hope* we don't.." and "..although I detect the traces here among *some* already..", it wasn't a generalisation of all users, although the people I described do exist.

Don't nit-pick


----------



## chornbe (Jun 11, 2005)

but... but... but... (sigh) Fine


----------



## ShalomOrchard (Jun 11, 2005)

Come on Guys, Software is't the only thing that makes a difference.  The hardware, and especially the CPU is important too!  The limited stack space on the Intel CPUs
is the cause of half the bugs and security flaws on Windows machines.  The Motorola architecture has *always* been superior!

Get a Grip on the Hardware!

Jim.


----------



## fryke (Jun 11, 2005)

Between "every month a faster CPU" and "200 MHz increase once a year" are many little steps that Apple could take. What I _want_ from Apple is that when I'm ready to buy a Mac, I can get the CPUs that are available. I hope that we won't see times when Sony, Dell et al. offer notebooks that simply are faster than the PowerBooks, just because Apple doesn't feel like updating their lines. I hope Apple will create a PowerBook that will automatically inherit the newest chips of the same family as soon as they become available. Not because I'd want to upgrade my PB every month, but so I can safely buy at any given time and know that what I get from Apple is what they can get from intel, processor-wise.


----------



## Jason (Jun 11, 2005)

AFAIK the top of the line G5 is comparible, not leaps and bounds better than the top of the line x86 chips. Apple gets a bit more power out of it because of the dual setup and the support of the system and certain applications for that. IMHO Apple switching to Intel is a smart business move. The speed and future speed will not be affected negatively. Most likely, what will happen, is that apple will now have systems just as fast as competitors, no longer relying on IBM or Motorola to try and play keep up. So now Apple can concentrate on marketing a superior OS and other products instead of doing damage control marketing about lagging computer hardware. PPC is faster than P4 mhz for mhz, but when the PPC is 33-40% behind, you got to wonder just how much faster is it mhz for mhz and does it truly make up for  it. My guess is, its no real world difference. So would you rather have the same performance and have to defend lower mhz all the time, or same performance and no one questioning your numbers? I prefer the latter, myself.


----------



## Quietly (Jun 11, 2005)

Jason said:
			
		

> AFAIK the top of the line G5 is comparible, not leaps and bounds better than the top of the line x86 chips.



This is true. In the world of editing, which is extremely processor intensive, the G5 is not so fast as to stand out. If it really had that big a performance advantage, I wouldn't have so much trouble convincing colleagues to switch  

I think from the Keynote speech it is obvious that Steve was a bit peeved at the lack of a 3GHz processor & the lack of a G5 Powerbook, but this was not the major issue. Apple have obviously looked at what is about to happen in the devlopment of Processors and found Intel to be ready to move up a step while IBM do nowt. And that's the real issue, the G5 is up there with (maybe slightly ahead of) the _current_ range of x86 chips, but they obviously have strong reason to believe that Intel are about to leave PPC standing.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 11, 2005)

All i know is I want to see Benchmarks between the Fastest Intel Mac and the Dual 2.7.  

On another note do you think Apple will be effected by this annoucement?  A lot of people think the osborn effect is going to come into play, and that is something i don't want to happen to the company, i would cry if that did.   

"Osborne Effect," a term that describes the fate of the computer pioneer Adam Osborne whose firm went bankrupt when he announced a successor to his pioneering portable computer before it was available.


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

There *IS* no intel Mac for one thing (only the devkit, which isn't built for performance), and the PowerMac will probably even be updated once at least before going intel. So those "benchmarks" (the most futile thing in computing) can't really be done until sometime in 2007.

About Osborne: I think Apple _will_ feel an effect. But they won't go bankrupt because of it. Also: They're bringin' out products soon that will attract buyers. (And nobody stops buying iPods...)


----------

