# Intel Inside, Apple Outside



## Mickwilli (Nov 10, 2005)

This is really a sort of Poll.
I'm shure you have all herd of Apples change to using Intel Processors.
What i want to know is if you had the choice of Buying a Mac with a AMD Processor or and Intel What would you chose and why. Keep in mind that Intel haven't quite made it to 64bit Yet while in the Meantime AMD have made 64 bit processors and Microsucks have even had time to Make there shoddy opperating system for 64bit.
Have Fun


----------



## Lawrence Dudley (Nov 10, 2005)

I'd choose AMD. Why? Because they are faster per Mhz and thus use less energy, meaning they run cooler. Simple as that.


----------



## Mikuro (Nov 10, 2005)

Today, I'd rather have AMD's chips in high-end desktops and Intel's in portables and low-end desktops. But by the time Apple moves their Power Mac line to Intel processors, I imagine they'll use a chip that isn't on the market today, probably one that's 64-bit.


----------



## fryke (Nov 10, 2005)

It's a bit of a futile point, I guess... However: Since AMD makes intel compatible processors mainly, should the day come, Apple can still move to AMD, too... I'd say for portables and small form factor machines (iMac, Mac mini) intel's processors are better, anyway, and for the PowerMacs, we'll have to see when Apple _actually_ is ready to move them from the G5. (Late 2007?) The differences between AMD and intel _now_ don't necessarily say anything about them in 2007.


----------



## powermac (Nov 10, 2005)

From what I understand, I would also chose AMD processor over intel. My concern has always been that Intel's main motivation is high volume selling. Quality issues have always been a concern. When Apple announced the switch, I was surprise AMD was not chosen. 
Who is to say they can't use both Intel and AMD, like any of the PC companies? Intel's mobile technology appears to be leading the industry, while AMD hit the 64bit market first. In short, Apple should consider both to meet the needs of there products.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 10, 2005)

i would like to see what happens during the switch, i want to see what kind of performance the new intel chips offer.  Yes AMD hit the 64bit for x86 first but Intel's power is in Portable's nowadays, and the new chips coming out are based on the Pentium M, but Dual-Core 64bit versions of them.

Apple always has know where the computer market is going, it's starting to shy away from desktop computers to more and more people owning laptops.  That's probably why a big reason for the switch, along with no 3GHz G5 and a Powerbook G5 as well.


----------



## georgelien (Nov 10, 2005)

Mickwilli said:
			
		

> if you had the choice of Buying a Mac with a AMD Processor or and Intel What would you chose and why. Keep in mind that Intel haven't quite made it to 64bit Yet while in the Meantime AMD have made 64 bit processors and Microsucks have even had time to Make there shoddy opperating system for 64bit.
> Have Fun



If I had a choice between choosing a Mac with an AMD processor and a Mac with an Intel processor, which one would I choose?

My answer would be: It depends on which particular processor are we talking about.


On the desktop front, PowerPC G5 and AMD solutions could perform at least as well--most of the time--even better than Intel solutions.

On the mobile front, however, there is no G5 from the PowerPC camp and AMD solution still draw too much power.


That said, I really look forward to next generation AMD mobile solutions, at least I hope AMD would solve the power-performance issues.

But for now, I would choose Intel Dual Core Yonah, aka Pentium M, mobile processor over current AMD mobile processors.


Together with Intel Centrino Technology, we can expect the new laptop Macintoshes come with more than 6 hours of battery life as many of the new IBM, or should I say Lenovo, laptops have.

The 64-bit technology has ended up for marketing purposes, unless of course you need to use more than 4GB of RAM for whatever your doing.

While the new multi-core technology, dual core included, require software programer to modify--some even require rewrites--personally I believe it holds greater promise than the 64-bit technology I have waited over 2 years to jump on. 


Back to your question: Which one would I pick?

Answer: It depends.


I'm getting the latest 15-inch PowerBook G4 because I wanted something that will last me two to three years, which is how long, I believe, it would take to complete the transition.

Call me crazy.


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 10, 2005)

Current x86 laptops are better off with Intel CPUs.  My friend has an AMD 64 based laptop and gets only 2 hrs off the battery while his girlfriend has a Pentium-M based laptop and gets about 4-4.5 hrs.  

Now both of those beat the pants off the G4 in the current Powerbooks but still, AMD isn't very good in the moble computers yet.  

I think that Intel's going to continue to get better on the desktop and also on the moble computers as well.  AMD will still be a power house but I don't think they're coming out with any really low power chips any time soon.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 10, 2005)

Intel -- they've simply got more cash for R&D and their roadmap looks 10x better than AMD's.  While AMD's got some good processors right now, Intel is preparing to beat their pants off in the future.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 10, 2005)

Captain Code said:
			
		

> Current x86 laptops are better off with Intel CPUs.  My friend has an AMD 64 based laptop and gets only 2 hrs off the battery while his girlfriend has a Pentium-M based laptop and gets about 4-4.5 hrs.
> 
> Now both of those beat the pants off the G4 in the current Powerbooks but still, AMD isn't very good in the moble computers yet.
> 
> I think that Intel's going to continue to get better on the desktop and also on the moble computers as well.  AMD will still be a power house but I don't think they're coming out with any really low power chips any time soon.



That AMD laptop...was it using a Turion (which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Centrino in Intel notebooks)?

I'm curious to see how well the Turion-based notebooks compare to the Centrino ones.


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 10, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> That AMD laptop...was it using a Turion (which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Centrino in Intel notebooks)?
> 
> I'm curious to see how well the Turion-based notebooks compare to the Centrino ones.



I don't think it was.  My friend says it played Doom 3 better than his desktop.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Nov 10, 2005)

No technical inights here, I'm afraid, just opinion.

All my computing life, I have objected to the *Wintel mafia*, in fact all forms of monopoly. Of course Apple needs to be able to compete, and I'm sure that OS X on an Intel-equipped Mac will outstrip the equivalent Windoze machine in terms of performance, but I wish that the PowerPC chip could do it, rather than having to resort to 'the old enemy'.


----------



## fryke (Nov 10, 2005)

Bah, that was the same when Apple chose to go with IBM and "took Motorola along for the ride" with the PowerPC technology. IBM was "the enemy", and still we got used to using IBM's processor designs in PowerMacs, PowerBooks etc. Now suddenly IBM is "the friend" and intel "the enemy"? I think we should get over these things. A good enough enemy can be an even better friend later on in history. Microsoft, btw., saved Apple in, what was it, 1997 or 1998?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 10, 2005)

August 1997.  A dark day in Apple history, indeed.  Only to be outdone by the date that Jobs was fired.

(just kidding -- had it not been for Microsoft's cash infusion, Apple may not be the company we know and love today)

I am a bit stunned that we're shipping computers with four cores now, but still making the switch to Intel.  I will miss the PPC architecture sitting inside my Macintosh, but will welcome the change with open arms and an open mind.  Who knows?  Maybe slapping an Intel processor in there will finally give us the edge on the PC dorks -- "Look now, dork, not only am I running the exact same processor as you, I'm also working in a superior operating system!  Whatcha gonna say about that, dork?  Huh?"


----------



## kainjow (Nov 10, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Maybe slapping an Intel processor in there will finally give us the edge on the PC dorks -- "Look now, dork, not only am I running the exact same processor as you, I'm also working in a superior operating system!  Whatcha gonna say about that, dork?  Huh?"


And the dork replies, "Well, your OS still can't play Half-Life 2!"


----------



## fryke (Nov 10, 2005)

And the Mac-Dork will reboot into Windows, play Half-Life 2 and then return into the _real_ operating system. Or something like that.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 10, 2005)

And the Apple user says, "Yeah, using a high-powered computer to play games is like showing off the power of your stove by heating up a TV-dinner!"

Besides, Mac users demonstrate the power of their computers by the creations they create with it.  Windows users demonstrate the power of their computers by their favorite game's frames-per-second count.

You decide which one means more!


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 11, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> And the Mac-Dork will reboot into Windows, play Half-Life 2 and then return into the _real_ operating system. Or something like that.



Or because it's run on x86 chip, open up Virtual PC in full 100% emulation and run HL2 faster on the Mac then on the PC...


----------



## powermac (Nov 11, 2005)

I am ready for the switch. If Apple felt Intel offers the best processor solution, lets see how it all comes together. Sure, I wanted IBM or who ever to take more stock in the PPC chip, but perhaps its usefulness is coming to a slow end. PPC chip is not a great mobile chip, and that certainly fueled Apple need to switch. 
When the first Intel Mac hits the market, everyone is going to go crazy and make all kinds of comparisons to a Winbox. Even then, I am not sure a true comparison can be done. OSX and windows are two different operating systems. Each have strength and weakness. Overall, I think OSX wins out, because it meets the basic requirements: stability, reliability, and secure. On those three issues, winblows can't truly make that claim.
Whether or not Macs are good for games, now or when Intel is inside, is really not an important benchmark. Get an XBox or PS system and have fun. In my opinion the need for a game to be on a PC is over, with consoles able to access the internet for updates, etc.


----------



## gwynarion (Nov 12, 2005)

I don't have an opinion on the original question since I have never been a PC user and have no stake in AMD v. Intel.  I will say this, though: I don't care anymore who makes the processor inside my computer than I do who makes the engine inside my car.  Admittedly processor architecture has more of an influence over the overall product than does engine architecture, but I buy Macs because of Apple, not IBM or Motorola.  So if Apple says they are switching processor suppliers because it will allow them to make the best computer they can then I'm happy to go along with whatever route they choose.


----------



## hawki18 (Nov 17, 2005)

Amd is the way to go the Turion are amd's answer to intel moble chips it is 64 bit and has very low power usage and very good battery life.  I am a amd fan but will still give intel the lead on laptop chips for now but turion will change that soon. On the desk chips intel is not even close to amd.  The top of the line intel chips run 800mhz faster than those from amd and still loose when you bench mark them.  I bought my first mac in July and I like it but it not as fast as my intel laptop and no the turion was not out when I bought my intel laptop.


----------



## hawki18 (Nov 18, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Or because it's run on x86 chip, open up Virtual PC in full 100% emulation and run HL2 faster on the Mac then on the PC...


Apple will never run HL2 close to 86 machine that is why Mac is swithching to gain speed.  You might gain speed for gaves with intel chips but intel can't come close to Amd on games, and any one know nothing run as fast in emulation mode.


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 20, 2005)

having owned only older macs (Quadra 950 and a B&W G3) but having built my own PC's since the days of 386, I can offer my experiences...

AMD has usually done well on paper. Lots of speed in benchmarks and that kind of thing but I find in actual real world usage, Intel systems tend to be more stable, multitask smoother and in general have more 'safety' built into them - for example if the heatsink fan fails or heatsink actually comes off.  I think the majority of the stability is not due to the CPU but the supporting chipsets. Intel makes great chipsets IMO. 

Also for some tasks, intel stuff is faster. Heck my friend just picked up an Athlon X2 4800+ which is one hell of a processor, on a dual SLI board, 1 gig DDR 400 dual channel..etc. He ran a photoshop test (some radial blur test) and asked me to run it as well and it wasnt even close. My nearly 1 year old dual xeon box (dual 3Ghz) cleaned his clocks    38 seconds for him vs 29 for me. Even with substancial overclocking, he could only bring it down to 32 seconds.... so when people say AMD is fast, it is but doesnt mean intel is out of the game. Funny thing is that dual 3Ghz xeons are only about 65% the cost of a single X2 4800+


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 21, 2005)

that ^^^^ is a very good example of the difference between workstation chips and desktop/consumer chips.  i bet the athlon would play doom better.

when i was buying my computer, i of course looked into building myself a dual xeon rig, make a comparable pc to a powermac, for cheaper. except it turned out to be about a grand more expensive.

i got the powermac, and never looked back.


----------



## hawki18 (Nov 21, 2005)

To bad your friend was not using opteron to compare server chips to server chips


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 21, 2005)

Doesnt matter. My friend was bragging about his machine. His box is one year newer than my box and his processor cost considerably more than my two xeons. My board cost marginally more than his. Its dollar for dollar. Comparing an opteron setup that costs 2x the price is kind of stupid. 

All costs are in canadian $$. The following is what it cost me to set up my box:

Xeon processors - $365 each (3Ghz, 1meg cache 800fsb)
ASUS NCCH-DL mainboard - $289
4x512mb DDR 400 - $60 each

So the fundementals to get this box running cost me approx $1260 plus taxes. These are prices from nearly a year ago.

My friend paid the following: 

X2 4800+ $989
ASUS A8n sli premium - $211
2x 1gig - $260

So his setup cost him $1460 plus taxes....



Assuming he had gotten opterons. I'd say that a pair of opteron 248's would be about the same or in line with what I have for performance..

2x opteron 248's - $858
cheapest dual opteron board- $299 (only has one memory controller). For real benefit, opterons should have dual mem controller. That board is $429...
2gig registered memory - $424

So the absolute cheapest dual opteron setup would be $1521 plus taxes. This would probably get hurt pretty badly becuase it would lack the dual memory buses. For ideal dual opteron performance, you need t he good board which adds $130 to the price so now its $1631.  Now we're between $350 and $400 more for a well configured opteron machine.

I got all prices from www.canadacomputers.com except for my xeon processors and board which were purchased from a local shop called pcvillage a year prior.


----------



## fryke (Nov 22, 2005)

Hm. But really: Isn't all this discussion quite unnecessary seeing that we won't be able to build our Macs ourselves and that Apple - for now - has chosen intel over AMD? ... Of course this might change in the future, but for now...


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 22, 2005)

Its true, but I brought it up because I think apple has made the right choice by going intel. I believe its a more stable and mature platform.


----------



## dduck (Nov 22, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Its true, but I brought it up because I think apple has made the right choice by going intel. I believe its a more stable and mature platform.



IMHO a performance difference of 25-50% does not matter except for specialized applications and/or games. I used to use my laptop over the much faster and more expensive desktop machine. Then I got a Power Macmy first Macand shifted use to approx 50/50. Ease of use, lack of frustration, productivity take precedence in the absence of a significant difference i capabilities (say: Internet connectivity).

I'll take nice and user-friendly over fast any day.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Nov 22, 2005)

dduck said:
			
		

> I'll take nice and user-friendly over fast any day.


Amen, brother... take away the "nice and user-friendly" and leave the fast and see just how productive you can be.  Add the "nice and user-friendly" back in and cut the speed in half and see how productive you can be.

My bet is that anyone would take the "nice and user-friendly" any day.


----------



## Johndoemanny34362 (Nov 23, 2005)

contoursvt said:
			
		

> Its true, but I brought it up because I think apple has made the right choice by going intel. I believe its a more stable and mature platform.



For games, 3d apps and pretty much everything else, AMD easily wins over intel any day. The sheer size of intel's share of the market (the avg computer consumer knows no other chip but the pentium) and it's dominance with processors caused apple to choose it over AMD. I think that they could have made the computers run faster by choosing AMD, but the industry is about money, not performance. 

Also, intel processors are extremely overpriced compared to AMD's. 280 dollars will get you a mere intel 3.4ghz socket 775 p4, while AMD would give you super fast socket 939 A64 3800+. The 3000+ for heaven's sake is as fast (or even faster) as a 3.4ghz P4, yet is costs less than half the price! I will never buy an intel proc again, since i am a gamer. Intel officially sucks.

However, apple's move away from ppc will be good no matter what it chooses.


----------



## contoursvt (Nov 24, 2005)

SuperTyphoon said:
			
		

> For games, 3d apps and pretty much everything else, AMD easily wins over intel any day. The sheer size of intel's share of the market (the avg computer consumer knows no other chip but the pentium) and it's dominance with processors caused apple to choose it over AMD. I think that they could have made the computers run faster by choosing AMD, but the industry is about money, not performance.
> 
> Also, intel processors are extremely overpriced compared to AMD's. 280 dollars will get you a mere intel 3.4ghz socket 775 p4, while AMD would give you super fast socket 939 A64 3800+. The 3000+ for heaven's sake is as fast (or even faster) as a 3.4ghz P4, yet is costs less than half the price! I will never buy an intel proc again, since i am a gamer. Intel officially sucks.
> 
> However, apple's move away from ppc will be good no matter what it chooses.



For $339, I can get a 3.4Ghz P4 with HT and 2mb cache. For $350 I can get a 3800+ AMD socket 939. In my opinion, there is no contest and its a no brainer.  The P4 3.4 wins hands down and I will explain why....

-stable and mature chipsets released by intel
-much smoother multitasking due to HT
-speed difference overall may be less than 5% so I dont really care 

Oh and gaming performance... sure the AMD rocks but doing timedemos are pointless because when the game out of the time demo, they will both give you similar framerates. The AMD IS better for gaming which means, two years down the road it will scale much better than intel for the games. So when the intel 3.4 with the latest and greatest card (2 years down the road) may only manage 10fps in some game, the AMD can get 12fps. LOL great.  Both cpus will suck for future games anyway so what do I care. Right now they will both run fine and the important thing is stability and multitasking for me and anyone who is not a 'gamer'.  PS. in photoshop (according to PSbench results I've seen), a P4 3.0C is on par with an A64 3500+ socket 939. That is a pretty bad beating.


----------



## PowerPC (Nov 24, 2005)

I think the most important reason for the switch to x86 is: GAMES! Not necessarily cheaper computers , but the interest is to attract a huge mass of gamers on Apple, virtually every game compiled for x86 would run on a Apple system with an Intel CPU. So Mac OS X (which is a state-of-the-art operating system) would be perfect not only for design, video processing, server tasks, everyday work in the office or at home, but also for playing games! I know gamers who invested thousands (!) of dollars in their PCs, and they would invest any sum, the only question is "Will these games rock on my machine?". Let's hope so!


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 24, 2005)

PowerPC said:
			
		

> I think the most important reason for the switch to x86 is: GAMES! Not necessarily cheaper computers , but the interest is to attract a huge mass of gamers on Apple, virtually every game compiled for x86 would run on a Apple system with an Intel CPU. So Mac OS X (which is a state-of-the-art operating system) would be perfect not only for design, video processing, server tasks, everyday work in the office or at home, but also for playing games! I know gamers who invested thousands (!) of dollars in their PCs, and they would invest any sum, the only question is "Will these games rock on my machine?". Let's hope so!



Even though they would be running on x86 that doesn'rt mean that the games available for PCs now will run on an x86 Mac.  If this were true, then Linux on x86 would be able to run them as well, which is obviously not the case.

What it might do is make it much easier for programmers to write low level gaming code on the x86 Macs since most of the games are coded for the x86 CPUs, not the PPC CPUs.  Right now, it's tough since the two CPUs deal with byte-order differently.  But having the same CPU will basically make the hardware issue of porting a non-issue.  The only thing to worry about would be support for the OS.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 24, 2005)

actually, with all of the console developers now creating games in powerpc architecture, the opposite might happen.


and to 'PowerPC', macOS may be the most advanced OS in the world, but one thing it will never have, and is damn near required to play any game now, is DirectX.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 24, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> actually, with all of the console developers now creating games in powerpc architecture, the opposite might happen.
> 
> 
> and to 'PowerPC', macOS may be the most advanced OS in the world, but one thing it will never have, and is damn near required to play any game now, is DirectX.



Good point.


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 2, 2005)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Windows users demonstrate the power of their computers by their favorite game's frames-per-second count.


And by how fast they can run a virus program or adware/spyware finder over their whole hard drive...


----------



## contoursvt (Dec 2, 2005)

gwynarion said:
			
		

> And by how fast they can run a virus program or adware/spyware finder over their whole hard drive...



...and how much money they saved by actually having a good selection of 'freeware' as opposed to shareware or how much money they saved by not having to drive 30 miles to get to an apple store or the one store that carries the software they need or how much they saved by being able to get replacement parts like system boards or power supplies for less than 1/2 the price of the computer. Oh and how much money is saved because if there is a board or PSU or processor failiure (in the unlikely event), you can usually get stock of something that day somewhere and not have to be down for days while parts are being shipped in or ordered. 

I like I Mac but I also like my PC and I gotta say, if you know how to manage the machines and work on your own hardware, you get way more bang for your dollar with the PC and as for windows goes, if you're careful and not install things with trojans or viruses, XP is MORE stable than OSX. In my mind its not even close. I also support both at work and we have 3x as many windows users and I get about 1/3 the calls from them for little 'quirks' or issues. Granted the issues within OSX are usually resolved by a reboot but still...  The number one issues I face with windows users is viruses and spyware. That I will deny but thats a user problem. The users that do not go to 'free music' sites or 'free warez' sites and such, dont call me with problems.  

Heck I dont even run antivirus on my home machine and have not for over a year. I just changed my habits and locked down the machine a bit more. My server where I store my files has antivirus but I have not seen any probs since I stopped going to mystery sites that offer 'free' stuff. Once in a while I'll go to the trendmicro site and do an online antivirus scan which comes up clean. Even spyware is pretty much gone since staying out of the bad or mystery sites....

I'm just tired of people bringing up XP instability or security issues. Its common sense. Use a miniscule amount of caution and you'll be ok. If you dont, then you deserve what ever you get.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 3, 2005)

very true.  i use osx because i feel windows is too dated, and also, yes because of the security.  it is very easy to stay clean on windows, but it's also very easy for just one trojan to slip through.  the one that hit my machine was msn plus!.  everybody has this. i downloaded it, and got hit by the worst trojan i have ever seen

pop-ups in their hundreds a day, 30 icons that kept on reappearing on my desktop, folders created, toolbars added, systray apps added. 

spybot and adware and mcaffee all removed it perfectly. until about 4 hours later when it was back.  i am no novice when it come to pcs, but this one had me stumped.  it took a complete system rebuild.


----------



## nixgeek (Dec 3, 2005)

The fact that the two operating systems are so different by nature is a major issue.  The only thing that Mac OS X will suffer from is somthing that would affect any other UNIX or UNIX-like system.  This is of course not including aything that Apple has done proprietarily such as Dashboard or anything else (remember the vulnerability from installing widgets?)

From my experience with UNIX-like operating systems, none of the applications are so tied to the low-level parts of the operating system.  Windows, on the other hand, likes to install a bunch of files throughout the system that would not allow said applications to run properly (or at all) if those files were removed.  Yes, DLL files do help speed up things, but at what cost?  Sure, we can also talk about the library dependency hell that Linux suffers from, but the fact that it is a UNIX-like system means that you aren't running around as root all the time.  Windows makes it VERY easy to make your account as powerful as the root account could be with the touch of a button.

MS needs to start from the ground up, as they are doing with Singularity (which to me seems like a UNIX-like OS if you read the information on it).  Windows is definitely outdated no matter how pretty you make it.  An apple (no pun intended ) can looks as pretty as ever on the outside but be rotten to the core on the inside....this is the state of Windows even with Vista.  I'm lookinf forward to see something more robust from Microsoft with Singularity, even if it is the company that makes the OS I dont prefer.


----------



## powermac (Dec 3, 2005)

Great point, Windows has certainly reached its maturity. The current technology can't meet the demands of modern computing, especially in a few years. I read they are playing around with a unix based OS. Although it is unclear what their plans are.


----------



## fryke (Dec 3, 2005)

About Singularity: "Besides Singularity's kernel being successfully written in C# (how cool is that!), there are all kinds of interesting lessons learned with respect to what a managed OS enables. Again, this is a prototype research OS, not a full fledged OS that can run the typical applications you've come to expect of an OS (or even provide a user interface beyond, say, that of DOS)."

I dunno...  ... Doesn't look like this would ever going to be a replacement for Windows... But we're off-topic, anyway.


----------



## Johndoemanny34362 (Dec 3, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> very true.  i use osx because i feel windows is too dated, and also, yes because of the security.  it is very easy to stay clean on windows, but it's also very easy for just one trojan to slip through.  the one that hit my machine was msn plus!.  everybody has this. i downloaded it, and got hit by the worst trojan i have ever seen
> 
> pop-ups in their hundreds a day, 30 icons that kept on reappearing on my desktop, folders created, toolbars added, systray apps added.
> 
> spybot and adware and mcaffee all removed it perfectly. until about 4 hours later when it was back.  i am no novice when it come to pcs, but this one had me stumped.  it took a complete system rebuild.



Only noob windows users get pop ups! Obviously you are using IE, you need to get firefox.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 3, 2005)

i am not a noob winodws user.  i have been extensively using windows in all it's forms and providing tech support for windows since 3.1.  i only switched to mac a year ago.

i never had pop ups.  that was something that always happened to someone else.  and yes, they use IE, because as far as i'm concerned, this computer was clean enough without having to use firefox, which is buggy, slow, incompatible and ugly. until we got a trojan (it was my parents home machine, in the summer).  hidden in an executable for a program widely trusted, (msn plus!) my sister installed it, like she has done a million times over, and this one let in a trojan.  all this security, with all the mcafee/adaware/ms anti spyware etc popups warning you that warn you for everyday things, that you don't know when this one is actually critical.

it screwed the computer.  all the cleaning tools i had couldn't get rid of it, i even browsed my windows forums, asked questions, tried everything, achieved nothing.  it required a complete system rebuild, which took nearly a week to get back on track again.
please don't question my windows knowledge until you know who i am.

and if only windows 'noobs' get pop-ups, then i reckon about 80% of windows' user base is 'noob'.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 3, 2005)

Ever notice how these trojans and viruses are typically hidden in "system enhancer" kinds of programs?

If people weren't so obsessed with making their computer "cool" or "neat looking" or getting more asinine smileys for their chat sessions, these trojans and viruses wouldn't spread at the rate they do!

We've got a vanilla Windows XP Pro SP2 install here... it's a super-productive machine with all sorts of productivity software on it.  Changing the color scheme and the desktop picture is "cool enough" for us.  I can live without the animated smiley that bangs his head against the wall or some Star Trek-flavored windowing theme.  These kinds of things are the highways that viruses and trojans use to get into your computer -- I would recommend to those that need something "cool" to look at to go down to an art museum and buy a nice painting.  I can guarantee that this alternate course of action will not infect your computer with a virus or trojan.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 3, 2005)

i have to stress that it was my sisters lack of taste. i personally love the minimal approach of mac messenger.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Dec 17, 2005)

something interesting about the intel switch and about the "intel inside" stickers

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051216_504092.htm


----------



## fryke (Dec 18, 2005)

Well, we've discussed that here already, of course - and came to the conclusion that Apple would *not* use the stickers for obvious (design) reasons. Apple will certainly claim that the chips they're using are the best bar none (they'll of course emphasize the one thing the chip's really good at, performance/watt etc.), so people will _know_ there's an intel chip inside - even without a sticker.

I'm more interested in the naming schemes. The iBook only accepted the "G" moniker when the G4 went into the iBook. The iBook G3 just had "iBook" written below the display. So basically, they could just go back to calling it "iBook", or they could give it the name of the processor, although "iBook Yonah" would probably not look that good. iBook II? Too 80s. Hmm...


----------



## elander (Dec 18, 2005)

Personally, I wouldn't mind the "Intel Inside" sticker. I've been one of those who have claimed that the sticker isn't advertising, but a warning label, before. But I'll accept it if it comes with subsidies from Intel, and thus makes Mac's less expensive. I don't think it'll happen though, for all the reasons previously mentioned in this and other threads...


----------



## fryke (Dec 18, 2005)

I don't think it'd make Macs cheaper. Cheaper looking, yes.


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 18, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> I'm more interested in the naming schemes. The iBook only accepted the "G" moniker when the G4 went into the iBook. The iBook G3 just had "iBook" written below the display.


I suspect that we will start seeing references to the "G6" processors...  I remember right before the G5 came out and the discussion as to what Apple would do about using a processor called the PPC970, and what they would call it.  Now I think that G6 is what Apple would like to call it, but as to whether Intel would go along with this or not is questionable.  I'm sure they would like to have at least a little bit of publicity and recognition, which is less likely if their name is never mentioned.


----------



## nixgeek (Dec 18, 2005)

It would make no sense since it's not the 6th generation of the PPC architecture from Motorola/IBM.  They are using a brand new CPU tha has nothing to do with the PPC architecture.  As fryke mentioned, we might see a completely different name...maybe even without the "Power" before the Macintosh.  It might just simply be "Macintosh" as it was before.  Of course, we won't know until next year, be it January or June.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Dec 18, 2005)

Maybe they will go back to calling it a PowerPC again


----------



## gwynarion (Dec 18, 2005)

It might not make sense, but I don't think that alone will stop Apple.  Regardless of what they do I think it will cause a fair bit of consternation among some, but eventually we will all get used to it, whatever _it_ is.


----------



## Johndoemanny34362 (Dec 18, 2005)

They would be better off going to AMD. But they wanted money over customer satisfaction.


----------



## kainjow (Dec 18, 2005)

SuperTyphoon said:
			
		

> They would be better off going to AMD. But they wanted money over customer satisfaction.


98% of all their customers don't eve know what AMD is and that they exist. Plus, Intel's new mobile processors are gonna be sweet, and that's one of the reasons they switched because the G5 ain't going into a laptop anytime soon.


----------



## nixgeek (Dec 18, 2005)

Currently, Intel has a better low-power option compared to what AMD has to offer, especially when it comes to notebooks.  AMD has the Turion, but even that doesn't match the power-to-performance rating you get on the Centrino, especially with Yonah and it's successor coming down the pike.  Yes, AMD has a better option for hardcore gamers and power users, but Intel gives you a good balance of performance and power savings that AMD currently can't match.

And yes, I do prefer AMDs over Intel when it comes to PC towers since I do like to game, but you have to face reality and the reality is that Intel is still ahead in the game especially when it comes to power consumption.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 19, 2005)

amd make very fast processors.  that's what they do.  but they frequently have supply problems (a theory based on the fact that i reckon i could buy 5 off-the-shelf- pentium pcs for every one amd pc they have in stock in a shop), and have no alternative.  in that way,they sound like IBM - the G5 is still a very powerful processor, there's no question of that, but it's not scalable in any way, and they have always had supply problems.  IBM doesn't have the time for apple, and nor would amd, they don't care.  intel has a special place for apple, it's been trying to poach apple from IBM for years now.  they want apple, and are prepared to keep them.


----------



## oreales (Jan 11, 2006)

I think Apple makes always the right move, and the rest of the industry follows their steps (copying exactly what they do i.e.: Microsoft). If Apple has chosen intel is because it is the best chip or at least the one with better roadmap....

Yesterday January 10th of 2006, 5 monts before it was announced, Apple introduced the new "machines" intel-inside apple-outside, and they are just brilliant. 

One Mac Lover
----------------
http://www.cafepress.com/appleoutside (shout to world "we think different")


----------

