# we can breath easier about intel macs



## sinclair_tm (Dec 31, 2005)

check this out.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 31, 2005)

i saw that they had a new logo when the centrino duo's were announced, i think it's a positive step, and a tasteful logo, a lot more modern and a lot less tacky.  keep the branding, change the image. Very good.


----------



## nixgeek (Dec 31, 2005)

I do like the new logo better than the old one, although I didn't have any gripes over the old Intel logo with the dropped "e", only the logo that said "intel inside."  That was so late 80s, early 90s.  This new logo is a fresh look, and personally I think that it does have something to do with their new client.


----------



## HateEternal (Dec 31, 2005)

It does look better, I still hope they don't put a sticker on the new Macs though.


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Dec 31, 2005)

I think that the new intel logo looks fantasic! Serious I've been reading articles on this for awhile. It actually has a interesting story behind it. This article from Businessweek shows that it's because of Paul Otellni, the new CEO of intel who we all maybe saw in the june 2006 keynote had a HUGE role in getting Jobs to also come over to the intel side too. But I wonder if apple will put the logo on any of it's macs? I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But then again it is nice having my powerbook not have a powerpc sticker on the outside. One reason for sticker is that it would only destory the Coolness of desgin but i've seen my friends laptops where having a sticker on the outside it gets worn out and grimy too. Which therefore makes the laptop look old and "uncool". But overall the new desgin looks sweet.


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Dec 31, 2005)

Here's the businessweek article that I mentioned it's good read. Epsically for anybody interested in macs and behind the scenes stuff. ;-) 
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_02/b3966001.htm?chan=tc


----------



## RGrphc2 (Dec 31, 2005)

HateEternal said:
			
		

> It does look better, I still hope they don't put a sticker on the new Macs though.



nope, from what i heard the "branding" is being removed...i heard rumors of it right after Apple announced that there would be no Intel stickers on the mac


----------



## kainjow (Dec 31, 2005)

nixgeek said:
			
		

> I do like the new logo better than the old one, although I didn't have any gripes over the old Intel logo with the dropped "e", only the logo that said "intel inside."  That was so late 80s, early 90s.  This new logo is a fresh look, and personally I think that it does have something to do with their new client.


Speaking of dropped e's, the word "breath" in this thread's title should have an "e" at the end


----------



## chevy (Dec 31, 2005)

I've never seen a sticker on a Mac. No Bluetooth logo, no USB2, so there will be no Intel inside logo, or maybe below the case ?


----------



## mindbend (Dec 31, 2005)

I was about to berate you idiots and give you a lesson in marketing/advertising/branding 101 until I realized I was reading the link's forums and not macosx.com. It sounds like you guys get it. There is no longer a reason to say "inside". "Intel" alone has successful brand recognition. "Leap ahead" is an opportunity to present Intel's new position. Totally logical.


----------



## fryke (Jan 1, 2006)

I've changed the link to not go to the forum but the article instead. Please do link to articles, not forum threads about articles...


----------



## senne (Jan 1, 2006)

The "e" is still there. The logo itself is a lowercase E, with the word "intel" as the horizontal line.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 1, 2006)

senne said:
			
		

> The "e" is still there. The logo itself is a lowercase E, with the word "intel" as the horizontal line.



Yes the "e" is still there but it's not dropped like the original.  See below

*Original Logo*






*New Logo*


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jan 1, 2006)

the more i look at it, the more i love the typography of the new one.  each letter has been designed very competently.  i love the gap joining the 'l' with the start of the loop...


----------



## texanpenguin (Jan 2, 2006)

Let me be the first to say I don't think the logo change was warranted (from a designer's point of view). Though the new logo is aesthetically nice, it doesn't do anything but add the aspirational swooshes that are flooding the industry these past five years.

I think the fact that the logo (slightly) is in the shape of an 'e', Intel has lost the most recognisable part of its brand. The dropped 'e' should have remained, even if they insisted on swooshing it all up and changing the typeface.

At least FutureBrand wasn't called in; there'd be gradients all over the place.


----------



## MacFreak (Jan 2, 2006)

Why everyone talk about this Logo. This logo is so what.


----------



## g/re/p (Jan 2, 2006)

We don't need no stinking logo!  ::ha::


----------



## sinclair_tm (Jan 3, 2006)

i linked the other forum, because at the time, the link to the article didn't work, server kept timing out, so i linked the forum only because he had quoted the whole article. i'm merely trying to let you all in one the good news.  
also, i failed spelling in 2nd grade, which gives me lience to misspell for the rest of my life.


----------



## fryke (Jan 3, 2006)

Erh... Okay.  ... Btw.: www.intel.com has the new logo now.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jan 6, 2006)

Irrespective of the logo, I still think that the switch to Intel is a bad idea, and I think that IBM will eventually get its act together and produce high-end PowerPC G5 chips worthy of laptop functionality.  I have a 3.2 GHz Intel Pentium based IBM PC (REAL IBM!) at work and it is a real dawg compared to my Dual 2.7 GHz G5.  But before anyone says "there's no comparison", even my Blue and White G3 with a 500 MHz G3 processor is faster at some tasks than the 3.2 GHz Intel-based IBM PC.  Hard drive performance is really, I mean, really bad on the PC.  Startup on the PC takes signficantly longer, and you can forget multi-tasking - you can load only one program at a time on a Windows PC, something I'm not accustomed to living in the Macintosh world.  The Power PC architecture is much more modern than the aging Intel architecture.  No matter what spin the new Mac takes, it 'will be' a pretty-looking PC.  I just read on a rummor site that Apple may have handed-over development of the Power Mac to Intel - design of the mother board and chipset (which is supposed to be different from PCs).  Apple will retain the right to develop the exterior design.  If this is true, then this is really bad.  How bad can this really get?


----------



## fryke (Jan 6, 2006)

Hm. That multitasking thing is a Windows fault, not an intel fault. I think you're just wrong here. A little optimism would be good.
Thinking back... I had an AMD K6/200 running Windows and linux and a PowerMac 9500/200 running OS 8.x and Rhapsody DR2, and I always felt the PowerMac was far superior. Until I installed Rhapsody DR2 on the AMD machine. Suddenly, the PowerMac, which had cost some 6K USD, wasn't _that_ far ahead anymore compared to the 1K USD AMD machine. The OS made all the difference in the world. The machine suddenly _felt_ similar.


----------



## chemistry_geek (Jan 6, 2006)

Fryke, I am very biased towards PowerPC and the older Apple ways of developing a Macintosh because I have had experience using windows PCs in the business world.  In fact EVERY modern computer I've ever own was an Apple, whether it was an Apple IIgs, PowerBook 520c, Blue & White G3, and my new Power Mac G5 with Dually 2.7 GHz G5s.  Even people at work curse at their PCs for all of the crashes, data loss on projects, performance woes, etc... and no one is even aware, or doesn't admit that other solutions exist.  I have converted a few of my coworkers to the Macintosh side, two purchased iMac G5s with the remote control and built-in iSight camera for Christmas.  I think still that IBM is a sleeping giant and that when pressed, it will produce what Apple has needed, but IBM also needed to have other customers for its PowerPC chips.  More customers means more pressure to develop better products for improved performance.  I really think that Apple is going to get burned on this transition from PowerPC to Intel technology.  I do not believe for one moment that Intel will produce anything 'better' just for Apple to be a leader for a small percentage of the PC market share.  Apple using dual core PowerPC chips from IBM is the better strategy right now for competing with Intel/AMD technology.  I really think IBM is going to have the better technology in the long-term, Intel doesn't have anything that can compete with the high-end PowerMac G5.  The G5 is a full-blown 64-bit processor with a very high performance altivec unit strapped on - nothing Intel or AMD has can compete with it, except for lower power usage, but the PowerPC G5 is based on the 64-bit Power4 architecture - big iron from IBM.  I think Apple is losing control over its product offereings, not just the Power Macintosh and other Macintosh platforms, but the iPod as well.  It's awefully strange that the newer iPods aren't firewire anymore, Apple technology supplanted by Intel's USB technology.  I think there is a correlation here.  This may be lower cost for Apple in the long run, but it is here and now that true innovation will cease in the personal computing world, harware-wise.  And no matter what Apple does to protect its propietary platform, Mac OS X will be cracked by very skillfull hackers, or nearly copied via a Linux-like GPL arrangement, for the rest of the PC world to use.  The only thing preventing Linux from taking over the Window PC world is lack of focus.


----------



## simbalala (Jan 6, 2006)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> Let me be the first to say I don't think the logo change was warranted (from a designer's point of view). Though the new logo is aesthetically nice, it doesn't do anything but add the aspirational swooshes that are flooding the industry these past five years.



Is it a swoosh?

http://sugarcloud.com/silm/index.php?catid=2

or an Orbital?

http://sugarcloud.com/silm/index.php?catid=4

Or maybe some other category is even better...

Shitty Internet Logo Museum


----------



## whitesaint (Jan 6, 2006)

just out of craziness, the only reason i like the new intel logo is because it is slick and now they are helping apple out.  If microsoft created a new logo and slogan we wouldnt be so quick to praise it.  has anybody seen those amd demonstration videos (dual duel), ibm is working on 22nm processors with amd now, but i guess intel is apple's savior.


----------



## Shookster (Jan 6, 2006)

> It's awefully strange that the newer iPods aren't firewire anymore, Apple technology supplanted by Intel's USB technology.



They said it's because USB 2.0 is faster by 80 Mbps. I also think it is because PC users also buy iPods, and not all PCs come with Firewire (and probably more PC users have heard of USB than Firewire).


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 7, 2006)

For consumer devices, USB 2.0 makes more sense.  Firewire I believe might be a little more expensive to add to a device or computer which might be why not that any devices implement them unless it's some sort of A/V device like camcorders and other consumer/prosumer/pro devices that need the power of Firewire.  Remember that USB, even 2.0, is a shared technology so every device shares some of that 480 Mb bandwidth.  This is why the USB ports are in such abundance since they're probably using a few controllers to make up for the sharing of bandwidth.   Firewire as far as I know doesn't share the bandwidth and every device has access to the 400 Mbps bandwidth.

I could be wrong on this, but this is what I have heard.


----------



## fryke (Jan 7, 2006)

You mean if I connect a FW drive to my PB and an FW drive behind that and another behind that and yet another behind that, I can copy stuff from my PB to all FW drives at 1200 Mbps? No, that's not how it works, since the PB is 400 Mbps, too. The bandwidth _is_ shared. I think the difference is that USB generally abuses the processor for logic work, whereas the FW controllers are "intelligent".


----------



## sinclair_tm (Jan 8, 2006)

amd is nothing compared to g5?!?  have you seen the latest amd cpus?  dual core 64bit cpus around 2.5gig.  the fsb at full cpu speed, not apple's half cpu speed.  mobos coming with more then one cpu socket, and the chipsets to control as many cores as the cpu may have, some in the works w/4 cores!  i could build a computer, buy a nice 64bit cpu, in a year or so, upgrade to dual core, then add another dual core later.  then when they get here, take out one of the dual cores and replace it with a quad core.  you can't even upgrade a g5!  what i have been reading on amd's upcomeing cpus is way better then anything i have heard from ibm.  i've even read some things from intel that is better then ibm.  once apple stops buying g5s from ibm, ibm will stop development because apple is the ONLY one that has been buying that kind of g5.  also, i have been using windows pcs for quite some time, and they run very well for the most part.  of course they are amd cpus, but my dad's 2.8 p4 seems to run just as well as my 2.2 3200+xp.  it all depends on how you maintain the computer.  and i am always doing many more things then one in windows, itunes playing and downloading, surfing the web in netscape, pics open in gimp and never any lag.


----------



## nixgeek (Jan 8, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> You mean if I connect a FW drive to my PB and an FW drive behind that and another behind that and yet another behind that, I can copy stuff from my PB to all FW drives at 1200 Mbps? No, that's not how it works, since the PB is 400 Mbps, too. The bandwidth _is_ shared. I think the difference is that USB generally abuses the processor for logic work, whereas the FW controllers are "intelligent".



I never intended to imply that it would increase the bandwidth exponentially, but I thank you for the clarification.


----------

