In your opinion, how has the Intel transition gone?

[Sunnz]

Not sure if my comments are useful, since I have only been start using the Mac platform since Apple used Intel chips.

I do the usual web surfing stuff at home and programming at school; the CDs had everything I needed for programming (GCC, Java, X). I had to write some documents as well (though not with MS Office, I ditched it after the several days.)

For me, I didn't have to cares what chip it is running, almost everything I needed has gone universal, with Rosttesa took care of the rest: Ada compiler, Fireworks. I just wish that the GNAT Ada Compiler can go universal soon so that I can actually create universal binary in Ada... but not huge problem.

P.S. I actually wanted to get an iBook in mid 2005... but they still haven't got anything better than G4 for laptops at that time, so I got a HP instead... I waited for something better, in my mind I was thinking perhaps some kind of G6 chip that has better performance per watt that goes into a laptop... then the Intel MacBook came out at 2006.

So I think the Intel transition is much needed, especially for the laptop market... I guess the G4 was good at its first release, but when you talk about 2006, it _has_ come with a better chip.

 

[fryke]

You're exactly right, Sunnz, I'd say. It was mainly the notebooks where the issue of performance/watt was worst and most noticeable. Of course, in the past we've seen other transitions. I'd say the intel one was the easiest by _far_. I just notice that I'm repeating myself already. (You know, that *VERY* long post by me above...)

ebykm: I think the whole subject of hardware having been much better in the (long gone) past does _not_ really have to do with this PPC2intel transition. I'd say it's worth its own thread even. The quality downward-spiral in my opinion started with the Performas of the PPC time, the clones back then in combination with the switch to PowerPC from 68K, when the OS just wasn't ready for that jump. But it's an overall "computer market" thing, really. Back then, Apple took more time to carefully pick and choose which suppliers, which technologies to use. Part of why Macs were incompatible with generic PC hardware was that Apple made _better_, though incompatible, choices. However: This didn't exactly _work_ very well for them. Apple could've died back then! People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality. Computers had become "normal" business. So Apple had to react. And they did. The iMac was inexpensive AND good at the same time. No SCSI, yep, but it wasn't for the SCSI-wanting crowd, anyway. No LocalTalk, no Serial Ports - but USB. Apple did the right thing back then. Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty. (That's a saying in German, not sure if it exists in English. To die in beauty, an attack on someone's failure to see that change is needed, maybe even at the cost of some once-important ideals.)

 

[ebykm]

...... even in the future fr apple 'switch back'. it would also be very bad business, as it would indicate no thought or direction from above.

I don't think so, apple used make fun of intel processors in their ads. It's all about making use of the best technology at the right time. If someone comesup with a better processor and other technology, i don't see any reason for not utilising it.

...People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality.

what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price.(eg. 17" 2.0 ghz imac costs, £800 in uk, dubai, singapore and malasia. but other companies are selling their products almost same or better than U.S prices here, except in uk)

 

[Ferdinand]

Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty.

In other words you'd rather have a "not-so-great-quality" MacBook than no Mac or Apple product at all. And about this saying, maybe if you write it again in German, it might make more sense (at least to those who speak German, which I know at least a dozen exist).

EDIT: Oh, and what this thread is really about:

Yes, I think the transition from Intel to PPC went really well, considering it was a lot faster than anyone expected. Many apps arent universal yet, I know, but most are, and for those who arent, well... what do you think Rosetta is for? I think why most of the Adobe/Macromedia stuff isnt universal yet is also because they never expected it that fast, so they concentrated about other stuff (bug fixes, CS3), but its actually not an excuse since in 2005 they said they were going to... I just realized that I'm kind of speaking against myself here! Just trying to say, all in all, the transition PPC 2 Intel went great.

 

[fryke]

"in Schönheit sterben". People who understand German and know the expression, would have gotten what I've written in English, because it was a word-by-word translation.

ebykm said: "what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price."

Because they're not "cheapo models" exactly. (Apple is not really competing with noname manufacturers or build-it-yourself PCs with mix and [mis-]match parts.) Besides: I don't see *any* mini-form factor PC for similar price _anywhere_. They're all more expensive! Also the AIOs are less for more, most often. The MacBook is very competitively priced for its feature-set, although some manufacturers also offer cheaper notebooks with less RAM and older processor generations or core solo processors. In that regard, Apple could've offered an even lower-priced MacBook with a core solo processor, but I think they did the right thing. After all, the MacBooks have done _very_ impressively in the market.

 

[chevy]

They may offer an eMacBook for $899

 

[Sunnz]

"in Schönheit sterben". People who understand German and know the expression, would have gotten what I've written in English, because it was a word-by-word translation.

ebykm said: "what i'm saying is, since ppl didn't want to pay for the quality, why not apple sell their cheapo models (mac mini, imac & macbook) at competitive price."

Because they're not "cheapo models" exactly. (Apple is not really competing with noname manufacturers or build-it-yourself PCs with mix and [mis-]match parts.) Besides: I don't see *any* mini-form factor PC for similar price _anywhere_. They're all more expensive! Also the AIOs are less for more, most often. The MacBook is very competitively priced for its feature-set, although some manufacturers also offer cheaper notebooks with less RAM and older processor generations or core solo processors. In that regard, Apple could've offered an even lower-priced MacBook with a core solo processor, but I think they did the right thing. After all, the MacBooks have done _very_ impressively in the market.

As far as the prices go, you are right, the iMac and mini are comparatively cheaper.

However, IMHO, they are really mid-range products to the market, even though Apple markets them as lower-end machine - yes, they are lower-end to Apple's POV... but in the eye's of an average Joe, a cheap computer isn't a fancy AIO, nor anything really small, but your average box like smaller Mac Pro with a lower end CPU, without the front USB, Firewire, etc.

 

[ebykm]

fryke, i agree most of the things with you and others. But the most anticipated part of Intel transition was price reduction on par with dell, hp, ibm, etc...., in reality which didn't happen as most of us expected and some hardware issues.

Apple is not really competing with noname manufacturers or build-it-yourself PCs with mix and [mis-]match parts.

True, but apple have to compete with other manufacturers. As i've mentioned earlier, apple prices are higher than others. for e.g, i wouldn't mind if other products were expensive as apple in those countries i've mentioned earlier. One could get a better toshiba / dell / hp with same processor, bigger 15.4" screen, ati graphics card, built in card reader, etc....+ 3 years int warranty for less than the price of a white macbook, that really pisses me off.

Besides: I don't see *any* mini-form factor PC for similar price _anywhere_. They're all more expensive! Also the AIOs are less for more, most often

True, True.


yea yea, we may start a pricing thread to discuss this.

 

[fryke]

... If you expected pricing to go down with the switch to intel, that's your thing. I haven't had the feeling that this was the overall suspicion. Rather: The call was _very_ loud at the time that the PowerPC just didn't cut it anymore. (Mostly for the notebooks, of course...)

A separate pricing thread: I don't think that's necessary. There'll always be discussion about it, and my answer is always the same: If you like a Dell/HP/Toshiba model better for its features, then go buy it. But that's not what you want, since those don't come with Mac OS X.

 

[ebykm]

If you like a Dell/HP/Toshiba model better for its features, then go buy it. But that's not what you want, since those don't come with Mac OS X.

yea man, no OS X on those beauties

 

[Sunnz]

Well you could install Linux/BSD and try get a Windows refund.

 

[ebykm]

Sunnz, i'd prefer a computer can run major operating systems..... so Mac is my first and second choice

 

[fryke]

But if I break that down, all you're really saying is: Apple once made better-quality (and much more expensive) hardware, and their new lower prices aren't low enough, they should increase quality while bringing down prices even more.

But _that_ I'd have to call iWhining. ... But who knows. It's the day of the MWSF '07 keynote. 30 years of Apple. Maybe we *will* see the 599 USD MacBook with Core2Duo processor and highend graphics chip? Let's get our expectations _really_ high, so we *know* we're going to be let down. I'm already writing up my angry comments so I can post on macnews.net.tc right after the keynote ends.

 

[ebykm]

But _that_ I'd have to call iWhining. ...

But if I break that down, all you're really saying is: Apple once made better-quality (and much more expensive) hardware, and their new lower prices aren't low enough, they should increase quality while bringing down prices even more.

yay, either make better quality expensive Pro hardware or lower the prices of base models (mini, imac & macbook). Well, if possible Pro hardware @ current imac pricing.

I'm already writing up my angry comments so I can post on macnews.net.tc right after the keynote ends.

you got it brother, i'ma proud of you

 

[rubaiyat]

"But the most anticipated part of Intel transition was price reduction on par with dell, hp, ibm, etc...., in reality which didn't happen as most of us expected and some hardware issues."

On my list of expected consequences of the Intel upgrade, in the Macworld forums, was that there would be no price reduction despite virtually every Mac user then repeating it ad nauseum as if it were fact.

The reason is three fold.

As has been pointed out, the new Intel chips are not cheaper than the old G5s. Second Apple's prices are due to a persistent fat profit margin, which it can get due to its isolation from direct PC competition and the sacrificial loyalty of its customers. Thirdly because Apple refuses to use the cheaper Intel and AMD chips because they are not cutting edge enough and might reveal the inherent slowness of the OSX system itself.

The other prediction I made was the Mac would be side tracked as not core to Apple's business and that the iPod would take over. This has happened. Apple is even removing the word "computer" from its name.

I also predicted either a fall in the Mac's market share or no substantial gain as Macs lost their distinctiveness. This hasn't happened but the gains the Mac has made have not made any major impact on Windows because they come off such a low base. Apple has not addressed its poor position outside the USA where its relative expensiveness and public invisibility have made it not even an option for the booming, but price sensitive, markets of China and India.

The full impact of Leopard vs Vista have yet to be felt. We will really get a clearer picture later this year and it all will depend on the relative disappointment and satisfaction both sides will feel with their respective upgrades.

I put my money on Leopard being a let down not because it won't be good but because it will change some things even further away from the Macs original simplicity and clean design without meeting the pent-up expectations of substantial radical innovations. Vista will be a let down but Windows users will get used to it and it will give them enough to not make them want to switch.

I then also predicted a bleeding of Mac software away from the Mac platform due to the possibility of easily launching the Windows versions on the same machine. This may not eventuate as the switch between Mac OSX and Windows still requires the purchase of Windows and is not as easy nor as quick as anticipated.

However there are still elements of this to be played out. We will find out how well Boot Camp, Parallels and WINE solve the switching problem once Leopard is released and Vista has been out for a while.

Another prediction was that the Mac would lose any hope of being the fastest PC because it would be using identical hardware to the Windows PCs. This was obvious and is exacerbated by Apple tying itself to Intel's offerings whereas PC manufacturers allow themselves the option of AMD as well.

The only hope was OSX might prove to be a better OS using 64 bit processing and multiple chips/cores. This is still to be played out.

The last prediction was that Steve Jobs has hedged his bets and left the possibility of eventually Macs booting off Windows as a store option and perhaps even abandoning the line all together just as the Apple line was abandoned when the Mac came along. Anyone psychicly atuned to the Steve's inner thoughts?

Now I have been quite explicit, definitely more than Nostrodamus, and definitely more than the hedged bets by many other posters or volte faces they commit relying on the short memories of many other forum dwellers. So I stand ready to be strung up on my own words at some future date.