Mac to use Intel Chips!

I know where you're coming from pjeski, if everyone is using the same bits, you're relying on Apple assembling them in some manner which is better.

We may get something which is better than the run-of-the-mill PC but because it will be (initially) the ONLY method of running OS X and it will HAVE to have custom boards in order to fit the designs they'll want. But really that's it, we're not going to get Dells or HP boxes with a Apple logos covering them.

I'm honest about it, I don't like the implications of the move to Intel, I only have my opinion and it's not worth squat in the real world, it's happening, tough luck. The only thing you can do is wait and see if the new machines are worth buying - FOR YOU, it's better than saying you're going to buy whatever Apple produces for better or worse.
 
I completely agree with Fryke.

Apple staff made an informed decision on what processors to use, using information that is not publicly available. Many professionals and experts have already commented on the deal, and they seem mostly to agree that Apple's Switch to Intel is a Good Thing. Intel is going to produce increasingly good chips according to the roadmaps we have: 64bits, dual core, power efficiency, etc. Motorola is not going to produce anything worthwhile anymore, IBM in due time will not be going to produce anything worthwhile anymore. Apple didn't excatly have much of a choice ... the AMD-Intel debate is best elft for another thread. Steve Jobs was very explicit at the keynote: for now the G5 is an excellent choice, next year there is not going to be a much better G5. Perhaps we will in the end hit 3GHz, but forget about a PowerBook G5. So what is Apple going to do? Stagnate? Again? After all the flames for doing so 3 years ago? I don't think so ... Their major bottleneck was chip development and production so they switched to the biggest chip developer and producer: an excellent choice in my opinion. I fail to see how a Mac/intel is going to "be a PC". "PC" is both a generic term for home computers, privatly owned machines vs. corporate/scientific mainframes/clusters etc. Apple was the first one to make a real Personal Computer. On the other hand "PC" was the name of the fist IBM home computer and has then been extended by common usage to all the so-called "IBM compatibles". "Being a PC" can also be used to indicate a machine that can run windows. On all of these accounts, Apple's computers have been "PC's" for years and years. They were first real Personal Computer, have been using IBM chips and Microsoft made Apple's G5 PoweMacs XboX development machines with a Windows NT kernel. Nothing of all that has ever really bothered anyone, and why should it indeed! I've used and runs windows, linux and Mac Os on my machines, both PC's and Macs. I happen to like the Macs the most and I cannot see that change because of Apple using a better processor next year.
 
Cat said:
I fail to see how a Mac/intel is going to "be a PC". "PC" is both a generic term for home computers, privatly owned machines vs. corporate/scientific mainframes/clusters etc. Apple was the first one to make a real Personal Computer. On the other hand "PC" was the name of the fist IBM home computer and has then been extended by common usage to all the so-called "IBM compatibles". "Being a PC" can also be used to indicate a machine that can run windows. On all of these accounts, Apple's computers have been "PC's" for years and years.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed over and over, you don't have to be Einstein to understand the difference between the generic term for all personal computers and IBM PC compatibles. We're not going over it again, it's been discussed to death.
 
we've got a year of speculation.

some of those present here may be in straight jackets by that time, driven to insanity by the question....
 
I guess that was just a little nudge that should say "If you don't want to read about it, don't come here". ;) ...
 
WTF? Is probably more indicative of what I was thinking, if I really wanted advice from him, I would have asked.

;-)
 
Well I knew that! See? I'm laughing!

Anyway.. back to the the topic..

UPDATE
No hard feelings. ;-) I WAS laughing... I think?!?! :D
 
My Intel developer kit is due to arrive tomorrow.
toetap05.gif
 
Oooh, I hope you'll give us all the gory details. About what's inside, what runs how well etc. I'm really looking forward to hear about Rosetta's performance for specific apps (i.e. is Office 2004 usable, same for Adobe CS/CS2 etc., but also little utilities etc.).
 
Yeah, hopefully I'm not limited in speaking too much by the license agreement. I think screenshots are out, but we'll see when it actually gets here. I read it when I ordered it, but blah blah legal blah blah. :)
 
Take a look inside, see if the parts are truly generic, buy them, slap it together and clone the hard drive to see if it boots on the DIY system.
 
No point though, he has it until the end of next year by which time the Intel Macs will be out... also Apple (I think) have said that the dev kits are no indication whatsoever of what Intel Macs will be like. So why do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top