Mac to use Intel Chips!

I think after June 06 you'll start seeing prices drop slightly as new hardware is introduced, but if they start on the low-end first you should be fine for another 2 or 3 years since there's all this talk about universal binaries for the forseeable future users wont be in much of hurry to switch in larger numbers until some time in 2007 and beyond. I thought about buying a new dual 2GHz Pm as I know even with the current switch to x86 I'll still be good for 2 years which is good enough for me.
 
@RGrphc2:
If you can wait until next year you might as well wait for WWDC 2006 and see what x86 Macs are available at the time. I may wait, but figure a dual 2.0 would serve me well for another 2 years as I don't think we'll see Pro systems next year as there may not be many early adopters on the high-end Apple may start with consumer models first.
 
Well... i'm no super power user. But then again, being a graphic designer, i do more than surf the web and check my email.

I guess i'm looking at this whole transition from a different perspective....

I care more about the stability of the computer and the ease of the Mac OS. I don't really care as much about the manufacturer of CPU. Will it be fast? Will it be stable? Will it get the job done?

I don't use Apple computers because of any "image". I don't consider myself "elite" just because of my computer. I don't use an iPod because i want to be "cool." I'm not so conserned about brand image. I'm more concerned about realiability, ease of use, and stability. That is why i pick Apple's OS over Microsoft.

Whether it runs on a Motorola, IBM, Intel or AMD, it makes little difference to me. It just needs to work and work well.
 
I didn't say they were sued. They started by first advertising a "Windows-compatible" operating system that was not based upon Linux. Next thing you know, they're scrapping Windows compatibility and selling a Linux product. Go figure.

Either way, they didn't have Microsoft's approval for the name nor the compatibility. It would make sense to change the name and keep the compatibility, but they didn't do that either -- and I doubt it was because it was "too hard."
 
jzdziarski said:
Well here's my good riddance letter
http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/apple.html
Click to expand...

Most of this note, to me, does not make sense. Computers more than a few months old are basically obsolete no matter what the market does.

People keep asking "why release 10.4 if they are going to switch". Remember the 68000 to PPC transition? Both were supported for quite some time. Why would Adobe keep making PPC versions if Apple does not plan to do the same?

I'm disenchanted a bit too. But I don't see Apple or Jobs as demonic.

My question which I have not seen an answer to is "Which Intel Chip?" If Apple is switching to Intel's 64 bit processor, then that is a great strategy. That is a fantastic forward looking chip. More than the AMD chip. Much like the PPC was when Apple switched to it 10 years ago.
 
Which chips are you referring to? Intel's Xeon chips, whose ass the PowerPC has shown to kick repeatedly, according to Apple's website? Or are you referring to their miserably failed attempts to break into the 64-bit desktop computing market? Since developer hardware is available (well, in two weeks), we can only assume that the Intel chips are already out there. So it's unlikely that there is any earth shattering processing to be seen. I switched to a Powerbook off of a high-end Thinkpad. Believe me, I'm not looking forward to going back.
 
If Jobs is doing this over technology, then he has been lying to us and coopting us into lying for him for years. And that should royally piss you off. He is doing it purely to spite IBM.
 
I have to say I am more surprised by the reaction to the transition, then to the transition announcement itself.

The "jump ship" folks have got to get a grip. First, did you even watch the keynote? Based on some of the comments, I highly doubt it.

What on earth is such a big deal?

If Steve Jobs had simply said, "We plan on getting faster CPUs that consume less power, and it will take two years to make it happen." we'd all be jumping up and down in excitement. But, for some reason I cannot grasp, the fact that it'll be an Intel chip is reason for panic.

What do you think is going to happen, suddenly OS X will crash constantly? Or that your friends will say, I told you so? Or that OS X will be a somehow different experience? In case you didn't notice, Steve was running his whole presentations on Intel and you didn't even notice, did you ("you" collectively)? Just like you won't even notice when you get one, unless you switch for some insane reason. Won't that be ironic, people switching to Wintel to avoid Intel.

Here's the deal. We're all going to get a faster lineup of machines and we'll get them in all variants, including laptops. They're still going to run OS X and they're going to run it every bit as well os PPC. Get a freaking grip! Unbelievable.

As for obsolescence, I have no idea what sense that argument even makes. If your apps still work, how is that obsolete? And to keep up with progress, either hardware or software, you are always in a philosophical "obsolescence mode" regardless of which CPU you are using, so the argument is utterly meaningless.

Also, I'm continually entertained by those of us (sometimes myself) who act as though we have a freaking clue as to how to run a massive high tech company successfully. If you think you can beat Stevo and Apple, go for it.

I personally found it utterly brilliant that they actually were running the secret dual life OS X on Intel for the "Just in Case" scenario. That's just smart. Look, Apple gave it a go with PPC and took it as far as they could. They wisely had a backup plan and it is seemingly going to be a better option in the long run. They have to go with it. Or would you rather have another CPU gap the size of the grand canyon? Imagine this, one day OS X and Windows will have zero performance gap (at least in terms of raw CPU, what the OS does after that to slow things down, who knows).

And kudos to all those who said this was going on the whole time. You were right. 100% right. I find this to be a very exciting day.
 
How many of you people brought a Macintosh because it has a PowerPC in it..

its about time Apple severed its relationship with The PowerPC platform. HP did it a few years ago and have not looked back.

This is a good thing for apple!

Watch the keynote!!!


Just saw mindbends comments.. He got it in one!
 
Beautifully said, mindbend. Guys; I bought my Mac because the OS is the most advanced and stable one available. The chip inside just doesn't affect me that much. Obviously Steve Jobs decided that IBM just wasn't cutting it in the short term, and didn't have as far to go in the longterm in comparison to Intel. Once Intel fully commits to the 64 bit processor, they'll do a good job of it. By the way, why would there be an Intel Inside sticker on your Mac? I only have a Powerbook, but there's no G4 sticker on it, and I'm pretty sure there's not a G5 sticker on the PowerMac. Why in heaven's name would this change!? You guys are basketcases! It'll be alright in the end, I promise.
 
What will happen? Will sales go up for Apple when they're releasing the Intel-based Macs? Or will Apple vanish over time because of the switch?

I personally always found AMD better than Intel and that's not about to change, even if Apple manufactures Macs with Intel processors in it.
 
Are we talking about a serious leap in performance? I was about to place an order for an iBook 14" when I heard about this yesterday. The thing is, I'm not usre I really want to wait a year for the next hardware, and if it would even be worth it. If I go for the 'Book now though, I'll have just about finished paying for it in June 2006, when the new stuff comes out, which could be a little annoying but thats the march of technology isnt it.
Its a bit of a conundrum - its the first time I'll be buying a Mac brand new, full price.

I expect this has been answered 30 pages back, but would you wait, or not, and why?
 
The G4/G5 is dead officially since yesterday. You can of course go and buy a PPC-based Mac now, but in time, support for this will vanish. However, this interesting "Universal Binary" thing they're talking about may make it worth to still buy a Mac before the Intel ones come out.
 
he said that PPC macs are still in development (brand new macs coming out in the next two years) and that support, real support, for PPC will continue for the next 4-5 years at least. that means, if you buy a new mac tomoro, it will still last longer than a normal PC, just like a Mac should. i am still quite happy with my machine, although it now has been confirmed what i have been thinking for a while - the G5 is no where near as good, or revolutionary as either G3 or G4. they blew away the x86 chips in their day. the G5 is bloated, hot, and not very powerful for it. the only reason, i can think of, for going for it over dual Xeons is the OS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top