Please don't call it a Macintosh

A

Adonsa

Registered
Fellow mackers,

If it contains an Intel chip, it won't be worthy of the name Macintosh. It'll be an abomination.

Recommendation to Apple - name it something else.

Do any of Apple's board members or other leadership ever read this website?

Regards,
Adonsa
 
Couldn't agree more. With an Intel inside, I don't think you can call it a Mac or Macintosh anymore.

I don't know about board members of Apple, but I think some important people at Apple come by here from time to time.
 
So does that mean a 680x (whatever 68k.. you know what I mean) isn't a mac because it's not PPC?

I share the pain of hearing this news, but simply because i fear for those of us with "new" PPC machines not getting full potential due to limited support from mainly third party developers, but also from Apple in the long term..

Intel != Microsoft. they aren't the devil. yes, the PPC architecture is "better" in some ways. but a really great CPU can't stand still for five years and still be really great.
 
Yea, i do kind of agree with you guys and see what you are saying. I just dont see why they dont make a ppc version and an x86 version. Well they are, but it sounds like they are going to stop making ppc chips. If they keep doing both couldnt see it being such a problem i guess. In some ways it is kind of disapointing, But if you think of it positivlely, maybe we will be able to find a way for the x86macs to be able to dual boot with windows :) lol. Somehow i think you will be able to, windows may not be very stable but you can run almost anything on it lol.
Who knows
I just hope jobs isnt making a big mistake!
 
If we should stop calling it Macintosh because they changed the cpu, we should have done so in the eighties, when they changed from 68000 to 68020, or in the nineties, when they switched from the 680x0 series to PowerPC.

The "Macintosh" experience isn't about the cpu inside, it's about the interface, usability and style. What is under the hood is irrelevant as long as it works and gives us the performance we need. Who built the processor really doesn't matter for the user experience.

Get over it and move on.
 
an intel processor won't make it into a pc
designclutter20050427.jpg


it won't be able to run windows natively. it'll be possible, but it won't turn into windows because of a processor. the processor doesn't know what it is doing, it just crunches numbers for the OS. it's a blind slave. it'll be just as maccish, and it'll still be a Mac, (not a macintosh, that name is dead) the bit that will change will be the "power" part of it.

if it makes it run good, i like it.
 
Well said Lt Major Burns!

I can't believe these cry babies who suddenly think that because an internal part of a computer has changed that their whole computing experience has come crashing down!

Open up you're mac and you'll see a world of different brand names in there.

And think about this - everyone who watched the keynote was blind tested for the first half hour or so as Jobs ran his demos on an Intel equiped MAC! Did those people who are now crying foul feel a little stupid when Jobs smirked on stage and told everyone that the show was being run from such a machine?! Basically - Apple could have switched out the chips on Macs 5 years ago by the sounds of it and if they hadnt told anyone we'd all be sat here on our MACS running on intel chips! ha!

Whats the most important thing about Macs? The OS! - The computing experience that Apple gives us by building a great OS and putting together the exact hardware that then runs the OS the best - like Jobs said - Tiger 'SINGS' on intel! Second to the OS comes form - and does anyone here think tht those two things are going to be compromised by having 'intel inside'?! Seriously?!?!? You bunch of jokers!

Suck it up! enjoy your Macs and enjoy the idea that future Macs now have a new spring of life with the new chip partnership!
 
An Intel CPU will never be as robust or as strong as the G5 is. Fact. Apple was ahead with technology with the G-series processor.

Think different.
 
Adonsa said:
If it contains an Intel chip, it won't be worthy of the name Macintosh. It'll be an abomination.

Recommendation to Apple - name it something else.
Click to expand...
Actually, I've suggested that Apple call it just Macintosh.

No additional name should be added (like Power when we switched to PowerPC processors).

:rolleyes:

As for what some people consider worthy... they really aren't in any position to say. Only Apple decides what is and is not worthy of the term Macintosh.

I remember people being in the same state of denial when Apple started having talks with IBM (the evil empire) to develop the PowerPC.

Statements like:
"If it contains an Intel chip, it won't be worthy of the name Macintosh. It'll be an abomination."​
brings back memories of those days. Just replace the word Intel with IBM, and were back to where we were 12 years ago.

Of course when we finally had systems shipping with IBM processors in 1994, people bought them up.

Sorry, but other than speed, the processor in a computer is an invisible component of the computer from the end user point of view.

And on the speed end of things, we'll have to wait and see. Apple is not replacing the G5 at the high end of the product lines until 2007. Intel has until then to put out something that will impress us.

As it stands, Intel has shown Apple something to make them believe that by that point they'll have something that can replace the G5 at the high end.

And as someone who has been running PowerPC and Intel systems side by side with the same operating system from Apple for the last 5 years, I can say that the user experience really isn't any different based on the processor running the systems (other than, again, speed).

As for telling the difference between the platforms when running, here are two shots of my systems. One is based on the PowerPC 604e and the other an Intel Pentium. And it is the same application (Create) copied to both systems.



Which is which?​

As for which platform I prefer... PowerPC. :D
 
You guys are dumb.
The processor has nothing to do with the "Macintosh"
The Macintosh is Mac OS X. The processor will not change the use of Mac OS X. I don't care if it's PowerPC, G5, Intel, AMD, or some new Playstation Cell Chip. I will choose whichever runs OS X best.

Also, OBVIOUSLY Intel has major new products coming out. Anyone comparing the 3.6 Ghz Intel P4 to the G5 or AMDs is shortsighted. Intel will be coming out with a 64 bit chip and it will kick ass and match or improve upon AMD, and probably be equal or better in performance to the G5 and use LESS power so that Apple can give us next gen powerbooks.

And I bet Apple wants to port all the games over to OS X so that the argument that "windows has all the games" will one day be dead.

Obviously Intel is coming out with something awesome, that we know nothing about. And like I said above... I don't CARE what it is... as long as OS X boots up and runs fast, and doesn't burn my leg hairs off.
 
solrac said:
You guys are dumb.
The processor has nothing to do with the "Macintosh"
The Macintosh is Mac OS X. The processor will not change the use of Mac OS X. I don't care if it's PowerPC, G5, Intel, AMD, or some new Playstation Cell Chip. I will choose whichever runs OS X best.
Click to expand...

Uhm, *cough* the Macintosh is the whole computer and its design. Mac OS X is to my knowledge only the operating system. Of course, this is where it comes down for the end-user, but it's still the OS.
 
HomunQlus said:
Uhm, *cough* the Macintosh is the whole computer and its design. Mac OS X is to my knowledge only the operating system. Of course, this is where it comes down for the end-user, but it's still the OS.
Click to expand...

WRONG.
The Macintosh experience is the operating system. Period. And to a lesser extent the case designs.

Pretty case and Mac OS X = mac. Motherboard, chip, RAM, video card.... those are all blind slaves that make no difference to the mac experience other than speed, as someone else said.

The box and the software. Nothing else matters. As long as apple makes it look cool, lightweight, run fast, and not overheat, there is NO SACRIFICE OF THE MAC EXPERIENCE, and moving to Intel is included in this statement. NO MAC EXPERIENCE IS SACRIFICED. Get it through your heads!
 
solrac said:
WRONG.
The Macintosh experience is the operating system. Period. And to a lesser extent the case designs.

Pretty case and Mac OS X = mac. Motherboard, chip, RAM, video card.... those are all blind slaves that make no difference to the mac experience other than speed, as someone else said.

The box and the software. Nothing else matters. As long as apple makes it look cool, lightweight, run fast, and not overheat, there is NO SACRIFICE OF THE MAC EXPERIENCE, and moving to Intel is included in this statement. NO MAC EXPERIENCE IS SACRIFICED. Get it through your heads!
Click to expand...

Well, OS X comes on a DVD. This is a shiny round object with a hole in its centre. Yeah. The data for the OS is on this object.

Of course, the system is the experience for the user. OS X makes it all round and smooth.

But the Mac experience is also made of the computer itself, its style, its design. Their design is timeless. That's also what adds up. But in the end, it's what the user sees, it's the OS. But it's not entirely all.

And for the sacrificed thing: I've read a benchmark an hour ago... The Intel-Mac couldn't get to the performance of a PowerMac 2.5 GHz processor. So speed seems to have gone down a little. And for the rest? Well, they changed the processor, yes. For me it's bad, because I don't like Intel at all. So I'm not gonna buy an Intel-based Mac.
 
I agree: it's the OS that makes a Mac a Mac, 100%. Remember that Apple has not always been the only company making Mac hardware. My old Power Computing PowerCenter Pro is as much a Mac as my Power Mac 9600.

Hell, back in the pre-G3 days, Apple's hardware kinda stunk. Power Computing and Motorola made the real systems.
 
HomunQlus said:
And for the sacrificed thing: I've read a benchmark an hour ago... The Intel-Mac couldn't get to the performance of a PowerMac 2.5 GHz processor. So speed seems to have gone down a little. And for the rest? Well, they changed the processor, yes. For me it's bad, because I don't like Intel at all. So I'm not gonna buy an Intel-based Mac.
Click to expand...

The speed was slower on the Intel because it was using Rosetta (the binary translator.) The speed will be up to par after developers recompile their Apps.

As for not liking the Intel... LOL
That's like ... so dumb. I can't even think of an analogy. The Intel is not an engine. It's just a number-cruncher. Why do you not like the shiny little number-cruncher?

Perhaps you don't like some employees at Intel? That would make more sense.
 
For me it's more than just Mac OS X. It's how keyboards have the right 'feeling' to them. It's how the design of the machines is so superb that using other makers' PCs feel like cheapo-stuff - even if they cost the same or more. It's how the computers are virtually silent (I've never had a wind tunnel G4, though...). Notice that I haven't mentioned the CPU so far.

Apple will quite certainly _not_ turn to creating beige boxes delivered with 9$ keyboards and a PS/2 mouse only because they're adopting intel's CPUs (and probably some motherboard stuff). And frankly: I haven't seen much problems with intel's CPUs after the initial Pentium errors that made the press. I've seen many Microsoft problems, but we're not adopting _that_.

To state it's only the OS is wrong, in my opinion. Back when I was using Rhapsody DR 2 on both a PowerMacintosh 9500/200 and a noname AMD K6/200 machine, they almost felt the same. But it was things like keyboard and mouse that didn't exactly match. Well, as I said: Apple will deliver Apple keyboards and mice with those machines. And it's quite probable that you can use your favourite USB mouse, too.
 
If Macintosh is the OS, then they stopped being Macintoshes when System 7 came out. Or was it 8?, 9? Way back at 5? I can't remember.

You guys that suggest that the 68000 to 68020 change, or even the change to PPC, is anything like a change to intel might be surprised. (But then again, I might be). Reading the Univeral Binary document tells me this will not be as easy of a switch as Jobs is suggesting. Anyone who has run Windows NT on an alpha should know that it is easy enough to make a machine that looks like it works. Whole different matter actually using it.

And while everyone on both sides is hand wringing about the performance of the two lines of chips, no one has noticed that Jobs claims this change is based on the performance of future chips. I'm not trying to say that no one noticed that he said it. I'm just surprised that no one sees the problem with the claim. Jobs has no idea what the relative performance of future intel vs PPC chips is. He doesn't care. He just wants to stick it to IBM for leaving him twisting in the wind over the 3GHz PPC.
 
Well said.

fryke said:
For me it's more than just Mac OS X. It's how keyboards have the right 'feeling' to them. It's how the design of the machines is so superb that using other makers' PCs feel like cheapo-stuff - even if they cost the same or more. It's how the computers are virtually silent (I've never had a wind tunnel G4, though...). Notice that I haven't mentioned the CPU so far.

Apple will quite certainly _not_ turn to creating beige boxes delivered with 9$ keyboards and a PS/2 mouse only because they're adopting intel's CPUs (and probably some motherboard stuff). And frankly: I haven't seen much problems with intel's CPUs after the initial Pentium errors that made the press. I've seen many Microsoft problems, but we're not adopting _that_.

To state it's only the OS is wrong, in my opinion. Back when I was using Rhapsody DR 2 on both a PowerMacintosh 9500/200 and a noname AMD K6/200 machine, they almost felt the same. But it was things like keyboard and mouse that didn't exactly match. Well, as I said: Apple will deliver Apple keyboards and mice with those machines. And it's quite probable that you can use your favourite USB mouse, too.
Click to expand...
 
pjeski said:
Why are the pro-intel guys like solrac and parb.johal@ante calling people names? I haven't yet seen the reverse yet. Hmmm
Click to expand...

Well, I called obsession over the chip "dumb".

Now, the anti-intel guys have been calling it the PUTRIFICATION of the macintosh.

Now THAT'S name calling! And to our beloved Apple, no less.
 
Yea, Solrac, calling an intel Mac "Putrified" (smirk) is as rude as calling someone dumb. :)
Sorry for the edit on my post. I'm not trying to make you look insane. The comment you quoted really didn't belong in my post, so I deleted it before I saw your reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top