Actually, I've suggested that Apple call it just Macintosh.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.
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.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.
WRONG.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.
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.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!
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.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.
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.
Well, I called obsession over the chip "dumb".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