Please don't call it a Macintosh

@racerX
I'm going to guess the bottom one is the 604e. It looks like it's easier on the eye.

I agree, basically, the insides do what the OS makes it do, so there shouldn't be a lot of change. But somehow the idea of a clean open architecture of the chips Apple uses (from the 68x's through the risc chips and the g5) has been part of the je ne se quas of using the machine. All mental, but I enjoy my neuroses, thank you. I will lament the passing of a friend. RIP PPC :D

@fryke
Absolutely! It's not just the OS, it's the build, the panache. I don't think the panache-guys are going to jump ship the way so many forum rats say they will. Cupertino will still be the home-town of cool products, even with intel insides. People will see just how dull Dells really are.

Dual core laptops, transitive powered desktops, secure media machines - woot! Makes it hard to hold a wake! :)
 
Then the blame lies with IBM for putting Apple in second place. Motorola did the same thing. What else was Apple going to do? It almost died (for real) in the 90s because it wouldn't be open to other technologies and stuck with Motorola even after they treated Apple like a second class citizen. If you look at the Macs even up to right before Steve came on board, they had sub-chips that were from Intel and AMD. So what is the big deal?? So the CPU changes. We're talking Apple here. They'll be able to take Intel's best and make it better. They did so with 68K and PPC processors, they will do it with the Intel ones.

Whether it's 68K or PPC or x86, it will still have the spirit of the Mac in it becasue of Apple. I say keep the "Macintosh" moniker.

This is from a long time Apple fan since my Apple IIc.
 
from what i read on the web.. the "rosetta" bench marks are not very good-60-70, my old G4 500 does 80...LOL
hoping that apple can cut the mustard on this project... ""over and out""
 
RacerX said:
I remember people being in the same state of denial when Apple started having talks with IBM (the evil empire) to develop the PowerPC.
Click to expand...

Good morning, RacerX,

Doesn't the PowerPC series chip contain code develop by jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM (not just IBM by itself)? Isn't it mostly Motorola developed code?

And, yeah, I was in a chagrin when that happened. PC users were laughing their asses off. Although it turned out the chagrin was upon the PC community 'cause their beloved IBM even recognized the existance of Apple Computer.

Whew. OK, RacerX, may I slightly change the subject?

We're gonna hear and read a lot about speed. "Speed is everything."
Not.

The 2nd fastest moving object in any contact sport is the hockey puck. When it gets to the other end of the ice rink, it's still a hockey puck. If you knock a well hardened dog turd across the ice, it's still a dog turd. If you run PC software at a high rate of speed, it's still a dog turd. Speed does not improve crap.

Need proof? I'm sitting here using a Dell D800 running windoze XP and I can prove to you 100 times/day that it's crap. Stand here and watch.

Steve Jobs will do what he wants to do without regard for the Mac Community; just allow me to suggest that the box with the intel chip inside be named something other than Mac or Macintosh; how about THE APPLE III ++, or about the FRANKLIN II?

The intel staff must be ROTFL by now - "hey guys, guess who's groveling to us now - Steve Jobs!"
 
Your Dell running Windows XP is crap because of Windows XP, not the intel chip, though. Right? Just get over it. You're just angry right now. You want Apple to REALLY say: "Well, we know, it's not a Mac anymore, so we call it Suzie..." - But would THAT make any sense? It WILL be a Mac. You're not changing the subject, you're just whining on and on. And your arguments even give the answers.
 
Adonsa said:
Good morning, RacerX,

Doesn't the PowerPC series chip contain code develop by jointly by Motorola, Apple, and IBM (not just IBM by itself)? Isn't it mostly Motorola developed code?

And, yeah, I was in a chagrin when that happened. PC users were laughing their asses off. Although it turned out the chagrin was upon the PC community 'cause their beloved IBM even recognized the existance of Apple Computer.

Whew. OK, RacerX, may I slightly change the subject?

We're gonna hear and read a lot about speed. "Speed is everything."
Not.

The 2nd fastest moving object in any contact sport is the hockey puck. When it gets to the other end of the ice rink, it's still a hockey puck. If you knock a well hardened dog turd across the ice, it's still a dog turd. If you run PC software at a high rate of speed, it's still a dog turd. Speed does not improve crap.

Need proof? I'm sitting here using a Dell D800 running windoze XP and I can prove to you 100 times/day that it's crap. Stand here and watch.

Steve Jobs will do what he wants to do without regard for the Mac Community; just allow me to suggest that the box with the intel chip inside be named something other than Mac or Macintosh; how about THE APPLE III ++, or about the FRANKLIN II?

The intel staff must be ROTFL by now - "hey guys, guess who's groveling to us now - Steve Jobs!"
Click to expand...


Yepp. Nicely said! Couldn't agree more.
 
Got your attention?

This switch has caused some hysterical reactions, along with comments like whatever comes of this, it won't be a Mac and people threatening to jump ship, and some equally amusing counter-reations. I think I was in the 'jump ship' category to start with, now I just class myself as in shock.

But all the assumptions and tears aside, what do we actually know?

Future Macs will use Intel CPUs as opposed to PowerPC. Does this make those new Macs actually overpriced PCs? No, there is more than one way to build a computer with a common CPU without the end result being the same. I'd imagine Apple will try to create distinctive hardware built better than any PC.

The problem with all this is that if Apple get lazy, they could just end up being a PC maker with copies of Windows being ran (unofficially) by users, worse still someone (of the PearPC-personality type) WILL create a workaround to satisfy OSX that it is being installed on official hardware. The beginning of a slow, agonising death for Apple I'm afraid, you're kidding yourself it you see it different, I think. PPC does give Apple something they are going to loose - CONTROL.

My HOPE is that they will keep a degree of differentiation over standard PC hardware, enough to prevent what some have described as putrification of the platform.

Existing apps will work with Rosetta. Wrong. G3 apps SHOULD work, no altivec, so that was all a waste of time. Basically, a recompile, or tweek until it does is all developers need to do, how many will is another matter. Fat binaries are NOW the future.

I'd like to open this up for discussion, what is your view, what do you know, what kind of machine will the Mac be in 2006,2007.. still a unique machine with it's own special hardware and software? Or just one of infinate, bland PCs which will surely mark the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it?
 
UPDATE:
The latest I've read indicates (going back to my previous point) that OSX will NOT run on PCs but Windows may work on Mac. THIS IS BAD. It's a clue that Apple may indeed be degrading itself into a PC maker, IF this is so, I see no good from it.

I'm reminded of Revenge of the Sith when Padme remarks how people are blindly clapping at their own demise. All I can say is:
"So this is how [Apple] dies, with thunderous applause [from it's fans]"
 
If Apple willing to let MacOS X install on off generic PCs. Apple will lose control over hardware. That why in the past Apple killed mac clone licenses. Which is good because we can compare Apple HW vs PC HW and see who the faster.
 
I'd say, with the switch to Intel, Apple has passed the Point Of No Return. From my point of view, even if it doesn't seem likely that much to all of you who are supporting the Intel-switch, this marked the beginning of the slow and painful death for Apple Computer Inc. The PowerPC for the end-user (and office-users too) was probably one of the most original inventions ever done. It gave them control, it was above the PC-level and defined the industry standard. Now Apple is downgrading themselves to the PC-level.

Well, if Steve thinks it was the right step to do, be my guest, but I'm not going to buy an Intel-based Mac, that much is certain. You who support the Intel-thing may stay with Apple, no problem, but the joy is not gonna be for long.

Let's meet in about 2015 (ten years from now) again and see if we can say "Yeah, Apple was great until they switched and began to vanish" or "Do you have the new Apple yet with a P5 in?"

I think the first one will be the question asked then.
 
fryke said:
Your Dell running Windows XP is crap because of Windows XP, not the intel chip, though. Right? Just get over it. You're just angry right now. You want Apple to REALLY say: "Well, we know, it's not a Mac anymore, so we call it Suzie..." - But would THAT make any sense? It WILL be a Mac. You're not changing the subject, you're just whining on and on. And your arguments even give the answers.
Click to expand...


I competely agreed with you. Its have nothing to do with INTEL. XP cause intel choked. The main problem is XP itself therefore Window XP is crap! Remember all the hardwares made by other companies not from Apple. Apple only designed the motherboard for what Apple want this hardware to be designed.

It still Macintosh. But but Macintosh married with Intel (Macintosh + Intel = Macintel) Hell no! I wont allow call this Macintel! *&^#*@*&
 
fjdouse said:
UPDATE:
The latest I've read indicates (going back to my previous point) that OSX will NOT run on PCs but Windows may work on Mac. THIS IS BAD. It's a clue that Apple may indeed be degrading itself into a PC maker, IF this is so, I see no good from it.

I'm reminded of Revenge of the Sith when Padme remarks how people are blindly clapping at their own demise. All I can say is:
"So this is how [Apple] dies, with thunderous applause [from it's fans]"
Click to expand...

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

If you could still get a PC cheaper than an Intel Mac with Windows already on the PC, why would you want to wipe out OS X and install Windows on an Intel Mac?? I can see the reason maybe for dual booting for development reasons or for running something like Virtual PC using an actual disk partition instead of an image, but to solely run Windows???

The same goes for those that install Linux over Mac OS X on a newly purchased Mac. What is the point?? PPC Linux much farther behind in terms of support than x86 Linux. You'd be better served with OS X. Or again, a dual-boot setup would work here for development purposes (even though it's not necessary to do so on either PPC/Intel Macs).

I don't see people spending the money to do this. If they want to buy the Intel Mac, they are buying it because it has Mac OS X and it will have the option to use Windows if they want. Again, this wil mainly appeal to the geek crowd as Joe Average will most likely either stick with what's installed on the Intel Mac, or purchase a Windows PC from someone else instead.

Again, this is not the end of Apple as we know it....only a new beginning.
 
Homunqlus: "I'd say, with the switch to Intel, Apple has passed the Point Of No Return. From my point of view, even if it doesn't seem likely that much to all of you who are supporting the Intel-switch, this marked the beginning of the slow and painful death for Apple Computer Inc. The PowerPC for the end-user (and office-users too) was probably one of the most original inventions ever done. It gave them control, it was above the PC-level and defined the industry standard. Now Apple is downgrading themselves to the PC-level."

Hogwash! The PowerPC was above intel's processors back in the days of the G3. It wasn't at G1/G2 (at least not _really_) and you certainly remember the year of the G4/500, when Motorola couldn't advance it? I clearly remember the days of the G4, when we were hoping for a G5 for YEARS, but it didn't come. Then it came, and it was good (well, it closed the performance gap), but now that's a non-scaler, too!
 
Who really cares as long as it's an Apple ?

Just because Macintel or Appletell (refering to wilhem tell) or whatever is not quite related to Mac or Macintosh doesn't mean much.

It's the "combo" OS+Hardware we are using and enjoying not it's nickname ?! Sounds like people relate to a nickname and for how long now? rather than an Apple Computer that "confusion" for some might arise.

Long Live Apple and thanks to Steve to make sure it'll be around for year to come ...
 
I know one of the Apple exec said they wouldn't stop people from running Windows on Intel based Macs, but I'd like to know technically how that is going to be possible.

We're assuming, probably correctly, that most of the core Macintosh architecture is not changing. That means OpenBoot, possibly an Apple/Intel derivitive chipset, and other hardware differences that means the system won't fit the "PC-xxxx" specifications. Windows just won't install and run without appropriate drivers in that case. Will the motherboard support ACPI? If not, then Windows won't even see it and it won't work... And I doubt very much many hackers would bother trying to write Windows chipset drivers to make it work.

Now, getting Mac OS X to work on other x86 hardware will have much more of an interest and since Darwin is open source there is a reasonable change people will be able to hack around enough to make it happen someday.

My two cents... but I'm sure those with access to the Intel devkit will be trying Windows out to see what happens anyway. :D
 
I'm not to sure about cross platform or cross system compatability. But who cares what chip it is running on as long as it has the look and feel of a Mac. Also all the tweaking they have done to the software in the past to compare speeds, well heres the test on the same chip. I don't have a problem with it either way.

According to Jobs they have been secretly embedding intel code in the OS, starting with OSX, so I am sure they have done alot of speed testing and performance testing... The system is UNIX. UNIX has run on intel chips from the beginning so why not, intel can supply the chips IBM cannot it sounds like a business decision to me.

It is the environment that we adore not the chip. I always wondered why Apple went one way and Gates another. If they would have combined the two we would not be as advanced today, I am sure of that. It is the interface, as it were, that makes a Mac a Mac. And personally I think it blows Windows out of the water, no competition. and when the PC people find out that they can buy a Mac and not be a traitor to the PC cause Apple is going grow in leaps and bounds. Its a great time to buy Apple stock.

If they did as well as they did bucking the tremendously strong draft winds competing with Windows just think how they will fare without the pressure. Jobs has performed well, keeping the monster on track, then again the pressure may have acted like a brake to keep it moving at a manageble speed, now we'll see how the machine handles at break neck speeds. if the calculations are correct it will dominate, I have no doubt, but if wrong even a little it may tumble out of control. I have faith in Jobs, He may have just found a way to break free from those shackles.

I would think the creative and progressive minds that have always been associated with Macs would see the possibilities. But alas I guess the strongest of the Apple users are getting old and have trouble seeing the future. We are (I include myself because I started in 1988) who we are, if you move to a new city does it change who you are? No, a peoples character remain the same, as will the Macintosh feel.

It will grow and change in time no matter what chip it runs on, I didn't hear this much whinning when the OS went to Unix. Thats about as big a move toward intel and the others as one could go, but look at the rewards. Pull your heads out and smell the fresh air, the train is coming. Your either part of the solution, or part of the problem, Time will tell.
Sorry for the book.

ocmacman
 
Firstly, yes, Rosetta is slow. i read those benchmarks. they are programs built for powerPC

read the bit where it benchmarks aqua, quartz and core image (the OS) the intel is faster.

now i don't have to make up shit about how G5 is better than P4, i realise that it was never a strong processor. it's reached it's top end 2 years after it's release. pentium 4 has been going 4 years now. and it's still going.

Secondly, if you *could* run windows on your mac, would you want to? i mean come on! you're all taking bloody stupid pills. You *can* run linux on there. do you? no. because it's shite (sorry to nix fans, but it's just not the same ball park as paid for software, there's just so much more R+D, and quality engineers. you couldn't get open source Motion, for example)
 
I'm pretty new to using macs but personally aslong as I can get a beautifully designed case, with the bits inside running mac osx, I don't mind who makes them. Might sound a bit stupid but the only reason I switched and will stay with mac is the OS. If it ran on other systems for example the VAIO VGN series of notebooks, which I think look pretty nice and for the most well priced, I'd buy those too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top