Please don't call it a Macintosh

lbj

Registered
HomunQlus said:
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.

You've got a date.

Maybe at that time you can also explain how your still using OSX ("for life") without ever having purchased a newer Mac.

Yeah, I'm interested to see how that plan worked out for you.
 

Krevinek

Evil PPC Tweaker
Adonsa said:
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?
Actually, PowerPC is based off of the Power series of chips by IBM, with Motorola-suggested additions. Plus, it isn't code stored on a chip, it is circuitry (I nitpick ;))

HomunQlus said:
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.
Not really. This assumes the hardware will be entirely generic and commodity to the point of worthlessness (like Dell). Straw man argument (or close enough to one).

Lt Major Burns said:
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)
Actually, I would be willing to in a dual-boot environment, or through hardware virtualization. Seriously, if I could be able to do development for my client, and have my own pretty Unix OS... on the same machine... that is worth its weight in gold for me. I know quite a few people who would buy Apple because of this as well. ("I can only afford one machine, but I want the game support Windows has.")

Additional: Still, I will be getting a Mac Mini very soon, and then a Macintel laptop when some decent ones come out.
 

fjdouse

UNIX - Live Free or Die
HomunQlus said:
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.
Firstly, it's a shame the admins moved my thread into this one, I wanted to have a particular debate separate to the one of this thread... well...

I can understand your anger at this, I am caught between hope and rage myself.

For me, at this current point (and truthfully I don't know how I will feel next week, month or year) I feel:

If the end result is an Intel based PC called a Mac, I'll cut my losses and go back to Linux, that's the truth, because a PC called a Mac WILL go the way of the dinosaurs by 2015 for sure.

If the end result is an Intel based Mac which is not a MERE lowly PC, which can also run Windows (or other 64bit Intel OS) with some nice virtualisation techniques, but still a protected platform, then I will stick with it for sure.

I want to know whether the Intel-Mac will be unique or just another PC.
 

Scottfab

Helpless Mac Newbie
*yawn* mac users sure get upset easily. i shrug at this new development. most software will work alright with rosetta, mac provided software (nearly everything i use) will work fine from day one, most developers will be intel-ready in time, macs were bad for gaming to begin with, and maybe games and office will actually work better. if a few hackers want to mess with their motherboards to get osx to work on pc, go ahead. i'd rather just stick to a secure, stable, and lets face it, prettier mac.
 

RacerX

Old Rhapsody User
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?
The initial was largely based on IBM's POWER processor... and though aspects of the original PowerPC 601 were codeveloped by IBM, Motorola and Apple... it was still an IBM chip.

Infact, you can separate out which PowerPC chips came from which company. The PowerPC 601, 603, 604/604e and the G3 used in most Macs were made by IBM. Many PowerPC 603/603e were made by Motorola and the G4 (other than a short production run early on) were totally Motorola chips.

But the foundation of the the PowerPC is IBM technology.

Further, even after Apple had started working on the PowerPC with IBM and Motorola, Motorola was still trying to win Apple back with the 68060 processor. Apple hedged their bets by making the logic boards of the 6100/7100/8100 able to use either the PowerPC 601 or the MC 68060 processors. Motorola came up short, IBM's chips shipped with those systems.

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.
Last I heard, Apple was not going to be selling Dells.

But I use an IBM ThinkPad everyday. I have since 1999 and it has been a perfect work horse of a system. It never crashes and I never worry about it.

Why is it different from another Pentium running PC out there... It has been running an Apple operating system all these years.

pds said:
@racerX
I'm going to guess the bottom one is the 604e. It looks like it's easier on the eye.
Hmmm...
Well you had a 50-50 chance. I don't see all that much difference... other than one is Rhapsody 5.1 (from 1998) and the other is Rhapsody 5.6 (from late 2000).

But your right, the second one is the 604e system.
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
fjdouse said:
Firstly, it's a shame the admins moved my thread into this one, I wanted to have a particular debate separate to the one of this thread... well...

I can understand your anger at this, I am caught between hope and rage myself.

For me, at this current point (and truthfully I don't know how I will feel next week, month or year) I feel:

If the end result is an Intel based PC called a Mac, I'll cut my losses and go back to Linux, that's the truth, because a PC called a Mac WILL go the way of the dinosaurs by 2015 for sure.

If the end result is an Intel based Mac which is not a MERE lowly PC, which can also run Windows (or other 64bit Intel OS) with some nice virtualisation techniques, but still a protected platform, then I will stick with it for sure.

I want to know whether the Intel-Mac will be unique or just another PC.
Thanks for supporting me!

The Macs I have got now were the first ones - and the last ones. I'm not gonna buy a Intel-based Apple machine (I avoid using the term Mac from now on for Intel based Apple machines). I also will go back to Linux with an AMD CPU - the only option left for me.


lbj said:
You've got a date.

Maybe at that time you can also explain how your still using OSX ("for life") without ever having purchased a newer Mac.

Yeah, I'm interested to see how that plan worked out for you.
What is it with you guys complaining about my Mac OS X for life thing? Mac OS X is in my opinion pretty close to perfect. However, in 2015 there will probably be Mac OS XI or even Mac OS XII - I probably won't have an Intel based Apple machine by that time. So, Mac OS X is the system I gonna use until the very end. Meanwhile I will start to change back to Linux.
 

Lt Major Burns

"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
i can't believe you're going to make your entire computing life worse and worse, subjecting yourelf to linux and blankly boycotting apple because... what? they changed a component? don't you think you're taking this a bit to strongly? if i can run Virtual PC at nearly full speed, and if my Mac (yup) runs better, faster and for longer, then i'll be a willing intel customer. it's only a bloody chip after all. you're flying off the handle. stop whinging and look at the brightside. apple, and all of us, have been f*cked over by IBM. this is the solution. PowerPC is different, but also completly unscalable. it has no future. computing is all about future.
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
I'm making my life better by choosing to have choice. Linux is completely scalable, and you have the choice to have it the way you want it. I'd say I'm still on the good side.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Yeah, but you'd still be using X86 or X86-64 processors, just like us Mac users. You're really just sulking, aren't you. If you think Mac OS X is nearly perfect, then I _really_ don't see the reason to go linux. Unless you really think linux _is_ better than Mac OS X.
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
Yes, I am on an X86 or X86-64 Processor. But it'll be AMD, not Intel.

Also, I do not think that Linux is better, but if OS X only runs on an Intel, for me personally I have no other choice as Linux. I don't wanna see Windows again, Mac OS X runs only with a chip I don't like, so only one choice left. AMD with Linux.
 

Pengu

Digital Music Pimp
oh my god. you do realise that AMD's x86 chips are clones of Intel's IA32 architecture right? in software terms, it'd be like using Windows and saying you hate MacOS..
 

Lt Major Burns

"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
AMD are no different! it's still a bloody x86! it's slightly stronger now, but it won't be in the long term. Linux is stable, but there's no bloody software for it, unless you really love open source amateur rubbish. you really are just sulking now. you're throwing macOS away because it's running on a different chip. probably a much better chip, by the time it gets on the shelves.
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
Lt Major Burns said:
AMD are no different! it's still a bloody x86! it's slightly stronger now, but it won't be in the long term. Linux is stable, but there's no bloody software for it, unless you really love open source amateur rubbish. you really are just sulking now. you're throwing macOS away because it's running on a different chip. probably a much better chip, by the time it gets on the shelves.
Amateur rubbish huh? Well, Linux is continuously developed by people who also were involved in creating the Internet... Linux is quite capable of competing with OS X and Windows. Read more about it, see screenshots... If you after that still think it's amateur rubbish, you haven't understood the meaning of Open Source.

And yes, AMD is an X86 processor. I don't care about that. I don't like Intel. I do like X86. That's a difference.
 

Cat

Registered
And yes, AMD is an X86 processor. I don't care about that. I don't like Intel. I do like X86. That's a difference.
From Wikipedia:
x86 or 80x86 is the generic name of a microprocessor architecture first developed and manufactured by Intel.
The architecture is called x86 because the earliest processors in this family were identified only by numbers ending in the sequence "86": the 8086, the 80186, the 80286, the 386, and the 486. Because one cannot trademark numbers, Intel and most of its competitors began to use trademarkable names such as Pentium for subsequent generations of processors, but the earlier naming scheme has stuck as a term for the entire family. The extended version of the x86 architecture introduced with the 386 is called x86-32 or IA-32, an abbreviation for Intel Architecture, 32-bit.
x86 == Intel processor

Wikipedia:
The company [AMD] started as a producer of logic chips in 1969 and entered the RAM chip business in 1975. That same year, it introduced a reverse-engineered clone of the Intel 8080 microprocessor. [...] In February 1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel, becoming a licensed second-source manufacturer of the 8086 and 8088 processors.
I don't like Intel. I do like X86. That's a difference.
Not much of a difference though. ;)
 

HomunQlus

Artifical Lifeform
I don't think you all get it. No use for me to continue the discussion of my dislike of Intel.
 

Lycander

Registered
I only dislike Intel because of their management staff. They picked up Alpha engineers for crying out loud, and brought the NetBurst architecture to the world. Big whoop-dee-doo. AMD picked up the other half of the Alpha team and what did we get? K7, the first Athlon which spanked the Pentium 3.

To the best of my knowledge, Intel is the only chip maker that puts their CPUs on the same bus in a multi CPU board. That means they all share the same bandwidth. Stupid.

NetBurst (Pentium 4) was rushed, and it was very obvious. Willemette was just very sloppy and the P4 didn't start to look better until Northwood, but then Intel goes and screws it up again with Prescott.


One last thing: you'd be very naive if you think Linux and various OSS software is developed by amatuers. Many OSS programmers are employed by companies like IBM, heck even RedHat trades stock in the public market. And if it weren't for OSS developers, we wouldn't have FreeBSD, Mach, and even the work done on Darwin.

Do you like Safari web browser? *cough* KHTML which was made by OSS programmers. I could go on.
 

Cat

Registered
There is nothing much to "get" here: in seven pages of bitching and moaning and repeating "I don't like" you have only once come close to telling us WHY:

"An Intel CPU will never be as robust or as strong as the G5 is. Fact."

Well, indeed. :rolleyes: Could you somehow give any reasons for this bold statement? The G5 is a quick hack, an adapted POWER processor with Altivec grafted on. The Intel processor going into the first intelliMac next year will be quite a bit ahead of current Intel processors and alos quite a bit ahead of the G5, which is already pretty old by processor standards. The G4 and G5 have both proved not to scale very well, the Pentium line has scaled extraordinarily well, admittedly with some hacks. However, Intel has developed a new line based on the Pentium M. The desktop versions derived from the Pentium M core leave both current Intel and the G5 in the dust wrt. power efficiency. The previsions, not the rumours, tell us that the intel PowerMac will probably use dual core processors at around 4GHz and this perhaps again in a dual configuration. What is bad about that? Intel, AMD, Apple, Microsoft are all alike in the respect that they are commercial companies, interested in profits etc. Their image can help them to gather the sympathy of customers. Playing the underdag can help your sales. What differentiates Apple from other computer or OS producers is their quality and attention to detail. Do you think that is going to be lessend by their teaming up with the leading processor manufacturer? I think not, but perhaps you can give some valid reasons for your position. Then perhaps not, and it is only an emotional, irrational outburst.
 

Pengu

Digital Music Pimp
I have no problem with linux. it's great and all that. but for a desktop OS that "just works" it has a long way to go. It's developed by geeks, not UI experts.

and whoopy do, the chip is made by intel. does that mean you wouldn't use a G5 XServe because it has an Intel controller or whatever the hell it is, inside?

Yes, intel have made some mistakes. But what company hasn't had blunders?

as for the single bus. the Dual G4s were on a single 100/133/167mhz bus..
 

fjdouse

UNIX - Live Free or Die
HomunQlus said:
Amateur rubbish huh? Well, Linux is continuously developed by people who also were involved in creating the Internet... Linux is quite capable of competing with OS X and Windows. Read more about it, see screenshots... If you after that still think it's amateur rubbish, you haven't understood the meaning of Open Source.

And yes, AMD is an X86 processor. I don't care about that. I don't like Intel. I do like X86. That's a difference.
First, everyone COOL DOWN!!

"bitching and moaning" is not a comment worthy of these boards.

We are fighting over IFs and MAYBEs!! YES, Apple are moving to a new CPU, we do NOT know the implications yet. YES, it's emotionally testing for some of us, but keep it in perspective.

HomunQlus, I'm happy to support you because you have a genuine concern and worry, as do I. If people took their heads out their a**es and actually listened rather than fling excretia we'd all be happier.

BTW guys, Open Source software is NOT amateur rubbish, I take enourmous offence at that, I have been a 100% Linux user since 94 and the contribution of 'open source' has been enourmous to computer development and a comment like this is embarrasing to read and betrays a degree of ignorance.

A few of you need to come down off that gleeming mountain and realise people settle on the variety (while we still have them) of computers and platforms because of complex reasons, not always logical or rational or understandable to others. I do not like Microsoft, I do not like Intel too much either, I don't like the way they operate, I don't like the way computers have developed in the last 10 years under the shadow of Win-Tel dominance. A lot of people do not like them either. Some like myself, built our own machines at a fraction of the cost of "PC" makers, using AMD processors and Linux as they suited our tastes, views or philosophies - it's not black and white. MANY bought Macs. Apple sold it's DIFFERENCE as part of the whole experience we have bought into. For many, the change to Intel is a betrayal of principles or beliefs. For me personally, I am scared Apple are just going to make Mac branded PCs, the blind here seem to be willing it to happen. Apple have not helped by saying that Windows COULD run on it, if natively, then the Intel-Macs WILL BE PCs!

For people who love UNIX and despise Intel (or simply do not want to use their processors) this move makes Apple another PC maker, the only remaining selling point becomes the OS. Sorry to rock your world, but if Apple becomes a PC maker and Windows runs on it albeit with a bit of effort, THEN it is inevitable that OSX will be running on Dells etc. it may not be easy, it may require software but it WILL happen, why even bother with another Mac? For it's cult status? What status? It will be just a PC!!

If it's going to cost me £1,200 for a Mac "PC" OR under £300 to put my own PC together with an AMD chip and Linux, perhaps with a wee PearPC-type OPEN SOURCE hack to install OSX in a VM or partition, I WILL do it. So will MANY others, that will only speed up Apple's decline.

So I can understand the concerns, they ARE valid, not whining you blind fools, this is a major thing! Especially if you've invested energy, time and HARD EARNED MONEY in it.

HomunQlus, I say enjoy your current machine(s) and be patient until we have more concrete information as to whether the new Macs will still be unique machines or just PCs with an Apple badge on it, in which case, we won't be the only ones who leave Apple's platform. Doesn't the XBox run a PC CPU? Doesn't make it a PC, similarly a 68000 in an Amiga didn't make it a Mac ;-)
 
Top