Please don't call it a Macintosh

[Lt Major Burns]

the type of machine made, hopefully, will be, when properly done, identicle to current machines, or a redesign going forward. the way i see, the only thing that is changing is the chip, and some of the logicboard around the chip. there's no reason for it to be any different. when you turn it on, it'll still go BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!, before going to a grey screen with a grey apple in the centre, before booting into a faster version of OSX. when in osx, the possiblity of VPC turning into a viable product, instead of 386-emulator, is very tempting. being able to run, say, HL2 at nearly full computer speed is very tempting. other than that, nothing will be different, only the universal coded apps run faster than your old PPC mac

 

[fjdouse]

Now, THAT is what I want!

BTW, don't put too much faith in VMs for games, I used VMware on Linux for years, games were a no-go.

 

[RacerX]

I guess we'll have to pretend that Apple never did have 'the worlds first' 64 bit desktop machine after all (although I've had a 64bit Sun sat here for years), along with ah-hem AltiVec.

Well... why?

Apple did have the first 64 bit Desktop computer. They were out and in people's hands, why should we pretend that it didn't happen?

And I've had an Indy (both 64 bit hardware and software) sitting here since 1999... but it is no more a desktop computer than any Sun ever made. Both Sun and SGI sell workstations and servers, not desktops. There is a difference.

 

[fjdouse]

Well, I think a lot of us who have G4s were expecting that in a year, we'd have G5, i.e. a 64bit batch of machines coming, I expected my NEXT Mac mini to be a G5, I anticipated I'd be using 64bit machines by 2006. The iMac is what I'd call a standard Mac, it's G5 right now, but does anyone know for sure what CPU will replace it? Or even my mini? By what I've gathered, the mini will be first to go Intel and will be replaced by a 32bit Pentium. It seems to me, without some documentation with facts that the transition causes a bump on the road to 64bit, I thought we Mac users would beat the PC world to it, not too sure now though what with G5 replacements being chalked in for 2007, maybe Q4.

(Yes there is a difference between desktop and workstation, although the terms are frequently interchanged incorrectly. But I doubt most will know, I've had a hard job just getting people to understand the diffence between PC and Macs!)

 

[Pengu]

you can't expect Apple's cheapest computer line to suddenly jump into 64 bit.

 

[fryke]

Also, people should by now get that going 64bit does not per se result in better performance.

If I just make myself blind and dumb for a moment: If I'm a PowerPC fanboy and hate intel's guts like crazy and think that Apple will release slow-as-molasses halfly emulated 32bit mobile processor machines to us to replace the oh-so-shiny Macs come June-in-a-year - yes then I can relate. But I'm neither blind nor dumb. And quite certainly Steve Jobs isn't blind and dumb either. He was talking about slowly replacing the G4 and G5 chips with what intel has to offer one year from now.
If you've been following the technews, it's VERY clear that intel goes dual-core for mobile and desktop processors and it supports the somethingsomething-64bit-extensions that AMD has introduced and are supported by Windows. This last point is important now for Apple. Because if Microsoft supports that with their OSs, it means that the technology will be developed further.

Let's go back two years. How IBM and Apple were proud of the G5 shows that Apple has NEVER intended to easily give up on the PowerPC processor. Go back in time on this very forum and read some threads about X86, intel and AMD. Before the G5, Apple was severely lacking processor power, and the name "Power" PC was basically a joke, since Apple's machines could only compete as notebooks back then. The PowerMacs were using overclocked G4s that needed cooling like crazy. But IBM, with the G5, breathed some life into the PowerPC as a desktop processor. But the happiness was a short one. Is it so long ago that we moaned and bitched about the G5 not reaching 3.0 GHz - and not only that, we also had to accept that in almost a year since the 2.5 GHz LIQUID COOLED (i.e. overclocked) PowerMac, Apple could only deliver a less than 10% faster processor in the highend machine. Still better than "the year of 500 MHz", back when Motorola couldn't deliver with the G4 and IBM danced around it with its G3s which scaled much better in the same time.

It is MORE than time to tell AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) goodbye. Sometimes, it's just not worth it to say "but we were right". Because it doesn't really _help_ any longer.

For now (or again rather for June 2006 and the near future), Apple has chosen intel to be the main processor factory for Apple's Macintosh computers. Yes, this might change again sometime in the future. But even if you're really agitated about it and think you wouldn't EVER live with an intel CPU in one of your Macs: I always thought Mac people were open-minded enough to think differently. At least a bit. Let them bring out the first X86 or X86-64 Macs. Let them at least _state_ why they think (a year from now!) why people should buy these machines. And then try them out. Throw the apps at them that you actually need to use. And see for yourself if it's still a Mac that you're using. I would bet quite some money that those machines will be good.

 

[fjdouse]

mmh, I sincerely cannot tell if you've directed that at me or were just contributing generally to the thread. Personally, I don't care about the Intel move, I just don't want Apple making x86 PCs and palming them off as Macs, I can't see it happening, but there are signs and I never thought they'd drop PowerPC, so what do I know? Unlike those who are saying I will never buy an Intel-Mac, I will wait and see what happens, my purchases planned within the next couple of months are on hold, I think a lot of people will be waiting. I will look at the specs of the machines as we get the details and evaluate whether to move to it or not, I hoping to be running or awaiting delivery of an Intel based Mac mini this time next year. I can't be fairer than that.


Pengu: "you can't expect Apple's cheapest computer line to suddenly jump into 64 bit."
I don't think that's what I was saying, I expected when I ordered my Mac in march?!? that by the end of the year the G5 laptops would appear and that the eMac and Mac mini would follow by mid to late 06, that may have been over-optimistic, but at least I had a bit more optimism then, eh? Now the 'lower' Macs will not get 64bit CPUs until.. what? 2008 or later? I just thought it would be quicker.

 

[mkwan]

the type of machine made, hopefully, will be, when properly done, identicle to current machines, or a redesign going forward. the way i see, the only thing that is changing is the chip, and some of the logicboard around the chip. there's no reason for it to be any different. when you turn it on, it'll still go BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!, before going to a grey screen with a grey apple in the centre, before booting into a faster version of OSX. when in osx, the possiblity of VPC turning into a viable product, instead of 386-emulator, is very tempting. being able to run, say, HL2 at nearly full computer speed is very tempting. other than that, nothing will be different, only the universal coded apps run faster than your old PPC mac

the [BONNNNNNGNGGGGG!!] really cracked me up...no offense Burns

 

[fryke]

Maybe they'll switch to the intel jingle.

 

[Stridder44]

Oh my junk! How about we go to McDonalds and get you guys a waaahmburger with some french cries.

"Oh its not a mac anymore blah blah blah" Suck it up. How could this be bad? The G5 was good yes, but IBM kinda gave up on it. So no development of a chip means in the end it's crap. And don't even start that @#$% about OS X versions not being able to go past 10.4.9.....

 

[wnowak1]

I am actually excited about the Intel switch. With dual core 64bit cpus coming out, I think we will see a nice speed increase. I predict a wider range of video cards, smaller laptops and hopefully tablet macs...

For the people that whine about the intel CPU, I can bet that when Steve Jobs was running the demos, you thought it was a regular mac untill he announced that it has an intel. If it runs good, then what is the problem with the CPU ?

 

[Lt Major Burns]

Now, THAT is what I want!

BTW, don't put too much faith in VMs for games, I used VMware on Linux for years, games were a no-go.

finally! we agree on something! i am designer, and i've loved design since i was a nipper. Jonathan Ive is one of my heros. i read about him after he did all the stuff straying from beige boxes, and just saw a shining light. the G5 is a bloody masterpiece of design, perfect in every way (well, nearly. needs 2 more usb2... ), as is the g5 imac, and the mac mini, and his keyboard, and his screens. amazing.

i don't think Ive has it in him to settle for going backwards - no designer can! the replacement for the Powermac is going to be incredible. it is not going to be a pc, it's going to be the finest mac you'll ever see.

linux appeals to the engineer because it is a very scalable OS, it's very strong, and can be very fast. MacOS is less so, but it appeals to the designer more, because it was designed to look amazing. linux's UI was created, and it works, but it wasn't designed from the ground up - it's developed to fulfill the need, like a pc.

macs are designed. from the ground up. that is a mac. the power of design.

 

[fjdouse]

I predict a wider range of video cards

I love the way people are making predictions about the video chipset!! On what basis? I see the situation being no different than today unless Apple does everything I don't want them to do and start churning out PC compatibles...

 

[fjdouse]

finally! we agree on something!

LOL! We are probably in agreement on the whole thing if you break it down, we're looking at the same thing from two perspectives, that's all Anyway, only a fool is rigid in his views.

macs are designed. from the ground up. that is a mac. the power of design.

Yes, of course if Apple do start making PC compatibles, that claim of being designed from the ground up will not be valid, since they will be built from the existing PC specs and reference designs... I am keeping my fingers crossed, I have a feeling a year will be too long to wait..

I'm making a prediction, we may see Intel Macs in a little over 6-7 months.

 

[Lt Major Burns]

we won't have pc compatibles. that just would be a bad strategy. apple know their strength is in their difference. it hopefully is going to be just a chipset change. there is no logic in a complete uturn and making a pc. it's going to be a mac with an intel processor. the video card change won't happen either. it's lucrative to keep a tight grip on that, and the high end cards are usually released for apple anyway. plus you get high-end connectors already, not VGA or s-video rubbish.

 

[fryke]

I guess that would make a nice surprise, if they'd show us a Mac mini with intel at MWSF. But if Steve says June 2006 at WWDC, that's probably going to be it.

fjdouse: "of course if Apple do start making PC compatibles, that claim of being designed from the ground up will not be valid, since they will be built from the existing PC specs and reference designs..."

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with using a tested chipset that goes well with the CPU. For the cheaper models (Mac mini, iBooks, eMacs), integrated graphics and sound will probably be their way to go. (Yes, that's an assumption, but integrated graphics is what's in the development box currently.) Although I, too, would like those to keep older ATi Radeon or nVidia chips on board as the graphics, if intel can deliver similar performance for much less, I'd rather see those machines get lower in price and/or make better profit margins for Apple.

I guess our basic difference is that you see PC compatibility as a flaw, whereas I see it as a chance for quicker development.

 

[fjdouse]

we won't have pc compatibles. that just would be a bad strategy. apple know their strength is in their difference. it hopefully is going to be just a chipset change. there is no logic in a complete uturn and making a pc. it's going to be a mac with an intel processor. the video card change won't happen either. it's lucrative to keep a tight grip on that, and the high end cards are usually released for apple anyway. plus you get high-end connectors already, not VGA or s-video rubbish.

OK, we have an agreement! What you are saying is what I want to see!
But, how do you account for the comment that Windows could be installed? People are assuming this means natively, into a partition which can be booted, or more importantly installed via a bootable CD, which DOES mean the machines will have to be PCs? or at least, close enough to a PC to still be within spec.

I'm hoping this was just an unguarded comment from Apple and they are actually meaning within the confines of a VM, the details of which are still under wraps.

 

[fryke]

*sigh*... What makes people think an intel chip and an intel chipset has necessarily only VGA and S-Video connectors? You can have a perfectly PC compatible motherboard with FW, USB2, DVI, SPDIF (don't remember the exact name, that sound thingie), fast RAM and S-ATA II. It makes NO sense to me whatsoever to actively make it incompatible with Windows.

 

[Lt Major Burns]

now that the hardware is getting close to being a pc, it will make it easier to run windows. whether booting into windows will be possible is another thing entirely. at the moment, all the specs point to the specs that windows needs: x86 processor, some compatible ram, a compatible harddisk etc... it will be possible, just as it's possible to run windows on your mac now, through VM. it'll just run a hell of alot better, as it actually has an x86 instead of emulating it

 

[Lt Major Burns]

to fryke: the reason i mentioned the vga/s-video thing is that is what most off-the-shelf pc gfx cards still have. the mac-compatibles already have dual dvi, or dvi/adc

although i don't really know what i'm talking about. i havent bought a pc card since a geforce 2mx