Please don't call it a Macintosh

No, I don't remember doing that, I love the BONNNNNNGNGGGGG, it produces a direct physical, calming effect..
 
elander said:
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.
Click to expand...


Elander saved me typing all this out..

I cant believe how some people are up in arms about it..

The cpu changed but the computers are the SAME!

Your operating system is the same, it will be fast if not faster, your apps will run the same.. Your system will run cooler and be just as stable if not more so.

Intel is not the problem here, they dont build bad products.
 
I wonder if we are ever going to see a name change in the same fashion as
Apple --> Macintosh
(or rather Apple --> Lisa --> Macintosh)

Is the Xserve simply "xServe" or is it "Macintosh xServe"
 
Well, it was the Apple "I", "II" etc., just like the Apple "Lisa" and Apple "Macintosh". As for the Xserve, its full name is Apple Xserve, Mac ain't in it. Just as with the PowerBooks and iBooks, btw. (Early PowerBooks had both "Macintosh" and "PowerBook" on display, but the "Macintosh" was lost one day.) But they're still "Macs". So even if the PowerMac line with the move to intel would, say, be called "Xstation", they'd still be Macs. Since all computers from Apple that run Mac OS of any version are considered Macs.

And yes, I find the thought of not calling these forthcoming Macs Macs more than a bit strange.
 
[OFF TOPIC]My BONNNNNNGNGGGGG is back, it may not have gone, it's possible I just haven't heard it, I don't reboot much[/OFF TOPIC]

Where did this 'Xstation' come from, I've missed something?!?!
 
To me, it harks back to the old NeXTStation from NeXT Computer. I had mentioned this in another thread and I think fryke was the same person who was leading us into that. I hope I'm not mistaken, but this seems to deja vu to me. :p
 
Lt Major Burns said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've had to really think twice about posting this, but... better out than in as they say...

We've had a really bizzare conversation this afternoon with a tech guy (obviously I'm not going to give his name or where he was) at Apple as our neigbours Mac went belly up and needed some AppleCare doo-dahs. After, the subject of Intel came up, he reckoned quite a few colleagues have been looking for new jobs, more are planning to leave. He said that Apple have made the most stupid move in their history and it's nothing to do with the reasons given in the keynote, he said he and others watched the keynote and they had to switch it off before it was finished, some of them were actually crying, some "were furious shouting Jobs was talking nonsense". He reckons "it's being presented as just a simple CPU change" which is no big deal but in fact it's a whole hardware u-turn and it's an enormous climb down and a major deal, they'll be slightly better than today's PCs but "they are in effect PCs based on Intel reference designs" which _will_ run Longhorn (as I noted -I think?!?!- elsewhere with EFI) although they aren't supposed to say that, naturally. We didn't say much really, I just chewed my lip nervously while listening in, he seemed to have a lot to say himself. They (the Apple staff there) say it's a sneaky way of making massive cutbacks longer-term in hardware R&D. He said "everything that made Apple great is ending" and morale was the worst he'd ever seem, but publicly they'll spin it in a way which sounds great. I was totally crestfallen after, I must admit, I also found it stunning that he was so candid and probably in earshot of others who obviously must feel the same.

I'm not going to get into my old arguement about future Macs being PCs by another name, the tech guy *confirmed* that, but I thought it maybe of interest to put those comments out there. I know on another thread at least one other and I said our confidence was shaken, seems we're not alone.
 
Yeah. People are constantly afraid to lose their jobs sometime in the future, and changes in strategy often strengthen such fears. It's logical. You can tell them that they should try to overcome their fears and act instead of waiting for the death bell. Either get active within Apple (save your job!) - or without (quit when ready). Happens all the time - all over the world. Nothing "special Apple" about that.
 
What a rediculous thread.

I would invisage that apple are infact on the verge of giving up on producing hardware. Maybe they will have someone that slaps an Apple Sticker on the beige box as it roll down the production line - not really caring if he gets it straight or not (much like the window license, intel inside and made for xp stickers).

What a bunch of arse. Honestly. Apple is not just about the OS or the look of the box it comes in. It is about the complete package. The box, graphics card, network, firewire, memory and supprise supprise - the CPU.
Its all made by independant manufacturers - Apple puts it all together in such a way that all the components work together. That is the crucial point.
Beige boxes are made of parts that are designed to do their thing - not a lot of consideration is given to making sure that all the bits work together not against each other.

Apple is the glue that brings together components in such a way so that they just work! This is much the same reason that a beige box that some guy assembles for you from the corner store at dirt cheap prices has "issues" when a branded unit by HP tends to be more reliable. Apple takes that idea further by also making the operating system. The complete package.

From a consumer point of view I dont really care what components the package is made from, so long as it all works and provides an excellent experience.

From a developer point of view, Apple is really pushing their luck. I feel that the transition from 9 to X only really finished last year, now asking them do redo all their code again (yes i know its supposed to be really easy with xcode 2.1). From what i have seen and heard Apple have done an excellent job of trying to make it easy. But they have put Metrowerks out of business over night. Alot of developers dont use xcode for development so it is alot of work for them to change their entire programming style and environment to xcode.

I hope that now we have an OS that will last for the next 10-15 years before a major overhaul and a hardware platform "with a good road map" that the Mac platform will become a stable and trusted environment to develop for.

It will be interesting to see how many previously windows only apps are ported across (im thinking games).

This can only strengthen Apples position.
 
profx said:
It will be interesting to see how many previously windows only apps are ported across (im thinking games).
Click to expand...
yes, this is my biggest clincher, even if they're not natively macos, without chip emulation bogging things down, VPC should become a very worthwhile and valuable resource - the advantages of the wider market and more available software, without the disadvantages of virus/spyware, as it's completely self-contained in macos. that's a nice prospect.

btw, does anybody know if VPC running on an intel chip would get decent access to the graphics/sound etc?
 
I'm sure you asked this before, my experience of virtual machines where the host and guest processors are identical is that games are an absolute no-no. Usually (well, in every case I've seen) only the CPU is shared, everything else is emulated for reasons which I can't be bothered to type - too hot here ATM.


As for Window programs being ported BECAUSE of the CPU change, why? how? What's different? Anything which COULD be ported could be ported now (apart from a few obvious exceptions.)
 
Well, let's not think about gamers only. Sure, they're a big part of the cake, but let's just forget about that for the moment. I'm thinking about all those smaller and bigger apps that would gain a _lot_ of performance running in a virtual machine rather than an emulator like VPC. Things like small business software etc. While VMs might not be for gaming, for those apps that just don't get ported to the Mac (and don't rely on great 3D graphics performance), VMs will be _the_ solution. Converting PC users to Mac users will just become easier that way.
 
fryke said:
Well, let's not think about gamers only.
Click to expand...
I try not to think about gamers at all.

I don't see why VPC get's such bad comments, I actually think it's not too bad, I run that sorry excuse of XP in it with no problems, getting Linux to install in it is slow as hell and Solaris.. well, I had to give up, which I was not too happy about. But for XP and IE and those who have a dependancy on a "critical" Windows app, I find it quite acceptable. I think people are getting unrealistic expectations of what a VM will deliver on an Intel Mac, I owned and ran VMware on Linux for years, which was an excellent product (faster than the Windows version too) but still far far slower than native installs, I did try some games but it couldn't even handle certain DOS games well - on modern PC hardware, and anything with sound ran like a horrible nightmare. Yes, a VM on an Intel Mac will deliver some more speed than VPC now, but don't expect too much.
 
Well, I don't think VPC is bad. But a VM that hasn't got to emulate the processor gives better results. That's clear, isn't it.
 
I wasn't directing that at you ;-) It was a general observation. Yes a VM on Intel Mac will be better, I was just hinting that people shouldn't expect the world of Windows multimedia and games to open to them.
 
well...

I turned to pc/mac a while ago, my mac was my rest place, while i was married to my pc for work (EXCEL FOR MAC IS PLAIN HARD AND SLOW).

well im dualbooting on bootcamp, and believe me, the ultimate multimedia experience u can have on windows, same goes to gaming, nice work done on the drivers!!!!
 
Amazing the difference a year makes, doesn't it? :D

There we were complaining about how this would be the end of Apple, and now we're singing the praises of Intel Core Duos and Core Solos and being able to run Windows and Mac OS X on a single computer....even the Apple Mac/PC commercials are pushing that! (Although I think they should REALLY focus on getting people to switch to Mac OS X primarily. :D)

My how times have changed. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top