Signs of switch longer known as I thought


Artifical Lifeform
I just looked something up in Google and I found a blog entry, which dates back to November 5, 2003.

Dept. of I Think Not

Apple says could move to Intel, but happy with IBM. The latest version of the Mac OS X operating system could easily run on Intel chips, Apple CEO Steve Jobs says, but the company has little interest in changing processors. [CNET - Front Door]

It's a Steve Jobs smackdown on da WinTel Weenies! Selected snippets from inside the Reality Distortion Field:

"It's perfectly technically feasible to port Panther to any processor," Jobs said at a meeting with financial analysts. But Jobs said the company is happy with IBM's PowerPC family of chips and feels the performance is "quite competitive."

"Right now we don't see a compelling need to switch processor families," Jobs said. "We have all the options in the world, but the PowerPC road map looks very strong."


Jobs also took a few shots at Microsoft, saying that Apple is out-innovating its larger rival, which has years of work ahead of it with Longhorn, the next version of Windows. "They're hoping to be in 2006 where we were with Jaguar," Jobs said, adding, "We're going to have a few more releases by then."

Hit 'em again, Steve!

Source: What The Hell am I doing here?

(it's long... It's pretty much in the middle of the page)
You guys need to think back for yourselves: what did Steve promise when the G5 appeared? Didn't he say "3 GHz next year"? IBM promised him that he would be able to deliver a Mac with a 3 GHz G5 processor in the summer of 2003. That didn't happen, but IBM still insisted that they would deliver the 3 GHz processors, they were just delayed. 2004 came and went and still no 3 GHz. Now we're halfway through 2005 and still no 3 GHz in sight.

If you were Steve, would you have waited this long? I'm not sure I would've.

This is about IBM not living up to their promises, and Intel showing that they are strong on innovation and that they can deliver, not a preference for a specific architecture. The PowerPC RISC is presently a more exciting technical acheivement, but if they can't ramp up the speed without frying everything in proximity to the processor, it just isn't interesting for the future.

We will crave faster computers next year, and the year after that and so on, as we have been doing for the past forty years. Intel has a thirty year track record of following "Moore's law", in ever increasing speed and complexity in their processors. IBM doesn't, and now they seem to be stalled more or less permanently. And since the processors is a small part of IBM's business, they don't seem to prioritze getting it going fast enough.

I personally don't like the prospect of having an "Intel inside" badge on my Mac, but that's more about feelings than facts. That badge has always been a warning sign to me: "look out, this computer probably runs on a Microsoft OS". It'll take a while to get used to not having to worry about that anymore... :)
There were always those who didn't believe Mac OS X could easily be ported to intel - and those who knew how up to Rhapsody DR2 it worked well on PC hardware (select PC hardware, that is). IBM's roadmap, when the G5 was introduced, DID look good to Apple. The G5 brought the Mac back to the performance of PCs (although Apple's claim of it being much faster than the PC was probably a bit off...), but IBM quite clearly couldn't hold its promises, didn't stay with the roadmap etc. Every upgrade came a bit later than expected, the 3 GHz just didn't come (yet).
But there were also _other_ (rumoured) projects that never arrived by IBM. Probably the oldest of these is the PowerPC 750VX, which would've been a scalable G3 with AltiVec (basically a G4 replacement).

And as quoted above, Apple liked their options and went with the G5 when it sounded good. Now, the intel roadmap sounds good. Doesn't mean Apple can't shift in two more years. Maybe, some Chinese new upstart will create the PC processor for the next decade? Mac OS X is highly portable. Don't panic. Embrace.
Symphonix, I think you'll find those of us with a bit to say on this have seen the keynote and read every bit of info we can get. :)

Fryke, I think only a fool will not accept the inevitable, embracing is not the issue. It's what we're expected to embrace :)

Elander made an excellent observation
That badge has always been a warning sign to me: "look out, this computer probably runs on a Microsoft OS". It'll take a while to get used to not having to worry about that anymore...

THAT is probably part of it, and the CHANCE that an Apple Intel Mac COULD be JUST A PC with an Apple badge, I think that is what most of the objectors to this have a problem with, Apple becoming a mere PC maker is a move you'd expect from a company in real trouble.

I have a little more hope today that that won't be the case and Macs will continue to be a unique hardware platform and a cut above the rest of the PEE-CEE detritus floating on the market.
...the CHANCE that an Apple Intel Mac COULD be JUST A PC with an Apple badge...

what? do you have any idea what apple as a brand and a maker is all about?

thats such a clueless statement.

apple have never chased mass market share - they've never undercut - they've never 'sold out' and bought a whole row in the 'cheap seats'

its taken 20 years for a low cost mac for 'the masses'! and that should really have been the imac!

apple is a computer company that has the consumer at its heart - building systems and hardware that make our lives easier.

your fears are unfounded - you need to untwist your knickers - apple will still have the best OS - the best hardware - its just that the chip inside will be different - and it will give apple more scope.

and i can imagine that steve jobs has already told intel that they can put their logo on paperwork etc that comes with a new mac - maybe even a sticker inside it or on the back - but it'll never take a prominent position.

as far as the most average of average consumer knows apple actually make everything thats inside a mac. the same way that when you buy any consumer product you never actually think about where each component was made... if the thing just works - then kudos to the company who made that happen for you.. and in this case thats apple.

just because a chip is different apple won't suddenly sack jonathan ive et al - people here are going bonkers over somethign that should actually make things better!
Well it's here. Any retrospective thoughts?

Uhh...who'd-a thunk it? :D

I do have to say that this transition was one of the best I've seen so far, and the Intel chips are by far the best I've seen to date. I'm glad that Apple did what they did.