The stupid Intel rumors are back (make it stop part II)

K

Kazrog

Mac Metalhead
So some bigshot analyst (and noted Intel investor) says Apple will go to Intel CPUs in the next 2-4 years. All this because of Jobs saying he likes having "options." The story's up on MacNN.com if you want to see it.

Most of you here are intelligent enough to realize that for Apple to transition from PowerPC to Intel architecture would mean going from a billion dollar hardware+software company to a million dollar software company. They would be left to compete with Microsoft on their home turf. Apple doesn't have the resources to play at that level, at least not yet. They'd be just another weirdo OS maker like Red Hat. And never mind the engineering cost of redoing the entire architecture of the OS... and having every software company recompile all the apps...

I believe Apple will go to IBM for CPUs in the next YEAR. And they will be PowerPC based (duh.) I also believe that the long-rumored quad-processor machines will surface then as well.

The PowerPC is still a superior chip to anything Intel makes. It may be slightly slower right now, but it runs at less than half the power and temperature, and uses more efficient RISC processing. With the new manufacturing processes that IBM has been working on, the PowerPC will once again upstage the Intel chips in terms of raw horsepower in the near future. Motorola doesn't seem to care anymore, but IBM does, and their independent tests have been impressive (manufacturing the G3 so efficiently that it rivals the G4, etc.)

I care about this because I need raw horsepower to do audio and video work every day. I've upgraded my Sawtooth to a dual G4/500, and it is badass, but I could still use some more speed. I'm holding out on a new PowerMac until we see a major step forward in speed/architecture. I think Apple's done an incredible job this last year of pushing the technology forward in spite of a bad economy, Motorola turning careless and indifferent, and Microsoft releasing their hacked up parody of Mac OS X to stir market confusion. Eagerly awaiting my 20 gig iPod in the mail, and Jaguar after that. :)
 
It's ALL opinions, Kazrog, even yours. :)

For example, you are wrong in some aspects.

First, moving to Intel would _not_ mean to give up hardware, just to give up PowerPC. Apple could still (or again) include a ROM chip needed to run Mac OS on a machine.

Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.

Third, the PowerPC is still superior although slower right now. Intel's processors in 2 to 4 years... We just don't know them yet, right? The analyst sees (and I think he's right _here_) that Mot is falling behind. Further and further. It's just _analyzing_ what has happened.

But then again, you're absolutely right about Apple doing a great job in a hard time. Apple _has_ been innovating where others have not. But wasn't that also the case in the _good_ times of the market? Isn't it what actually makes Apple a different computer maker in the eyes of the non-Macintosh-addicts? It's VITAL for them to stay innovative. If they're not one step ahead, they're dead in the non-Mac-people's eyes, which means: Bad press, bad share prices, buyout rumours. Which means stress at the company and no time to innovate.

It's really a few years away, but I personally believe there _will_ be options when Apple has finished the transition to Mac OS X.
 
Originally posted by fryke
It's ALL opinions, Kazrog, even yours. :)

For example, you are wrong in some aspects.

First, moving to Intel would _not_ mean to give up hardware, just to give up PowerPC. Apple could still (or again) include a ROM chip needed to run Mac OS on a machine.
Click to expand...

What is it with you people? Apple abandoned the Toolbox ROM for very important reasons. Those reasons are only more important now.

1. The Toolbox ROM allowed Apple to offer a complete GUI-based OS that could boot off a floppy and 128K RAM. We live in a very different world today.

2. The Toolbox ROM had to be updated for every revision in hardware.

3. The Toolbox ROM required every OS update to include patches to every version of the Toolbox.

This is a very expensive proposition. Apple has to remain profitable to survive. There are two ways to increase profits. One way is to raise prices, which will decrease unit sales and market share. That is a no-go. The other is to decrease costs. Returning to a ROM-based OS will increase costs, not lower them.

Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.
Click to expand...

But RedHat is a much smaller company than Apple. Is this what you want Apple to become?
 
Originally posted by fryke

Third, the PowerPC is still superior although slower right now. Intel's processors in 2 to 4 years... We just don't know them yet, right? The analyst sees (and I think he's right _here_) that Mot is falling behind. Further and further. It's just _analyzing_ what has happened.
Click to expand...

How is the G4 superior to Intel and AMD's current CPU offerings?
 
Second, another weirdo OS maker like RedHat? RedHat is a well known company.
Click to expand...

:p give me a break fryke. nobody outside of the geek world has ever heard of redhat. few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors.

i think kazrog's point here is well taken. he might be overstating it a bit as i think the apple os would appeal to many people, but the move would certainly be a big step backwards.
 
Originally posted by azosx


How is the G4 superior to Intel and AMD's current CPU offerings?
Click to expand...

Would you please READ my posts and other people's? I was AGAINST the statement that G4 is superior to Intel's CPUs and we were NOT talking about AMD. I was already quoting the first post.

Ed: You're right... But RedHat is one of the few big shots in the Linux business, and Linux *has* made some splashes in the SMB area as a great alternative file-/print-/mail-/webserver among the Windows crowd. And RedHat is a fine alternative there.

My point was that a switch to Intel processors in 2-4 years would

a) _not_ mean necessarily that every Wintel PC would be able to run Mac OS X.

b) _not_ mean we'd be using P4s, as they probably are gone by then, anyway, and replaced by something newer, better.

And I think the original post on this thread was wrong to assume those things here.

One big advantage of an Apple Macintosh computer with an Intel compatible CPU (with other Wintel PCs NOT running Mac OS X natively because of whatever Apple does in order to achieve this) would be that those computers would still run other X86 based operating systems in a dual-boot configuration very well.

Now _this_ would bring more switchers. Still, the analyst was talking 2-4 years, and I guess this tends to be forgotten in the usual X86 threads. I don't think it's an option _right_ now. But I think Apple should do *everything* to be free to decide what to base their computers on in two to four years, as Mot _really_ seems to be unable (and doesn't seem to want) to compete much longer in this market with Intel & AMD.

Choosing OpenStep to base Mac OS X on was definitely a good move, because it's a highly portable operating environment. And Apple shouldn't let itself get into too many one-way streets. Like Steve said: Then we'll have options, and we want options. Doesn't yet mean they're choosing a different one. If IBM comes up with really cool next generation PowerPC processors for desktop and notebook machines in about 1 or 1.5 years, I'd of course be all for PowerPC again. Just doesn't look like it nowadays.
 
Originally posted by fryke


Would you please READ my posts and other people's? I was AGAINST the statement that G4 is superior to Intel's CPUs and we were NOT talking about AMD. I was already quoting the first post.
Click to expand...

AMD is x86, x86 is Intel.

In anycase, what is the G4 superior to then?

**edit**

Oh I see. You spliced his sentences and took them out of context. Very confusing. Maybe you should just stick to quoting in the future. :)
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell


:p give me a break fryke. nobody outside of the geek world has ever heard of redhat. few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors.

i think kazrog's point here is well taken. he might be overstating it a bit as i think the apple os would appeal to many people, but the move would certainly be a big step backwards.
Click to expand...

This is pretty ignorant. Before VA Linux, Red Hat had the biggest IPO in history. I'm sure more than just geeks have ever heard of this obscure little company. Perhaps you've heard of IBM, Oracle and Dell to name a few? Red Hat has many big name partners in the computer industry and many people, not just "geeks", rely on Red Hat and their many services. Many of which are not the Linux OS.

People may not know the ins and outs of Linux but they know it's an OS and that it challenges Windows. In the United States, Red Hat is synonymous with Linux, just like in Europe, SuSE is.
 
Originally posted by azosx


This is pretty ignorant. Before VA Linux, Red Hat had the biggest IPO in history. I'm sure more than just geeks have ever heard of this 'obscure' little company. Perhaps you've heard of IBM, Oracle and Dell to name a few? Red Hat has many big name partners in the computer industry and many people, not just geeks, rely on Red Hat.
Click to expand...


I know this. But look at the large scale. In many ways, Apple has more in common with SONY than they do with Red Hat. There SHOULD be different platforms and different choices. I wish there was ANOTHER one besides Apple and Intel platforms. Like in the 80s when we had Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM, etc... I miss that level of competition. As long as we have open file format standards, there's NO REASON not to have diverse hardware.
 
Who cares about Red Hat?

The bottom line is that Apple should do whatever it takes to lower costs on their hardware [increasing margins if you will], while providing a competetive platform speed/performance wise.

Whether they do that by switching to an atari chip, or an intel chip, or a ti-82 calculator, I really dont care.

Who cares if they switch to a non motorola platform? The whole risc vs. cisc debate is dated and almost irrelevant. What matters most is cost and performance. So long as Apple systems stay "different" enough from your generic PC clone, who cares what is inside the box?

I don't.
 
Originally posted by azosx


This is pretty ignorant. Before VA Linux, Red Hat had the biggest IPO in history. I'm sure more than just geeks have ever heard of this obscure little company. Perhaps you've heard of IBM, Oracle and Dell to name a few? Red Hat has many big name partners in the computer industry and many people, not just "geeks", rely on Red Hat and their many services. Many of which are not the Linux OS.

People may not know the ins and outs of Linux but they know it's an OS and that it challenges Windows. In the United States, Red Hat is synonymous with Linux, just like in Europe, SuSE is.
Click to expand...

i simply don't believe this azosx. i don't think the huge majority of people know that more than one kind of linux exists. many may rely upon it, but much fewer realize that they do. people have all heard of linux, but that's about as far as it goes. and given the recent ibm commercials, i would imagine that some people think it is strictly a big business thing. among the general populus, there are no synonyms for linux. and a big ipo means little other than that it got some business press. so maybe geeks and some investors know about it. it's not exactly bringing windows to its knees now, is it?
 
Originally posted by Kazrog



I know this. But look at the large scale. In many ways, Apple has more in common with SONY than they do with Red Hat. There SHOULD be different platforms and different choices. I wish there was ANOTHER one besides Apple and Intel platforms. Like in the 80s when we had Commodore, Atari, Apple, IBM, etc... I miss that level of competition. As long as we have open file format standards, there's NO REASON not to have diverse hardware.
Click to expand...

There are many platform choices today with many different OSs.

You have Sun Microsystems

SGI

HP

Compaq

IBM

Cray

There's a lot of different platforms available today. The ones above are just a few. Some are more affordable than others but you shouldn't feel there is a lack of options.
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell


i simply don't believe this azosx. i don't think the huge majority of people know that more than one kind of linux exists. many may rely upon it, but much fewer realize that they do. people have all heard of linux, but that's about as far as it goes. and given the recent ibm commercials, i would imagine that some people think it is strictly a big business thing. among the general populus, there are no synonyms for linux. and a big ipo means little other than that it got some business press. so maybe geeks and some investors know about it. it's not exactly bringing windows to its knees now, is it?
Click to expand...

Read this article and maybe you'll begin to understand why Linux is on everyone's mind.

Like I said, they don't know the ins and outs of Linux but they do know it exsits. It's similiar to the fact that many people don't realize there's a difference between Windows 98 and 2000.

Red Hat is synonymous with Linux. I assume you work, bring it up in conversation and see what people have to say.

A ground breaking IPO means a lot. This world turns on the heels of businessmen and it certainly gave Red Hat and Linux a lasting notoriety.

Business men and women account for a lot larger percent than little geeky home computer users as well.

I don't know. Unless people have been living in a cave for the past several years, I don't know how they could not know what Linux is.
 
azosx - if you didn't live in arizona, i would wonder if there was a language difference. i think i pretty clearly stated that people know what linux is. they just don't know about all the different varieties. and i am talking average computer users. the ones who use the computer at work, not the ones who set them up and fix them. the average joe computer user still doesn't know that much about the mac os, much less linux. yes they know they exist. but the myths they have in their minds about them are more common then the truths about them.

i'm guessing a poll of aol users would net about 5% who knew anything more about linux other than that it is an alternate operating system.
 
I'd never heard of Red Hat until now. I just thought Linux was Linux, Windows was Windows and Mac OS was Mac OS. Granted, I know nothing more about computers than what I learn on these boards, but still...

Actually, let me retract that. I was watching the news a while ago and remember seeing something about Lindows which was a version of Linux that mimicked Windows. Besides that, I don't know much about Linux nor do I really care. :eek:
 
Originally posted by Ed Spruiell
azosx - if you didn't live in arizona, i would wonder if there was a language difference. i think i pretty clearly stated that people know what linux is. they just don't know about all the different varieties. and i am talking average computer users. the ones who use the computer at work, not the ones who set them up and fix them. the average joe computer user still doesn't know that much about the mac os, much less linux. yes they know they exist. but the myths they have in their minds about them are more common then the truths about them.

i'm guessing a poll of aol users would net about 5% who knew anything more about linux other than that it is an alternate operating system.
Click to expand...

Your argument has shifted. It was originally that "few even know what linux really is, much less that it comes in flavors" and now it's that "i think i pretty clearly stated that people know what linux is."

Like I said, I don't know Ed. I can't discuss a point when the point keeps changing. You're right, we obviously do speak different languages, or at least different flavors of English. :)
 
azosx - note the difference between the 2 sentences - one includes the word really. by that i mean they don't know anything beyond the fact that it is an alternative os, or that it 'does something'. They don't have a clue about terminals and command lines and open sourcew and..... my arguement never shifted. you just continue to read things as you please in order to have a reason to argue. at least that's how it seems to me.
 
...mainstream use and maybe NEVER will be! Some think or even BELIEVE that one day Linux (any distro) will prevail as the end all be all OS and replace Windows... Yes, sir you right! Maybe in an alternate reality :D

SGI, HP, IBM, CRAY, SUN and ANY other company out there can eat Wintel's dust until they drop dead! :D

Most of the above companies the day they will decide to drop Windows support, it will be the day that they want to become even smaller companies or just to exit their markets... Most of them rely on having Windows at their side as an OS product or as a platform to run their apps so there: Linux, et al can eat some M$ dust... ;)

Linux and ANY other OS can be the best server OS out there, the best in security areas, etc but as long as an OS will not have the Photoshops, Corels, MS Offices, etc. of this world they simply DO NOT stand a chance to become mainstream. While most people have heard about Linux or even tried it, in the long run they AVOID it as they avoid AIDS... Hell, they avoid Mac OS X for crying loud (remember Photoshop, Office, etc?)

G4 processors are technically superior to x86 platform simply because:
-They have less power needs
-Run cooler
-MHz/performance ratio is a LOT better (G4 at 1GHz beats ANY Intel/Amd 1 GHz processors out there just for the fun of it, in ANY given test)

Just because G4 runs slower (in GHz) than PentiumIV and/or Athlon XP doesn't mean that it isn't a better CPU technically (Intel's Itanium2 anyone?)

As, for the whole thing which goes: Apple will go to the x86 platform... BS! G4 will:
-Up its speed just about any time
-Use faster I/O components/busses/etc which will allow the CPU to perform a lot better (its another thing than NO ONE mentions when they compare Apple's products with Wintel products) even with the current speeds
-Run in Quad configurations (yikes!)
-Replaced by G5

Any Linux can run Servers, hell NASA and spacestations maybe, but that WON'T make it a viable solution to the average joe out there... And we all know how MANY millions of them are out there...

Also, Mac OS X is better than Linux in every area, just because... :D

PS. Check this great fun out:
http://www.amdzone.com/#9
Even on the x86 platform they argue about the so-called professional opinions of what Apple will do in the next couple of years! Fun, fun, fun... :D
 
Im getting tired of the arguements about what platform is magically superior. Just because the G4 is a more efficient processor at any given mhz rating, that doesnt make it a better choice for a platform.

If the motorola chips continue the current pace of slowing behind the "other" alternatives, its pretty clear which platform will be obsolete.

Sometimes I think people who use apple and like the motorola chips just because they "arent intel or amd". If the chips inside your mac were a slower version of AMD, you would surely be upset that its trailing behind the other machines. But because its OS X and running on G4's/G3's etc, suddenly its okay because the "architecture is technically superior".

Im sorry, but that just doesnt mean anything until Motorola chips catch back up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top