There is only ONE Reason to buy a Macintosh

A

Adonsa

Registered
I may get flamed for posting this. Flame me if you must.

There is only one reason to buy a Mac.

To have vast superiority over the IBM-PC-AT-Clone / now Windows-Intel
Industry Standard.

To go to the dark side of computing by placing an intel chip inside a Mac is a putrification of the Macintosh and an action of gross disrespect to the entire Macintosh community.

Shame on you, Steve Jobs.
 
Adonsa said:
I may get flamed for posting this. Flame me if you must.
Click to expand...
Nah, worst case is this thread gets locked.

There has always been only one reason to buy a Mac: MacOS.

Hardware is just metal, it's the software that allows you to actually do something.
 
As shocked I was by this as you are, remember one thing. Only the CPU is changing. The CPU changed from 68000 series CPUs to PowerPC CPUs back in the mid 90s, but it was all still Apple. Atari and Amiga also had 68000 series processors under their hoods, but did that allow them to be like the Mac?? Heck no.

So the CPU has changed...big deal, I'm over it. Apple will have the final say as to how it will all be integrated, and it will STILL be better than any other PC using the same processor...so we will be looking at some interesting hardware coming down the pike.
 
We already have Darkside-Industry Standards in our Macs for quite some time. Harddisc, ram, graphic unit, optical drive...
What Mac stands for is not Motorola/Freescale or IBM but MacOS, as Lycander mentioned.
 
I'm going to wait and see what the end result is rather than denouncing the new machines before they're even out.

Also, I only recently bought a Mac and the main reason for me doing so was the OS and the software available.
 
I'd like to think Mac users aren't as shallow as that. But maybe not, maybe it really was an elitist thing all these years after all...
 
Also, some "PC" hardware is on-par with Apple for QA, etc. HP workstations aren't bad, and I use a new HP Compaq 8230 laptop at work (i am an IT tech covering ~360 desktops over 8 campuses) and i love it.. the big let-down is Windows. sure, the "average" pc is nothing compared to a mac, but the hardware can be of the same quality and style. it's the OS that makes the big difference.
 
Lycander said:
Nah, worst case is this thread gets locked.

There has always been only one reason to buy a Mac: MacOS.

Hardware is just metal, it's the software that allows you to actually do something.
Click to expand...

You must not have had an original Macintosh back in 1984.
 
Shookster said:
I'm going to wait and see what the end result is rather than denouncing the new machines before they're even out.

Also, I only recently bought a Mac and the main reason for me doing so was the OS and the software available.
Click to expand...

Right on...wait to see what new stuff comes with the new Intel Macs...see how Rosetta performs and see the power of the new chips.
 
Adonsa, you are entitled to your assessment. However, if you don't like Apple's future, there are at least two other platforms out there that you can move to. Linux is free (and will work on your current Mac hardware), and Windows. Go give both a try and get back to us.

An Intel chip will change little about the Mac (once the transition is complete). However, June 2006 through December 2007 will be a very interesting (and painful, at times) time for the Mac. Most of the important apps will run OK with Rosetta, but anything with a pref pane, extension, or AltiVec code will be hosed and need a new version to be released for it to work. This list will mostly be comprised of driver software for printers, scanners, and other input devices.

I lived through the lasts chip transition (68K to PPC), and while it wasn't a major headache, I do remember vividly that the 1st generation of PPC machines ran emulated apps slower than their 68k predecessors. It wasn't until the third generation PPC machines that enough of the software and OS were PPC native that any speed gains were felt.

I suspect that the pain of this migration will be felt until really mid-2008.
 
"There is only one reason to buy a Mac: To have vast superiority over the IBM-PC-AT-Clone / now Windows-Intel Industry Standard."

If all that made the Mac superior to the PC were Motorola instead of intel chips, then that would be it. But actually, for many years, the PowerPC was more of a _problem_ rather than an advantage. The whole G4 era, for example. Same goes for the time when the 68K got old. The late 68Ks were actually quite good - but couldn't be advanced any more. And the early PowerPCs had to run Mac OS almost completely in emulation, even Disk I/O was emulated!

So: Let's just assume that Apple has a _little_ bit more info on where IBM and intel are headed with their desktop and notebook processors. Let's also - safely - assume that Apple has kept their options open for the past five years. I _really_ think they KNOW why to switch now. The G5 sounded like the better path to walk on when it arrived, and IBM certainly wanted to keep the Mac on the PowerPC side of things, but in the end, IBM couldn't. If you want, shed some tears to the past, but it's the present and the future that count. The present is that Apple has great hardware. The future is that Apple will have even greater hardware. And that it'll be intel chips instead of IBM's. But I'm typing this on the keyboard, not the G4 inside the PB. And I'm looking at the GUI, not the G4 processor or even the graphics card. As long as the look and feel of both the hard- and the software design stay "Mac", it's a Mac.
 
fryke said:
The future is that Apple will have even greater hardware. And that it'll be intel chips instead of IBM's. But I'm typing this on the keyboard, not the G4 inside the PB. And I'm looking at the GUI, not the G4 processor or even the graphics card. As long as the look and feel of both the hard- and the software design stay "Mac", it's a Mac.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Just hope Apple won't be forced to put the "intel inside" sticker on their hardware... That wouldn't look right (i.e. hardware too much like every other PC out there).
 
something i wrote elsewhere regarding a person who is saying that the mac the need 'now' won't be bought until the new intelmacs are released...

'...those people saying they wont buy a mac for a year or two are as stupid as people can get.

if apple didnt change chips yesterday and you bought a new mac today you'd expect to get around 5-6 years of real and good use out of it - before the OS and application requirements pretty much made it obsolete

guess what you dimwitted morons - even with the chip change you'll still get 5-6 years of use out of your new computer!

doh!

apple have themselves said that they'll be supporting PPC for many years to come - and why would developers stop making stuff for PPC all of a sudden? its got a huge user base - even in 3-4 years from now the user base on PPC will be bigger - so why would they miss out on that market?!

you're a bunch of idiots....'
 
but anything with a pref pane, extension, or AltiVec code will be hosed and need a new version to be released for it to work.
Click to expand...
Do you know for a fact that AltiVec is not emulated? There's no technical reason it couldn't be, really. It certainly wouldn't be FAST, but the software could run. I remember back on my Performa 475 I used a little gem called Software FPU to make up for my processors lack of a built-in FPU. It didn't make FP operations nearly as fast as a Quadra, but it let them run, anyway. Something similar could be done with AltiVec, and unless specifically stated otherwise, I have to assume it will be done.

I'm not sure what you mean about prefpanes, though. Why could they not be emulated? I'm not even quite sure about extensions. If the emulation layer is as seemless as the 68k-on-PPC one, then just about anything should work. Very large parts of OS 8 were 68k code, after all (even QuickDraw was only PPC-ified with 8.5!)
 
serpicolugnut said:
...there are at least two other platforms out there that you can move to. Linux is free (and will work on your current Mac hardware), and Windows. Go give both a try and get back to us..
Click to expand...

Hi serpicolugnut, thanks for replying. I'm getting back to you with a partial reply.

I'm using windoze XP right now, and have been using various version of windoze since 2.0 and they all suck. Going to the dark side because I disagree with Steve Jobs is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I usually defend Apple and the Mac Community when confronted by arrogant, we're the industry standard Pee Cee users.

I have yet to try Linux, so I'll seek out a Linux User Group and try to test drive Linux. I'll take your advice.

May I ask you this?

Is the current (Macs being sold today) G-5 series our last chance to get a non-Intel Mac?

Thanks again for replying, appreciate your insights.

Adonsa
 
Adonsa said:
Is the current (Macs being sold today) G-5 series our last chance to get a non-Intel Mac?
Click to expand...
We don't know for sure, but I would expect another G5 revision between now and the time they move the pro lineup to Intel. Steve Jobs said Apple will still be making some PPC system until at least 2007. Which ones will be PPC at that point is anyone's guess, but I imagine the Power Mac G5 will last longer than the low-end and portable models, because those are the ones that stand to benefit most from the switch (since they use the weaker G4).
 
Mikuro said:
Do you know for a fact that AltiVec is not emulated? There's no technical reason it couldn't be, really. It certainly wouldn't be FAST, but the software could run. I remember back on my Performa 475 I used a little gem called Software FPU to make up for my processors lack of a built-in FPU. It didn't make FP operations nearly as fast as a Quadra, but it let them run, anyway. Something similar could be done with AltiVec, and unless specifically stated otherwise, I have to assume it will be done.

I'm not sure what you mean about prefpanes, though. Why could they not be emulated? I'm not even quite sure about extensions. If the emulation layer is as seemless as the 68k-on-PPC one, then just about anything should work. Very large parts of OS 8 were 68k code, after all (even QuickDraw was only PPC-ified with 8.5!)
Click to expand...

This information comes straight from the Intel migration guide from Apple. The rules to have working emulation are:

- It currently runs on a G3
- It has its own process (i.e. no kernel drivers or pref panes)
- The entire process must be emulated, or native (so no mix-match of x86/PPC plugins, also why pref panes won't work)

These are the limitations of the emulation, and I am not surprised in the least. SSE3 is missing swaths of VMX instructions, and the G3 is the best processor to emulate since it is a common denominator for the PPC platform. Since emulation is controlled on a per-process level (also very reasonable), plug-ins cannot run in a seperate mode from the process they are a part of. This includes pref panes, drivers/extensions, and possibly even screen savers.
 
As others have said, support for the PPC is not going away anytime soon. If anyone decides not to support the PPC, they are making a very unwise decision. If Apple wasn't going to support the PPC, then why make a universal binary format? That's the whole point of the universal binary format. Now developers can reach all the "old" PPC computers and the new Intel computers, pretty easily. If you need a computer now, buy one now. It's the same as it always has been with computers. Once you buy it, it's already old (but it'll still last you plenty of years) ;)

Plus, for all those who are saying the PPC is the reason why Mac's are different, get a grip. The PPC is about the ONLY thing in the Mac hardware that makes it different from a PC. PC's and Macs both use the same input (USB and FireWire), they both use the same output (VGA and DVI), they both use the same I/O (ATA, SATA, IDE), they both use the same wireless (WiFi, Bluetooth). The only differences are that they use the PPC processor instead of x86, and their graphics cards requires specific firmware/drivers, so you need Mac-specific graphic cards, although they both use AGP. So, pretty much at the core, Macs and PCs are identical, except for the processor.

I'm hoping now that they are switching to Intel that their PowerMacs will gain the ability to use third-party graphic cards (i.e. the ones you could buy at CompUSA). But won't this simply require more Mac drivers from ATI and nVidia?
 
Btw. about those prefpanes etc.: You don't really _want_ them to be emulated. But from earlier transition experiences, I can safely tell you that little free- and shareware will pop up updated for the new platform plentiful and early.
 
There is only ONE Reason to buy a Macintosh...?

Actually, there is usually more than one.
Ask people why they brought a Mac and the traditional responses have been;

> For ease of use.
> Better designed product (style) / quality hardware.
> The Mac OS. (The look and feel of the Mac).
> The superior computer (This has ALWAYS been debatable).
> Faith in a company that makes BOTH the hardware and the software.
> The more user-friendly and more reliable operating system.
> Personal choice - "think different".
> Because I'm not technical and I want something that WORKS!
> The more innovative product that lasts longer (better value for money).
> ...(Plus many, many more responses).

Now, looking through that list - I can't see too many of these reasons changing at all just because of a different processor. I think the interesting thing to notice is that people are realising that what makes a Mac a Mac, isn't the hardware - it's the operating system.

Strange but true, this has always been the case. If you go back to 1984, it was the operating system and its GUI that made Mac stand out from anything else. Sure, Apple has often made some amazing, innovative hardware (Apple's always been good at hardware) that puts it's computers above the rest. But, fundamentally, the operating system is what we all LOVED about the Mac.

I'm (starting) to think that this is a good move by Apple. Get past the initial shock - and it becomes apparent that Apple is (hopefully) trying to save us from a stagnant processor development situation - and we can't have another Motorola G4 scenario! Apple wants us to have the best processors in the near future.

Furthermore, I like where this is heading. It means that Apple will be concentrating more on software and software development. And truth be told - this is where the battle is now being fought. Apple currently tells it as it is; "OS X is the most advanced operating system on the planet!" Regardless of what processor it runs on - it's the operating system that counts.

Maybe there is only ONE Reason to buy a Macintosh!
> The operating system - "Mac OS X".
(It's what makes a Mac a Mac)

Sure, I could buy Microsoft Windows...
But I want an operating system that;
> works,
> is stable,
> is fast,
> is intuitive and easy to use,
> and... has style!

Keep in mind that Macintosh computers will always distingish itself from the crowd though the use of clever innovation, use of overall quality hardware components, amazing software, and the use of form and function - to create computers that not only work better but look better too.

Thank-u Apple for looking out for my future!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top