Why go Intel?
- Thread starter idhk
- Start date
Johndoemanny34362
Registered
Intel CPU's are much faster, cheaper and heat effiecient than the PPC. Also, intel has 80% of all processors, and has a large share of the market, so Apple chose them over AMD. I would have liked to see AMD be the choice since intel sucks, but it's about money, not performance. The osx will probably have an update making it compatible.
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
the PowerPC architecture, apparently, will not go much faster. the next generation of Intel chips will. it was all about a 10-year or so road map.
it was a list of attributes that appealled to the apple bosses, mainly including heat/power efficiency that the current ppc chips will never have. the R+D at intel will probably be much better than both IBM and AMD in the coming years, as a reaction to amd's recent successes and also as ibm are set up for the next few years producing console chips. supply was probably another reason.
The OS has apparently always been made in both PPC and intel builds, so the x86 version will be ready for the first set of intel macs. it's also, according to tech heads who've tested it, a much faster os on x86.
goody.
it was a list of attributes that appealled to the apple bosses, mainly including heat/power efficiency that the current ppc chips will never have. the R+D at intel will probably be much better than both IBM and AMD in the coming years, as a reaction to amd's recent successes and also as ibm are set up for the next few years producing console chips. supply was probably another reason.
The OS has apparently always been made in both PPC and intel builds, so the x86 version will be ready for the first set of intel macs. it's also, according to tech heads who've tested it, a much faster os on x86.
goody.
RGrphc2
...InSaNe...
SuperTyphoon said:
OS X is already compatible it started as neXtstep and OpenStep, which ran natively on both PPC and x86, the main reason though for the switch is because of mobile chips. Apple knows that Mobile computing is the future and the G4 is not that great when it comes to power consumption.
Intel has 3 new chips coming out next year, the Conroe, Merom and Woodcrest, all 64-bit, 65-nanometer ones (current CPUs in a G5/G4 are still 95-nanometer i believe) and Dual Core. Which adds to better battery life and more power.
Also Intel makes the ARM chips found in all PDAs, Newton II maybe??
dmetzcher
Metzcher.com
I can't tell you in words how much I would love Apple to come back to the handheld market. With the Palm OS going away and being replaced (on Palm's own handhelds) with MS PocketPC, I've been in a state of depression and can't even pick up my handheld lately. Apple should target this market and release a REAL handheld OS.RGrphc2 said:
RGrphc2
...InSaNe...
Satcomer said:
Yes, and no damn Intel inside stickers too.
Going intel won't ruin apple, it will probably ruin microsoft. Nobody will know the difference of the Intel-Macs and the PowerPC-Macs until they look at the system profiler, just like what Steve said himself. We all thought it was a G5, but it was a P4 3.6 GHz in the tower.
Oscar Castillo
Registered
I don't think we have anything to worry about there. After all, when was the last time we saw an Apple desktop or laptop hardware commercial? The 1st gen G5?Satcomer said:
I don't think Apple would have gone with AMD because Intel makes a better chip. AMD provides better value for the dollar, but have you ever seen how hot they get? It takes alot of fans to keep them cool too. My Dell at work is as quiet as can be while my AMD at home is quite loud.
Joshua
Joshua
Quicksilver
Find a golden apple.
RGrphc2 said:
Yeah. We will probably get "Mactel Inside"
I think the transition has somthing to do with the future of mobile computing. Desktops in the home seem to be fading away, at least at my place. We havent used desktop for over 4 years here.
Tablets, PDA's and other small computer devices may be the next big thing. If it is done right! "not like current PDA's/Tablets are now" but much more slim and fun. PDA's are currently boring little things, and tablets are too awkward to use outside the home.
However if there was a Tablet x PDA it would be interesting to see. The Newton 2100 was a great size. If such a device had some kind of mobile abilities for internet, email, iTunes, SMS, calendar, games, video talk. It would rock! I loved how the Newton optionally came with that little keyboard, and you could turn it into a laptop sort of thing. What a device it was!
So my take is that we might see some new stuff next year. What was the last real new hardware introduction from apple? it's the iPod right? or was it the iSight? that was a while ago too.
.
RGrphc2
...InSaNe...
Quicksilver said:
Apple has the underlying technology to make a tablet built into OS X with Ink, it's there it is waiting to be used. If they were to do a tablet right, make it an Option for the Powerbooks a 200 to 300 dollar option.
It's the truth though Apple knows the portable G4 chip can only go so far, and mobile computing is the way of the future, more people are living in apartments and do not have room for the tower, desk, monitor, speakers etc.
Lt Major Burns
"Dicky" Charlteston-Burns
they patented a tablet form factor design last year. it was all over the rumour sites.
Oscar Castillo
Registered
I think the arguement of not considering the CPU when buying a Mac is only partly true. Since the PPC CPU began shipping in Macs, it was always highly touted as one main reason to buy the Mac. Because it was supposed to be so much better than a Pentium. The ads mentioned it, the commercials mentioned it, the keynotes mentioned it. It was in your face advertising, pre and post OS X. Users that need the speed aren't as consumed with the look and feel of the OS, the genie effect, the fancy dock or other trivial details as the casual user. Many of these same users may very well have looked at all of these benchmarks and decided to base their continued use of the platform on the promise of simply being able to do what they do only faster knowing and in many cases not even caring what new features the OS may offer.
powermac
iMac Dual 2.0 17'
I welcome the change, and trust Apple with what ever they thinks is best. The one question that bothers me is the PPC chip. Is it just a victim of no one really developing the chip? Motorola pushed it forward, although could they have done more to truly invest in the chip? When they announced that IBM took over the main development again, I was excited. Even they seemed to lose the necessary steam to truly bring the chip forward.
I don't know about anything about micro-processor chip development. But is the PPC chip just limited in its growth potential, or no company is willing to invest in its future development with full intentions?
I don't know about anything about micro-processor chip development. But is the PPC chip just limited in its growth potential, or no company is willing to invest in its future development with full intentions?