or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel-based Macs coming soon? - Page 9

post #321 of 434
I don't know, but I think that i am feeling kinda sketchy about this switch to intel. Apple should hang in there with IBM, because Intel (in most cases)= CRAP. All PCs use intel, and a mac with "Intel" inside would just be stupid (intelegence=stupid? YES!)

This is going to be a wild ride for apple this year.

-Nitriletiger
Your "Cult of Personality in a Vain Effort to Alleviate the Deep Emptiness Living in a Harsh, Cruel Universe" (CPVEADELHCU) continues to grow.
Reply
Your "Cult of Personality in a Vain Effort to Alleviate the Deep Emptiness Living in a Harsh, Cruel Universe" (CPVEADELHCU) continues to grow.
Reply
post #322 of 434
All PCs do NOT use Intel.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #323 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by UnixPoet
Ever thought of looking at the comments to TFA? His exact quote is this: "Brian: I've heard it from several different executive-level sources inside Apple. Hope that helps."

You must be smoking something if you think I would invent something that can be so easily verified.

I read it, and it wasn't very impressive. I also know people fairly high up in hardware engineering, and I haven't heard anything.

And you know, that doesn't mean anything to me either.

I'm thinking that what is happening here is that as soon as this story came out, people started to CLAIM that they have heard this. It doesn't mean that they have.

There seems to be much more info by trusted people in the industry who think that this isn't going to happen, and who have responded with facts as to why. But they are being ignored.
post #324 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
All PCs do NOT use Intel.

He probably meant x86.
post #325 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
He probably meant x86.

Probably. But even then it would be incorrect, seeing as Macs too, are PCs (Personal Computers) and they don't use x86 (this may change soon )

'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #326 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
yes, thank you for telling me how I feel.

No my windows machine at work, is far cheepier than what you quoted here. I love how people always retort that it's not really that much more expensive, and macs are faster. There's like 6 people that actually believe that. I like the g5 chip, and in some cases it's faster than your average dell.

But consider how optimized windows is on a comparible chip and things are just much faster. Maybe photoshop is faster on my mac, but the things I do everyday web, email, and browsing are faster on my pc. Better graphics drivers, and much more optmized browser connection. I have a top of the line windows machine and mac both sitting on my desk at work. My collection of macs numbers in +50 with 4 g5s currently running.


If you check out Tom's hardware you'll see how badly the g5 gets creamed in some pretty basic tests. All I know is that photoshop cs2 takes 8 seconds to launch on my g5, and 4 seconds to launch on my slower windows computer. My windows machine also renders the same effect on the same file nearly 2 minutes quicker.

This aside doesn't mean anything... None of it. You'll all be sipping the koolaid tomorrow when steve shows a intel processor outperforming current macs by a very large margin.

This is a perfect example I don't believe, Photoshop takes only 8 seconds to launch that is WAY TO FAST, you don't know how run a bench mark. What is your criteria for ending the test, the splash screen comes up ?

Who cares that is a worthless test you need to keep timing until a menu item can be used. winWows will popup an empty window real fast but then it will sit there for seconds before a menuitem can actually be used.

If its a real machine one that has been used for months then it will from time to time sit there and thrash for up to 5 minutes.

Oh yah, don't tell me about machines at home and at work.

I have had labs full of MACs and PCs for testing for years and the PCs have always been outrageously SLOWWWWWWWWW !!!

winWows looks and feels fast but when you compare the same apps side by side winWows is woowfully SLOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW !!!

Its all nonsense this thus about fast PCs and slow Macs if the benchmarks were done with machines that had been in regular use for 6 months then you would know how PATHETICALLY SLOWWWWWWWWWWW winWows REALLY IS !!!!!!!!!!!!

For many years the benchmarks have also tested things that are useless, NOT IMPORTANT, when was it around 2002 that PC World completely revamped their benchmarks because everyone said they were nonsense tests.

They fixed the benchmarks but still use brand new machines only used machines are realistic.

Then when you add in time wasted because of bugs that eat your documents winWows becomes so lacking in cost effectiveness you would be an idiot to buy one to start with !!!

Oh and I forgot about down time and especially when that Intel processor blows up.

I worked in a small company that had 3 PCs and 1 Mac, after 1 year they had one Mac. All of the PCs LITERALLY BLEW UP !!!

Smoke poring out of the top, sometimes the harddrive went with the power-supply.

Even the expensive machine that was on the UPS I bought, expecting it to make the good machine last, just went up in smoke.

WOOW to owners of winWows !!!!!!!!!!
post #327 of 434
Dude, take it easy man. Stop making up stories of PCs blowing up.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #328 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Dude, take it easy man. Stop making up stories of PCs blowing up.

But they do blow up if you stick one in the microwave. 8)
post #329 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Dude, take it easy man. Stop making up stories of PCs blowing up.

"Making up" is not a requirement.

PC stands for PEST CONTROL right ? PCs collect bugs so Macs don't have any.

That is how it works isn't it ???
post #330 of 434
Whoa wait a minute here. I friggin take a few months off from visiting tech sites, and look what happens when I come back. Forgive me if I'm repeating anything previous said, Its a bit hard to read through these long-ass threads.

That out of the way, I do see where Jobs & Co. are coming from. They probably got the word from IBM that the G5 isn't an R & D priority. With the Xbox 360 getting a triple core power pc cpu at 3.2 ghz, and no dual core G5 anywhere in site, it stands to reason where IBM is placing its bets.

That being said, I'm sure Intel will treat Apple better than IBM/Motorola in the long run. While Apple will be a rather small customer in the grand sceme of things, Apple will be a crowning jewel type of customer that Intel can showboat to the share holders.

So does anyone know the fate of Altivec?

Since Microsoft has adopted PowerPC for Xbox and Apple appears to be going Intel, has anyone checked the weather conditions in Hell lately?
post #331 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Dude, take it easy man. Stop making up stories of PCs blowing up.

OH YAH !!! And that ONE Mac was an old used tower MACchine of mine that I sold them.

It was the FIRST G4 model a totally new design, Sawtooth. Many people say, "Oh no I won't buy one of those, new designs have problems."

I NEVER had any problems with it, bought it in Oct. of 1999 and they continue to use it to this day with a DSL airport network that I set up for them.

It was 1.5 to 2 years older then all of the PCs that blew up !!!


For a while we used Virtual PC on it, it was very slow but did the job we needed until everything on the PCs were replicated on the Mac.

The business apps that I built for them in Excel and Filemaker 7 reduced the work load from 2 employees to about 0.6 or 0.7 the current bookkeeper plays games much of the time.
post #332 of 434
clouded by the 'nipple-side, this is.
countdown: less than 11 HOURS to go.

edit: at times like this i miss nebagakid and his smokeys... \
post #333 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Probably. But even then it would be incorrect, seeing as Macs too, are PCs (Personal Computers) and they don't use x86 (this may change soon )


Yeah, I think of PC (copyrighted by IBM) to mean Wintel, and Pc to mean everything.
post #334 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
But they do blow up if you stick one in the microwave. 8)

Sure, if you had a WAY big microwave.
post #335 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
"Making up" is not a requirement.

PC stands for PEST CONTROL right ? PCs collect bugs so Macs don't have any.

That is how it works isn't it ???

No, no, no!

It stands for Piece of Crap!
post #336 of 434
There are tons of windows,etc. applications that are also available for mac. There aren't many mac apps available for windows. Maybe that's the issue. OS X on a x86 before Longhorn can leave the stable? I don't know and I won't pretend to know anything about programming, hardware, etc.
Just brainstorming.
post #337 of 434
Having been one who delt with porting NeXTSTEP (NX) to Openstep (NS) ObjC Code to ObjC Code let me make it clear.

Ease of transition depends heavily on your application target.

Porting Call Center Distributed Objects based application suites are massively dependent upon the slew of consulting engineers who over ten years of development had all left and no it isn't a simple step.

Porting C based Code that didn't plan for Portability is braindead.

What the hell does Carbon APIs have to do with porting C code to OS X? Nothing.

Wrapping ObjC interfaces around the code is not an issue, but readdressing memory management, the endian issues and then redesigning to leverage various aspects of the PPC are issues.

All of these issues only compound when you add a foreign chip architecture.

When I worked at Apple, after NeXT, we couldn't get third party pukes to move to Cocoa. They've had 7 f***ing years!

Get off your asses already. When I see mass convergence to Cocoa, then I'll start smoking on the x86-64 bandwagon.


Quote:
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
Correct if you're porting C code that does all the nasty things C can do.

Well written C++ has fewer problems, and fewer still if it is written using the Carbon APIs and uses the standard objects because they handle byte-swapping themselves.

More so with Cocao.

This task is exactly what I had to do in porting 500K lines of Objective-C for NEXTSTEP (68k) to NEXTSTEP/Intel (i386).

90% of it was a simple recompile, all the GUI, all the disk I/O was fine except where I had stepped outside the APIs and wrote my own stuff that did not account for endianness of the code.

My expectation is that people will find the same things in graphics intensive software where you monkey around but bits and bytes yourself. If you're using APIs to do it (e.g. CoreImage, quicktime) you won't have any problems.

That means that 90% of software will be trivial to port. My guess is that apps like iWork, Pages, Safari, iPhoto, even FCP and DVDSP will be pretty simple because all the frameworks are already multi-architecture. Apps that do more complex things (e.g. Photoshop) will be more problematic, but it's still doable.

I've been through this before and yes, it's a pain, but nowhere near the pain of having to completely rewrite your code - unless you've been a bad programmer in which case you deserve to be spanked, preferably by someone in leather - and you're NOT allowed to enjoy it.
post #338 of 434
http://daringfireball.net/2005/05/intelmania


"Reading between the lines, I think this is less about whether Apple actually intends to switch processors, and more about planted leaks intended to spur IBM. (For what its worth, the Journal article mentions this as a possibility; but few of the sites that breathlessly linked to the story mentioned anything more than the The Wall Street Journal says Apple is moving the Mac to Intel! part.) More than just the money IBM makes from Apple under their current arrangement, theres also the pride/publicity factor: the underlying theme of this rumor is that Apple might turn to Intel because IBM cant compete against Intels technology. Whether its a fair assessment or not, its not the sort of idea IBM wants in the publics conventional wisdom.

My prediction: Ill be writing about this again in 2007."
post #339 of 434
Just my two cents, but has anyone considered the fact that there is no mention of pci express comming to the mac platform.At the momment the wintel world has this, the ability to run two graphic cards at the same time, dual core processors, intergrated memory contoller doing away with the old north , south bridge setup.The cheapest way for Apple to upgrade its ancient pci/agp setup is to change over to the intel/amd cpu thus inherting all the new mainboard changes that have occured in the last 6 to 9 months.How long do you think ATI or nvidia are going to keep making agp cards for, I dont think they are going to continue to make them just for apples old agp/pci motherboards.I think everyone has been concertrating to much on just the cpu factor and not looking at the major changes in motherboards over the last year. It makes apple's motherboard's look ancient. And like I said the cheapest way for apple to keep up is to changes cpu's.
post #340 of 434
This new WSJ article for tomorrow morning was posted on the ARstechnica forum about this (26 pages and growing!)

This is very detailed, and I hate to say it, sounds convincing. Click on the link and you will get to the pdf.

Good nite folks.

http://homepage.mac.com/brandon.colton/
post #341 of 434
So Bill Gates dies and meets St. Peter at the Gates of Heaven. St. Peter says "Bill, you know, that was some dubious s**t you did down there on Earth with Microsoft, but it's just about counter-balanced by the good works that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did, plus your old man, liberal that he is, put in a good word for you. So you could go either way, and we're going to let it be your call. You can go to either Heaven or Hell."

So Gates so, "Okay, but I can I see them both before I decide?"

"Sure!" says St. Peter. "But once you decide, it's for keeps. Let's start with Heaven".

So they go inside and Gates sees a bunch of folks lounging around, not doing much. You know, playing the occasional harp, snoozing on a cloud, reading books, that sort of thing.

Bill decides that's not his scene, so he asks to see Hell.

He knocks on the Gates of Hell and Lucifer immediately shows him in. Hell is a *MUCH* more swinging place than Heaven. Lots of video games, 72 virgins, champagne flowing freely, and not a Mac or a Linux box to be seen.

Gates is sold and goes back to tell St. Peter the bad news. *POOF*! He's back at the Gates of Hell and no sooner can he look up but seven demons grab him, drag him inside, and throw him head first into a pit of burning, stinking brimstone.

Scrambling back out, Gates demands to see Lucifer. "But, but, but," he coughs and stammers, this is *NOTHING* like what you showed me earlier!"

Lucifer replies "Oh, that. That was our demo."
post #342 of 434
http://www.atlas-club.com.au/jokes/m...microsoft1.htm

Bill sux (true story)


API - Time Magazine reports an interesting case of high-tech graffiti. It seems that a couple of Intel engineers working on the design of a recent version of the Pentium microprocessor included a message that describes their feelings about Bill Gates, president of Microsoft, a good corporate pal of Intel's.

When a portion of the Pentium chip is examined under a powerful scanning electron microscope, the phrase "bill sux" is clearly visible, etched into the surface of the chip.

The "flaw" in the chip was only discovered by accident well after the chip was released into the market, too late for Intel to prevent the chip from being used in the manufacture of tens of thousands of PCs.

Intel says that both engineers responsible were former employees of Motorola, makers of the chips that are the heart of the Apple Macintosh.

Both engineers have since been fired by Intel.


post #343 of 434
Last month, didn't Steve say that there would be no significant upgrades to OS X for the next 2 years, now that 10.4 is out? I would think a switch to X86 would be a super, ultra, major upgrade(maybe upgrade isn't the right word) to OS X. There's no way he would have said that if they planned on switching this soon.

Is apple planning on maintaining OS X for Mac and for windows? Which one would get more priority? I'd be pretty pissed if I had just bought a brand new computer that had already been planned for obsolescence under false pretenses. What would state attorneys general, shareholders, and the SEC say about that?
post #344 of 434
Intel-mac are coming soon, but not Apple branded. Apple is going to license the os to some well known pc-makers that will manufacture macos computers with intel inside. The processor is not x86-compatible, but will be the future processor for windows Longhorn as well as "pc"-macs. By the support from major players in the pc-field therre is going to be a great start for intelmacs, even if some software will have to wait to be compiled for the new platform. Intelmac will in the first place be marketed as consumer computers, games and iLife-type software will be debute first. Great chance for margin developers to be first to establish their programs on a new platform.
The big catch in this case is that some major pc-makers mainly active in the indian and chinese market will adopt these and market them in asia. That will assure Apple that many applications will pop up from asian developers, and accelerate a greater marketshare of mac osx in the "forgotten" asian market. Eventually when macos on intel is well established Apple may migrate it´s hardware to intel. There is a option for Apple to cease make computers and concentrate on software and consumer product like Ipod etc.
Bright future for macos.
post #345 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This new WSJ article for tomorrow morning was posted on the ARstechnica forum about this (26 pages and growing!)

This is very detailed, and I hate to say it, sounds convincing. Click on the link and you will get to the pdf.

Good nite folks.

http://homepage.mac.com/brandon.colton/

just read it

there is something very very plausible in there but something very very wrong. the way it skirts around the details is very bizzare.

something is up.

ALMOST 8 HOURS TO GO before this madness is laid to rest.

thanks melgross for the reading.
post #346 of 434
People are forgetting that x86 is only half of the story: there's also x86-64.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #347 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
just read it

there is something very very plausible in there but something very very wrong. the way it skirts around the details is very bizzare.

something is up.

ALMOST 8 HOURS TO GO before this madness is laid to rest.

thanks melgross for the reading.

But what if, in 8 hours, SJ doesn't speak a single word about this rumor? Wouldn't that be ripe! \
post #348 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by brent1a
But what if, in 8 hours, SJ doesn't speak a single word about this rumor? Wouldn't that be ripe! \

fuck man, there'll be mass suicides/ riots/ steve-effigy-burning around the world if steve doesn't say anything
post #349 of 434
I like how Bloomberg morning just updated their reference to Apple and Intel from, "It appears Apple will be switching to Intel" to, "Apple today may announce using Intel chips."
post #350 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
I like how Bloomberg morning just updated their reference to Apple and Intel from, "It appears Apple will be switching to Intel" to, "Apple today may announce using Intel chips."

Makes you wonder what/if all the headlines will say/be modified too by 11am.
post #351 of 434
7 hours to go

- I think Intel will be used in a new device (if at all) - not an OS X machine. I don't see Apple switching from the G5 - which according to Apple was the future road-map.
post #352 of 434
For those expecting cheaper hardware from a possible switch to Intel, please read these comments. It has some other interesting remarks too.
post #353 of 434
8)

Go ahead, make my day.

Do the Linux thing, on a PowerPC!

Let's see now, 4% market share times 4% fanboyz times 0.04% Linux on PowerPC equals?

Wow, NO Winblows, no Intel Inside, gotta have *NIX, and NO APPZ!

Sounds like a weiner to me!

I will personally buy you all plane tickets to the PRC, seeing as you all would fit into a small Cessna!

OH, and check out the real cost of a Mac versus PC, cost ratio 3:1 for mainstream hardware! Its the cost of the entire system, not just the CPU.

Stupid, just plain stupid.

Can't wait to see CIJ (nee David Koresh) set the compound on fire!

Boy, I've never had so much fun in my entire life.

I'll be back, oh let's say 12:00 PM PDT?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #354 of 434
5 hours to go
post #355 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by franksargent
I will personally buy you all plane tickets to the PRC, seeing as you all would fit into a small Cessna!

Is PRC the People's Republic of China or Prescott, AZ? We have a big flight school here, just wondering. If it is Prescott, I'd like something else as that ticket would be useless to me.
post #356 of 434
Quote:
Originally posted by franksargent
[B] 8)

Boy, I've never had so much fun in my entire life.

I have, and *gasp* it happened outside of the computerworld!!!
post #357 of 434
if this crap about apple switching to x86 is true, apple should switch to AMD, not intel.

imagine a couple of those AMD Athlon 64 4800+ dual cores in a power mac.
post #358 of 434
if apple switches to x86, people are yammering about porting applications and how difficult it would be to port from the mac version to the x86/x64 mac architecture.

but...why not just port the windows versions of programs to mac?
post #359 of 434
4 hours to go
to be proved wrong!
post #360 of 434
A couple of stories by the Register here.

I'd really, really hate Apple if they put those damn "Intel Inside" stickers on the cases in exchange for marketing dollars. That would be betrayal on a grand scale.
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong.
-- Richard Feynman
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel-based Macs coming soon?