or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › I simply cannot stomach this transition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I simply cannot stomach this transition

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #2 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I suppose I need a blog. . . \

Perhaps a cold shower too . Look, by all evidence up to now, it seems that there are not good perspectives for the PPC in the desktop and, mostly, laptop arena, for some time to come yet. Intel was the natural choice. If they fail to deliver (see Apple Curse), Apple could at any time revert to PPC with minimal effort. I think that overall this transition has only good to do (hardware agnostic Mac OS), if done carefully.
post #3 of 81
Thread Starter 
I appreciate your reply, PB. The humorous thing is, If only Apple had committed to an open hardware platform, I would not be so resistant. Even if the commitment were hallow, I would be placated. Instead, Apple just had to betroth Intel. Perhaps that was a condition of the partnership. I just can't shake the feeling that Apple is destroying the Mac.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #4 of 81
What I want is the possibility to use some incarnation of Mac OS ten years from now, with a healthy choice of software and a striving underground of small shareware, freeware and open software developers. And I want a varity of hardware choices from Apple, not nessesary a lot of different computer models, but stuff that connects seamlessly, like iPods, Airport, screens and input devices. Thats MY goal.

The means is for Apple to stay healthy, have inspired workers, a not too small piece of the marked and not too expensive hardware platform. Since I am not an expert in how to achieve the means I trust that Apple is doing a better job than I would. If Apple thinks its nessesary to move to Intel to do so I am not the one to second guess. Especially not since the move to Intel doesn´t have a direct negative effect on my goal.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I appreciate your reply, PB. The humorous thing is, If only Apple had committed to an open hardware platform, I would not be so resistant....

You have it backwards. MacOS X, although built on the opensource Darwin implementation of BSD, is proprietary. The PPC-based Macintosh hardware platform is built on a published open standard. However, all evidence to date indicates that Intel-based Macs will not be built on a published open standard.
post #6 of 81
Thread Starter 
No, you misunderstood me, Mr. Me; I apologize for not explicitly defining my terms. By "open hardware platform" I mean open [processor] hardware platform - i.e. a commitment to whichever processor suits the market segment at a particular time. Intel/x86 processors where they make sense - currently the portable and low-end desktop market; PowerPC processors where they make sense - currently the high-end market. Of course, that's not what Apple announced. Instead, we're getting a complete top-to-bottom Intel migration, for no apparently sensible reason.

Frankly, whenever I dwell on this switch it makes me sick. I think I may have to divorce myself from Apple for a year or two after these first Apple PCs, these bastardized Macs, see the light of day. I'm sorry guys. I'm not trying to troll. This isn't gratifying to me. I'm just expressing my dismal view on the subject.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #7 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \

I can no longer drive a Porsche - they switched to Nitchicon capacitors in the ECU computer! Just the thought of those nasty little buggers in there ruins the whole experience for me.

I think I would rather drive a Dodge than a Porsche with Nitchicon capacitors in the ECU. The Dodge uses the same capacitors, but at least I am not driving a tainted Porsche!
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #8 of 81
Thread Starter 
I really like that attempted analogy/parody, e16. But the processor within a computer is much more important to the user's experience than the embedded processor in a car's control units. Yes, I feel betrayed, but that's only an emotional response. Intellectually, I am concerned we're going to see the effects of that betrayal in short order, with the abandonment of the Mac by crucial third party providers in a few short years.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #9 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I really like that attempted analogy/parody, e16. But the processor within a computer is much more important to the user's experience than the embedded processor in a car's control units. Yes, I feel betrayed, but that's only an emotional response. Intellectually, I am concerned we're going to see the effects of that betrayal in short order, with the abandonment of the Mac by crucial third party providers in a few short years.

What utter nonsense!

When you take delivery of your first Intel based mac - and switch it on. Exactly how will you be able to perceive this "important change to the user's experience" ?

Do you open the case, pry off the heat sink and stare in horror at the logo on the back of the biggest chip?
Or perhaps you get a hex editor and sit glumly regarding the alien opcodes nested deep within one fork of the universal binaries?
Or do you cheat and click "About this Mac" and then burst into floods of tears as the word "Power" fails to appear?

It really makes no difference whatsoever to the user's experience. Providing that the Intel build of OS X is every bit as great as the PPC variant.

Even if you program the darn machine, if you sit writing Objective C in Cocoa all day long - trust me, you'll barely notice the difference.

Once upon a time there was a philosophical difference in the type of engineering done by Intel and a radical new upstart philosophy of so called RISC processors. For a while, it was an interesting battleground, with Apple championing this aggressive new underdog, and Intel plodding away with their aging instruction set.

But that was then and this is now. The technologies which Risc camp used were quickly embraced by Intel and AMD. These techniques allowed them to make the same sort of performance gains without the inconvenience of changing their instruction set. The war's over. Use your skill and judgement to see who won. Hint - I am still using a 3 year old 1GHz Powerbook, because it is hardly worth upgrading.

This transition moves Apple in a uniqely strong position. Currently it is regarded as a PPC to Intel move. But with the transition over, and commercial contracts fulfilled, Apple will be in a position to move to AMD, Power 5, Cell or whatever. The move also makes it possible for Apple to even consider challenging Microsoft directly in selling boxed copies of OS X to PCs.

How exactly is that bad?

Carni
post #10 of 81
Thread Starter 
No, Carniphage, Apple has publicly, overtly committed to marrying Intel. No exceptions, provisos or contingencies. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking. I wish I could believe you, but there's no evidence to support your optimistic vision.

Concerning your comments on user experience, I'll tell you that people will know the difference when Rosetta fails to live up to the hype for applications people rely on. People will know the difference when they find out Photoshop is substantially slower even as a native Intel application. People will know the difference when Apple's first generation Mactels have major problems due to Apple's inexperience with PC hardware environments. (Heck, even now Apple cannot get important hardware coding like G5 fan control consistently right from release to release.) People will know the difference when they see third party drivers for important devices are not Mactel compatible. And I will certainly know the difference when third parties move to phase out Mac development, despite the wonders of the universal (fat) binary.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #11 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
No, Carniphage, Apple has publicly, overtly committed to marrying Intel. No exceptions, provisos or contingencies. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking. I wish I could believe you, but there's no evidence to support your optimistic vision.

Concerning your comments on user experience, I'll tell you that people will know the difference when Rosetta fails to live up to the hype for applications people rely on. People will know the difference when they find out Photoshop is substantially slower even as a native Intel application. People will know the difference when Apple's first generation Mactels have major problems due to Apple's inexperience with PC hardware environments. (Heck, even now Apple cannot get important hardware coding like G5 fan control consistently right from release to release.) People will know the difference when they see third party drivers for important devices are not Mactel compatible. And I will certainly know the difference when third parties move to phase out Mac development, despite the wonders of the universal (fat) binary.

Cry more, noob.
post #12 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
No, Carniphage, Apple has publicly, overtly committed to marrying Intel. No exceptions, provisos or contingencies. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking. I wish I could believe you, but there's no evidence to support your optimistic vision.

Yes of course they have. They have a commercial deal. Which at some point will end. It's like a marriage but not all marriages last forever.


Quote:
Concerning your comments on user experience, I'll tell you that people will know the difference when Rosetta fails to live up to the hype for applications people rely on. People will know the difference when they find out Photoshop is substantially slower even as a native Intel application. People will know the difference when Apple's first generation Mactels have major problems due to Apple's inexperience with PC hardware environments. (Heck, even now Apple cannot get important hardware coding like G5 fan control consistently right from release to release.) People will know the difference when they see third party drivers for important devices are not Mactel compatible. And I will certainly know the difference when third parties move to phase out Mac development, despite the wonders of the universal (fat) binary.

Ah it's Rosetta you are worried about!
Well I can understand that, but Rosetta is a temporary thing. No one will be using Rosetta for more than a year or so because all developers of significance will be making the transition to native universal binaries.

The most significant application which will not be ready at the launch of PRO machines will probably be Photoshop. And yes if someone has a job which relies on the program, I would advise them to hold fire until
a) Adobe get their act together and finish the port
or b) Wait until an intel machine appears which can match the performance.

But no one is forcing anyone to buy a new machine at gunpoint, The PPC powermac is still quite usable you know.

My guess is that Adobe will release a halfway-house build. Still PPC code - but with SSE3 filter code from the PC version.

I note your hardware concerns - but really there are one or two engineers out there who do know how to put together intel PCs

Carni.
post #13 of 81
Carni,

Don't you think that the Intel processors to be used in future Apple gear as soon as possibly January may be fast enough in Rosetta to be comperable in performance to the G4? It has been said many times over in various forums and people that I talk to that the Pentium M blows the doors off a G4.
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #14 of 81
With rewrited software supporting the universal binaries, you won't see any difference between a G5 and a Intelmac.
That's said, it's obvious that everysoftware run under Rosetta woulb be painful in an experience user point of vue.
That's why I decided to buy a quad powermac G5, because a small speed bump apart, Apple will never make a more powerfull PPC based powermac. In three or 4 years the Intel stuff will have achieved it's full transition and the intel macs will be much faster than my quad.

My opinion is : you have a G5, keep it, enjoy it, and wait.
post #15 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \

There was no way that Apple / IBM could keep up with Intel. With PPC, IBM made the processor and it was up to Apple to come up with the MB and support chips. This was like Apple having half of a partner to help them keep pace with an entire industry. Intel is looking at taking CPU activities and utting them off on special support chips, they are looking at using flash memory for instant on, they are evolving the wireless communications. The switch to Intel was not about the CPU, it was the development cost of the CPU ++ the cost of the CPU, and the cost of the support chips and the evelopment of the MB. Look at it like this, you will get equal or better performance, and maybe slightly lower prices.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #16 of 81
Yeah, know what you mean Mr. Big - however, I sorta look at it this way ...

I suspect Uncle Steve merely said complete transition in order to force developers to write to Universal Binaries; after all, if he only said "in some cases, we'll be going Intel, and in others we won't", it would confuse the market, make it appear that Apple is waffling, and convince developers that it's not worth their time to write Universal Binaries as who knows what's going to happen: and in not doing so, they could essentially halt any degree of transition because not enough apps would get on board.

I don't think Uncle Steve likes other people grabbing hold of the reins like that ...

So, we have complete "transition" ... and who knows, maybe they will go all the way with it? But frankly, I doubt it (unless Intel has some serious serious snazz up their sleeves) - I mean, the die size alone of the two chips tells you at least something, plus, there's plenty of institutions who've put a lot of effort into PPC, and are loathe to drop it all ...

What I think is going to happen is simply this - Apple wants all developers to just get into the habbit of writing Universal Binaries no matter what; then, they'll be the only mainstream computer company in the world that can take their pick between PPC and Intel, and simply use whichever is best for the task at hand ... for portables, Intel, for racks in scientific computer, PPC ... I mean, who knows where PPC and Cell might wind up? Could you imagine what a killer media machine production machine built upon a kick ass Cell architecture might be like? Obviously nobody knows at this point really exactly what's going to happen - so why would Apple want to cut themselves off from a potentially huge advantage?

Nah, to my mind, it's "tell the developers we're going to move entirely to Intel, get them to write Universal Binaries, and then be the only computer company in the world that can cherry pick between Intel or IBM": that's potentially one hell of an advantage!


Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean.
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
In life, as in chess, the moves that hurt the most, are the ones you didn't see ...
Reply
post #17 of 81
Personally I don't mind about the transition itself. Intel/PPC...who cares. Apple knows what its doing, and as long as it runs Apples OS all is fine by me.

I do however find the whole waiting process HARD to take. I was waiting for almost 2 years for the infamous G5 powerbook. So when Apple dropped the intel bomb...I was excited...until I realized HEY!! Thats gonna mean even MORE waiting!

DOH!

And on top of that when the intel books finally arrive(rumor now has it early 2006)....we'll have to WAIT almost another year for a OS upgrade that will fully utilize its chip!

DOUBLE DOH!

Apple is a cruel mistress. But ya gotta love em.

My main delema will be trying to decide between the upcoming ibook and powerbook. If rumors are correct, pbs will get an intel, a built in isight and drop the 12" model....while the ibooks get a widescreen 13". I hope the ibook gets an intel too. Otherwise that would make the decision even more confusing. I still find it hard to believe apple will both drop the 12" pb AND not offer a 13" pb don't you? I want a small laptop...so probably won't go with a 15" pb anyway...and will be forced to get a 13" ibook with or without an intel chip.

Argh...so many decisions.
post #18 of 81
whenever I get nagging feeling that the Mac won't be a Mac unless it has an IBM processor I do 2 things:

1. remember how the Mac was still a Mac when we went from Motorola to IBM

2. Climb on top of my girlfriend.
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by philbot


2. Climb on top of my girlfriend.

I guess that explains your sig?!?

Quote from the girlfriend...?!?

;^p

(sorry, could not pass that one by...!)
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #20 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by regan
PAnd on top of that when the intel books finally arrive(rumor now has it early 2006)....we'll have to WAIT almost another year for a OS upgrade that will fully utilize its chip!

I don't think that's really true. OS X has apparently been able to run intel since the beginning. What exactly won't tiger be utilizing once the intel machines come out?
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #21 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
I don't think that's really true. OS X has apparently been able to run intel since the beginning. What exactly won't tiger be utilizing once the intel machines come out?

Nothing, all of the tools / frameworks are in place. This is not a boutique shop, this the industry leader. They have the whole package, and make utilization easy, because they want to remain the industry leader. Rosetta, acceleration framework, and currently OSX x86 was updated to 10.4.3 and few days earlier than PPC. Nothing will not be utilized, so everything will be utilized.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #22 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean.

Don't worry, be happy. Unless you are in one or two very specialized domains, or you are a low level optimization-obsessed programmer like me, then you simply aren't going to notice that your next Mac has Intel Inside (tm). What you will notice is that your iMac, mini, or notebook will perform considerably better than the equivalent you could buy today. When you can buy a Mac tower with Intel Inside (tm), it will also outperform whatever was the last PPC-based Mac that Apple shipped. There will be exceptions here and there where the developer hasn't created a Universal Binary, or where Rosetta doesn't work, or software that plays directly to the strengths of the PPC (rare!)... but by the end of 2007 the whole Mac ecosystem will be purring along very happily on Intel-based chips and you won't be any the wiser unless you open the box, examine the spec sheet, or look at the system profile -- and do you really do those things more than once or twice? Most of the time you are doing things with the computer, and how well that works is far more important than what it says on the spec sheet.

And you can buy more new Mac software and hardware, confident in the knowledge that Apple's inability to keep pace with the x86 hardware is gone. 2008 is going to be a great to buy a Mac (or two).


Oh, and as an added bonus: VirtualPC (and the numerous other VMs likely to pop up) runs really really f%^&ing fast!!!
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #23 of 81
Big Mac

Trust me when I heard the transition was to take place I too flipped a bit and was extremely upset. However I finally came to my senses and looked into why Apple has moved to "enemy territory"

What I found was an Intel that was so sure of it's new path with low watt low pipeline processors they cancelled billions in investment dollars in Netburst.

They had finally seen the light and were hard at work correcting their misstep. If things go well we will be better off because of it. I love the G5 and PPC but the investment money they need cannot be provided by Apple and PPC just isn't strong enough to get a lot of investment dollars elsewhere.

Steve made the most sane decision he could. Hop aboard the X86 hardware gravy train and ride it for all it's worth. I think he made the right decision. If Intel hits it's goals we'll have relatively low wattage dual core laptops for the first half of 2006 and dual core low wattage desktop and server cpu for the latter half.

Could we be there with PPC? Sure we could be not at the 65nm and the low wattage that we need. I'm officially drinking the koolaid here.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #24 of 81
I think that Apple is victim of it own mantra : X86 chips sucks. Unlike cars engines, you won't notice any difference between an intel chip and a PPC chips : it would be more or less faster (more most of the time)
post #25 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \

Here's the blog you need: wilshipley.com, "I Invite you to wine"

wil is no slouch. He was a founding partner of Omni. He wrote Delicious Library and made his second mint. He recruits great programmers and UI designers who in turn are lured away by Apple.

He's not worried.

I'm not worried.

You shouldn't be worried.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
No, Carniphage, Apple has publicly, overtly committed to marrying Intel. No exceptions, provisos or contingencies. You're simply engaging in wishful thinking. I wish I could believe you, but there's no evidence to support your optimistic vision.

The point is this: Apple is moving cautiously. They have to open their doors too more hardware...and eventually they will be at the point where OS X can be installed on any PC boxen. Even with the first gen Macs with Intel chips, what's to stop users from dropping in a pin-compatible AMD chip when they want to upgrade? It's a whole new ball-game Apple is playing. They CAN'T control the insides of their computers anymore. If they don't know this, then Apple is doomed. If they do, then you can be sure that in about 4 years, you'll be able make DIY Macs. If they do this well, Microsoft's monopoly will take a serious hit.
post #27 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
Here's the blog you need: wilshipley.com, "I Invite you to wine"

wil is no slouch. He was a founding partner of Omni. He wrote Delicious Library and made his second mint. He recruits great programmers and UI designers who in turn are lured away by Apple.

He's not worried.

I'm not worried.

You shouldn't be worried.

i got drunk with him in chicago..... he's a good guy.... and he's right.

anyway, cpu architecture means nothing. there. i said it. I spent years studying it while collecting graduate degrees in it, and while working for a certain majorly major CPU manufacturer, and bottom line: it doesn't matter. for general purpose software, economies of scale, and fabrication technology have a bigger impact on performance per $. intel was the right way to go. as for all of this whining and identity crisis because a flake of silicon is different in your next mac... get a xanax.
i freebase user interface
Reply
i freebase user interface
Reply
post #28 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by DCQ
The point is this: Apple is moving cautiously. They have to open their doors too more hardware...and eventually they will be at the point where OS X can be installed on any PC boxen. Even with the first gen Macs with Intel chips, what's to stop users from dropping in a pin-compatible AMD chip when they want to upgrade? It's a whole new ball-game Apple is playing. They CAN'T control the insides of their computers anymore. If they don't know this, then Apple is doomed. If they do, then you can be sure that in about 4 years, you'll be able make DIY Macs. If they do this well, Microsoft's monopoly will take a serious hit.

-The same thing that has stopped users from dropping in a pin-compatible PPC970 will stop them from dropping in a p-c Intel or AMD upgrade. It won't work. Plus, no AMDs are p-c with Intel at the moment.
Desktop Mac: 2.0GHz iMac Core Duo
Laptop Mac: 1.5GHz PowerBook G4
Reply
Desktop Mac: 2.0GHz iMac Core Duo
Laptop Mac: 1.5GHz PowerBook G4
Reply
post #29 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Mac
I've struggled to come to terms with it. When Jobs confirmed it, I was left befuddled. And as time has gone on, I have not exactly warmed up to the prospect. Try as I may I cannot stomach this transition. It makes me feel spiritually very unclean. I stopped visiting AI regularly after I bought my G5 last year, and upon catching up on that recent article that stated Apple dismantled its PPC hardware team, I felt physically ill. I wish I could stop worrying and learn to love Mactel, yet every time I think about it I only feel revulsion. I suppose I need a blog. . . or a beer. \

At first, I was 100% against it. However, I've reconsidered and now think it makes business sense.
I only hope that Apple doesn't charge a premium for an Apple box if its comparably equipped to a Dell or some other PC maker.

I also hope Apple is working with Intel on an Intel chip that strips the chip of its ability to run X86 legacy code. From what I've read, this would make the chip smaller and cooler (and maybe even faster). Altivec on a MacIntel chip would also be nice.
post #30 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by sc_markt
I also hope Apple is working with Intel on an Intel chip that strips the chip of its ability to run X86 legacy code. From what I've read, this would make the chip smaller and cooler (and maybe even faster). Altivec on a MacIntel chip would also be nice.

Don't hold your breath, Intel has already signaled to Apple that they are another customer. Intel is not a boutique, they will do the things that address their markets, and when I say this think big picture not small. They would not be able to address the issues of the whole market if they are trying to solve problems that affect 5% of the market. Intel as a company would like perhaps to move away from x86, but that is a place with no market, or little market. So move away from x86, and kill the company. Intel is the market leader but they are not the market, they follow the market just like any other company.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #31 of 81
I'm still pretty nervous about this.

On the plus side, the rumors are that Intel has made great strides with their 45nm process. This should be pretty exciting in a year or two.

On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.

Certainly, in cases where there is competition companies would have to write for OS X. Adobe would be compelled to write for OS X to compete with Quark.

It already happens in some cases that vendors tell Mac customers to run their product via VPC. It will be worse when OS X is running on Intel. The better windows programs run on OS X/Intel the less need they have to rewrite.
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
Unofficial AppleScript Studio Lobbyist
Reply
post #32 of 81
And here´s another one:

I see the Mac-Hardware line doomed. Right now, it is relatively simple to install OS X X86 on other hardware than the Developer Box - just imagine how it will turn out in 2006: Who will buy a "oh so expensive" Macintosh if they can call the local nerd / geek to install OS X on their loud Dell?

And don´t give me this "Oh no, this won´t happen, we have the super chip that checks wether you run OS X X86 on a Mac or not".
It took other people (of course... ) 4 secs to delete the *.kext responsible for the checking on 1.4.1. And I use computers long enough to know that this won´t change much with 10.5.

Suckage.
Now running on a 20" aluminium iMac (Fall 2008), as well as a Macboook Pro 13" (mid 2009) and an iPhone.
Reply
Now running on a 20" aluminium iMac (Fall 2008), as well as a Macboook Pro 13" (mid 2009) and an iPhone.
Reply
post #33 of 81
Denmaru.

I beg to differ with you my dellusional friend. Yee have lost yee little mind me thinks.

How many times have I heard people like u ringing the death nell for apple.

Your "scenario" won't pan out.

THAT much I do know.

U make-ah me laugh.

har dee har har it is to laugh.
post #34 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Denmaru
[..] here´s [..] don´t [..] won´t [..] And I use computers long enough to know that this won´t change much with 10.5.

You haven't, however, used computers long enough to find out where the apostrophe (') key is.
post #35 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
However I finally came to my senses and looked into why Apple has moved to "enemy territory"


It is also well worth remembering that in 1984 the "1984" commercial which introduced the Macintosh to the world identified IBM (Big Blue) as "the enemy". Ten years later Apple got in bed with IBM as their processor supplier. 11 years after that Apple is getting into bed with the other enemy. The moral of the story is that Apple with sleep with whomever they need to in order to make the hardware and software they need to in order to compete in the market.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #36 of 81
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by neutrino23
I'm still pretty nervous about this.

On the plus side, the rumors are that Intel has made great strides with their 45nm process. This should be pretty exciting in a year or two.

On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.

Certainly, in cases where there is competition companies would have to write for OS X. Adobe would be compelled to write for OS X to compete with Quark.

It already happens in some cases that vendors tell Mac customers to run their product via VPC. It will be worse when OS X is running on Intel. The better windows programs run on OS X/Intel the less need they have to rewrite.

That, of course, is the other classic objection to x86 compatibility. If Windows applications run acceptably well and at native speeds, the OS X software market is dead. We will first likely see the death of Mac compatibility, followed by the death of OS X/Intel applications. The main reason third parties support the Mac now is that the Mac cannot run Windows applications. Take that out of the equation, and the ramification is fairly obvious.

A couple of days ago a friend was asking me whether it was a good time to get a PowerBook. I had to tell him that, in all honesty, I could not in good conscience recommend one to him. Apple is killing the Mac, AFAIK. I hope to God I'm wrong, but when it comes to Apple I'm usually right.
PPC4EVER
Reply
PPC4EVER
Reply
post #37 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by regan


How many times have I heard people like u ringing the death nell for apple.

This isn´t some "Apple will die because they won´t let it play protected WMAs" or "Apple is dead" #3443 - it is a fact that there are FAR more illegal Installations of 10.4.1 out there than Developerboxes.
Just google, and you will see.

And this is just a developer build. Now think a little more, and you should see my (valid) point.

And of course, all of the people (I don´t know them, of course) I´ve seen installing OS X X86 on their PCs will buy a Mac....

Quote:
Originally posted by regan

Your "scenario" won't pan out.

It already did, to a certain extend.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker

You haven't, however, used computers long enough to find out where the apostrophe (') key is.

You haven´t thought a single moment where Vienna is located, didn´t you?
Now running on a 20" aluminium iMac (Fall 2008), as well as a Macboook Pro 13" (mid 2009) and an iPhone.
Reply
Now running on a 20" aluminium iMac (Fall 2008), as well as a Macboook Pro 13" (mid 2009) and an iPhone.
Reply
post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by neutrino23
On the down side I worry that some vendors might stop supporting OS X. Suppose the Mac share grows to 10 or 15%. With PPC Macs someone like Autodesk would be compelled to write software for OS X. However, if it becomes easy to run windows software on OS X then those companies could simply tell customers to do so rather than rewrite their software for OS X.

think different:
no software vendor would force it's clients to buy a copy of an unsupported os.
they'll lose customers that way, especially as the mac-userbase grows.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #39 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Denmaru
You haven´t thought a single moment where Vienna is located, didn´t you?

While I haven't personally been to Vienna, I do in fact very much know where it is, unless we are talking about a different city by the same name. Unless I'm mistaken and Austrians use a different keyboard layout for whatever reason, I expect you to use the same layout as Germans do. To write an apostrophe, you use shift+#, which gives '.

The key with ´ and `, on the other hand, is mainly for accents.

P.S.: since you assumed that I checked your profile, maybe you should have looked a little into mine; the name might have given you some kind of indication that I am certainly not ignorant to Europe, having lived there for almost my entirely life.
post #40 of 81
The only thing that could be a problem for the OS X software market is a dirt cheap (or free) emulation layer that ran Windows software smoothly inside OS X. This would likely cause some companies to withdraw explicit OS X support.
The apps would still be clunky. If you have ever ran X11 software, that's about what it'd feel like. Or a "native" app which uses platform features poorly, like Firefox. If there really was a way to make a Windows app feel like a native one, it would have been done already.

Haxored OS X on X86 is not a threat to the Mac software market. I'm sure people will be able to hack any copy protection if they want to, and some tinkerers will do it just as a matter of principle. The limiting factor for widespread adoption is lack of graphics and chipset drivers. If you are reduced to picking component by component into your box just so you can run a haxored OS X, not only are you one person in a hundred thousand, you'd get off cheaper by just buying a Mac.

Dualbooting to Windows is also not a threat. Like gar said, software vendors can't do business if they ask their customers to run an unsupported OS.
Businesses certainly won't do this, it would be an administrative nightmare. If they want Windows they can buy another box, it's peanuts to them.
Few consumers will bother. The ones who do are likely doing it to run games, which are simply not up to par on OS X now, so nothing lost there, but probably many users gained.

Just a while ago, my new neighbor bought a computer. He came to me for advice. He uttered the magic words "... and play some games". He ended up with an Athlon64 / X800XL box built at a local vendor. I wish dualbooting Intel Macs had been available so I could have recommended one of those for him.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › I simply cannot stomach this transition