Did Hell just freeze over while I wasnt looking? What is going on????

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I've been a very distant observer in the Mac community recently. I just dont get that excitement the way I used to browsin these forums and rumor sites. It's been more of a "take it as it comes" attitude.....I love the OS and my Mac, but its just that.



I took a hiatus from these forums and its been pretty quiet. Now this???? Apple and.......Intel?!?!??! Guess Im more out of touch with things than I previously thought, what the hell happened??? When the first rumors came about the G5 and Apple I thought this was the ticket for Apple. IBM saved Apple's @$$ from a dead-end situation. I never believed the G4 was faster than x86 offerings at the time but the G5 is a different story IMO. Pretty recently IBM seemed to have a good road map for the future of Apple's CPUs and I thought were commited. I guess the fact that 970 failed to show in a cooler form wasnt a positive sign but what about a POWER5 derivitive and the future CELL technology??? What exactly prompted Steve Jobs to announce this???



Years back me and others were sayin this very thing, that Apple would be doomed if it were to stick with PPC (Motorola) and they should switch to x86 (Intel). It was well known in these parts that Apple probably had Mac OS X developed for x86 secretely. Rosetta was speculated on years ago. Its just shoking Steve would actually do this, even though I believed it may eventually have to come to fruition.



What will happen to those of us that own G3, G4, G5 machines???? What about old software??? Also, if heat issues with the 970 were overbearing factors in this decision how do Intel processors solve this? Last time I checked they ran hot and PC notebooks were like concrete blocks unless they were equipped with that special P4 (forgot the name...starts with a C ??). Those wouldnt outperform one of the 2 GHz Freescale G4s that were supposed to come. Does anyone have power requirements for G5 vs P4???? And why Intel specifically and not just x86?? AMD would make a more viable partner....Intel is like Microsoft. If OS X and Mac software code has to be written for x86 anyways we can just go out and build Athlon machines, or will there be different chipsets that prevent this????



How do you all feel about the future of our platform and what this will mean?? Will the transition between PPC & x86 be difficult or a seamless integration???



I still think Jobs has gone nuts and dont even know what to say at this point. It's gonna be funny what those who said the G4/G5 blow the water off Pentiums are gonna say now
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    man you really need to watch the keynote. the whole thing. you'll be fine.
  • Reply 2 of 25
    krispiekrispie Posts: 260member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TigerWoods99

    What will happen to those of us that own G3, G4, G5 machines?



    What do you think will happen? Do you think Apple's going to hack in and break it in some way? Or do you think it'll carry on working just like before?



    Was this rubbish really worth yet another thread?
  • Reply 3 of 25
    tigerwoods99tigerwoods99 Posts: 2,633member
    I cant watch the keynote, I have the world's crappiest internet connection known to man.



    And yes this rubbish was worth yet another thread.....I needed to vent. My question is valid because I'm not sayin that my computer will all of a sudden not run, but will PPC be supported through software beyond Intel???? That is a major concern, I dont want my PPC Mac to be obsolete and have a problem with future software runnin. Developers will have to code PPC alongside x86 so I can still work. I depend on certain applications and dont want to be forced into buyin a new machine and spend lots of $$$$ buyin new x86 OS X software.



    I dont understand this move at all. x86 is a dead-end platform IMO. Cell is going to be several yrs ahead of its time technologically. What about dual core, MP machines???? 64-bit?? I wonder if Apple is going to be able to maintain their hardware division or eventually end up as a software company. OS X could probably gain a ton of marketshare on x86 though. However the bread and butter is still Mac computers.



    All these years of Steve sayin how much faster his computers were compared to Pentiums and the ads smokin Intel now he gets up on stage runnin a P4 sayin its better What is anyone supposed to believe now??? We are all eatin crow now as Mac users.



    Are they really goin to call them Mactel........wow
  • Reply 4 of 25
    gamblorgamblor Posts: 446member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TigerWoods99

    I cant watch the keynote, I have the world's crappiest internet connection known to man.



    Step 1. Get a better internet connection.



    Quote:



    And yes this rubbish was worth yet another thread.....I needed to vent. My question is valid because I'm not sayin that my computer will all of a sudden not run, but will PPC be supported through software beyond Intel????





    PPC support is as easy as clicking a check box in Xcode. PPC will be supported for years to come.



    Quote:



    I dont understand this move at all. x86 is a dead-end platform IMO.





    Here's a link for some info on where x86 is heading in the next few years... Doesn't seem dead to me...



    Quote:



    Cell is going to be several yrs ahead of its time technologically. What about dual core, MP machines???? 64-bit?? I wonder if Apple is going to be able to maintain their hardware division or eventually end up as a software company. OS X could probably gain a ton of marketshare on x86 though. However the bread and butter is still Mac computers.





    Cell is completely unproven on the desktop. Intel has processors that are dual core, MP, and 64 bit. They'll wind up in Macs.



    All this is answered in any one of the (many) other threads here. Ars has some useful information. Start reading.



    Quote:

    All these years of Steve sayin how much faster his computers were compared to Pentiums[...]



    A good rule of thumb, not just for Apple, but for any company, is not to believe anything coming out of marketing.



    Really, you haven't asked anything that hasn't been asked before. Read a few of the threads here, and you'll have answers to all the questions you've asked.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Go to your nearest apple store or compusa and click on the quicktime link of the keynote. They will let you watch it in peace.



    Use a 30" monitor for all of the HD Steve Goodness.



    Oh and you might try satellite for your high speed if the local cable company or telco can't get you broadband.



    peace
  • Reply 6 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TigerWoods99

    Are they really goin to call them Mactel........wow [/B]



    No. Well, not that we know of. That's just what we've started calling them on the boards.



    Look, all of your questions have been discussed (to death) on this and many other forums. You'll learn a lot if you just take some time and read some of the threads - espeically the ones that come a day or two after the keynote (once everyone got over the shock of the news and cooler heads prevailed).
  • Reply 7 of 25
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Jobs looked at cell and -



    Quote:

    The New York Times also confirms that Apple has investigated other chips as well. Apple reportedly met with Sony regarding the Cell design but Jobs "was disappointed with the Cell design, which he believes will be even less effective than the PowerPC."



    So, what does that say to your opinion now considering IBM was dragging it's arse and according to sources IBM was either 1) too expensive or 2) too slow?



    So, now we have a 1) cheaper and 2) faster chipset running the best OS on the planet from a company that produces and innovates at an astonishing level. And you're unhappy?



    Sorry, but being able to buy cheaper and faster macs makes me happy.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    Quote:

    Originally posted by KidRed

    Jobs looked at cell and -



    So, now we have a 1) cheaper and 2) faster chipset running the best OS on the planet from a company that produces and innovates at an astonishing level. And you're unhappy?



    Sorry, but being able to buy cheaper and faster macs makes me happy.




    The possibility of cheaper and faster Macs is appealing, but I'm curious if we see some of the amazing design/style we've seen in recent Macs disappear.



    The last time I checked, the high-end Intel chips all ran hotter and sucked up more juice than the PowerPC chips Apple currently uses.



    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the reason we have the super-small/super-quiet Mini is because the G4 processor doesn't generate a ton of heat and doesn't require as much power? If Apple creates an Intel version of the Mini as one of the first Intel-based Macs (as we're being told) will it really be a Mini anymore ... or will Apple have to "super size" the Mini to fit an Intel processor with cooling and power requirements inside the case?
  • Reply 9 of 25
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Umm, yeah... you're not really keeping up are you? Apple will not be using any existing Intel proc's. They will be using Yonah derivatives due in 12 months time that run faster and cooler than anything IBM was able to offer. That's kinda the whole point.
  • Reply 10 of 25
    bill mbill m Posts: 324member
    The new name of the game is "performance per watt" as coined by Jobs during his WWDC keynote address. At first, I thought this was just another marketing ploy to sell the processor switch, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Current and future PPC processors might have a slight edge in speed than their x86 counterparts, but are pretty much useless if Apple can't put them in a portable computer without melting the case or a desktop without an external active radiator the size of the computer itself.



    PPC chips will certainly speed up in months/years to come (it's safe to expect a 3ghz dual G5 by MWSF '06), but they will also run much hotter. Intel's chip roadmap shows a decent performance gain with much lower power consumption. This would probably mean faster notebooks than we could ever expect on the PPC camp and even quad processors (if needed) for the towers.



    Yet, I still think Apple will keep developing OS X for both platforms, and developers should keep churning out universal binaries on Xcode... who knows what could happen in another 5 to 10 years from now...

    8)
  • Reply 11 of 25
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,279member
    Quote:

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the reason we have the super-small/super-quiet Mini is because the G4 processor doesn't generate a ton of heat and doesn't require as much power? If Apple creates an Intel version of the Mini as one of the first Intel-based Macs (as we're being told) will it really be a Mini anymore ... or will Apple have to "super size" the Mini to fit an Intel processor with cooling and power requirements inside the case?



    The G4 1.25Ghz and 1.42Ghz microprocessors Consume less than 20 Watts



    However Intel's Dual Core Yonah is supposed to consume 25 watts or less and contain two cores at 2Ghz or higher and a 2MB cache. This chip will likely go into volume production Q4 for Q1 2006 delivery. It's a no brainer for Apple they can use a Dual Core Yonah mini to spark great demand or use a single core and have the dissipation drop to 10-15 watts. Intel's current netburst CPU are the ones causing high heat.
  • Reply 12 of 25
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by krispie

    Was this rubbish really worth yet another thread?



    Mind who you're talking to, son. Look at his registered date and post count, then compare it to yours.



    Any other member I'd say the same you did, but this is Tiger Tiger Woods, ya'll! Hush now.



  • Reply 13 of 25
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,279member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Mind who you're talking to, son. Look at his registered date and post count, then compare it to yours.



    Any other member I'd say the same you did, but this is Tiger Tiger Woods, ya'll! Hush now.









    Hehehe right on. Membership has it's privledges!
  • Reply 14 of 25
    useroneuserone Posts: 55member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bill M





    PPC chips will certainly speed up in months/years to come (it's safe to expect a 3ghz dual G5 by MWSF '06), but they will also run much hotter. Intel's chip roadmap shows a decent performance gain with much lower power consumption. This would probably mean faster notebooks than we could ever expect on the PPC camp and even quad processors (if needed) for the towers.





    Yes I guess Apple needs to stop manufacturing 'Air Tunnels' with chips in and focus on making suff a little more portable.



    /uo
  • Reply 15 of 25
    spyderspyder Posts: 170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Mind who you're talking to, son. Look at his registered date and post count, then compare it to yours...



    I hope you're kidding.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    kraig911kraig911 Posts: 912member
    yeah I know :/ the news... its kind of like finding out your new girlfriend was a huge porn star. Its like reaaaally good... and yet so so bad.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spyder

    I hope you're kidding.



    Mostly.
  • Reply 18 of 25
    myahmacmyahmac Posts: 222member
    Hey Tiger good to see you round again. With regards to eating crow, its really Intel that is. They have been spending the last year going back over their design since they scrapped the prescott architecture. Anyway, great to see the Author of the coolest thread around. Now go off and make a Yonah Rising thread or something.
  • Reply 19 of 25
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rustedborg

    The possibility of cheaper and faster Macs is appealing, but I'm curious if we see some of the amazing design/style we've seen in recent Macs disappear.



    The last time I checked, the high-end Intel chips all ran hotter and sucked up more juice than the PowerPC chips Apple currently uses.



    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of the reason we have the super-small/super-quiet Mini is because the G4 processor doesn't generate a ton of heat and doesn't require as much power? If Apple creates an Intel version of the Mini as one of the first Intel-based Macs (as we're being told) will it really be a Mini anymore ... or will Apple have to "super size" the Mini to fit an Intel processor with cooling and power requirements inside the case?




    That contradicts Steve who said the G5 was too hot and thereore would never amke it to a powerbook. And the Intels' chips ran cooler. Given that and the speed brick wall on the PPC side, it's a no brainer for me.



    Why would design stall? Look at it this way. Now Apple will be on the SAME PLAYING feild as Dell, Gateway, Compaq etc. Now they would step up their design if anything. They are in prime position to really make a move.



    A hot slick, cheap, fast mac that DUAL BOOTS!?!? Come on, game over.
  • Reply 20 of 25
    tigerwoods99tigerwoods99 Posts: 2,633member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TednDi





    Oh and you might try satellite for your high speed if the local cable company or telco can't get you broadband.



    peace




    sorry im not a rich white kid who can afford all that





    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Mind who you're talking to, son. Look at his registered date and post count, then compare it to yours.



    Any other member I'd say the same you did, but this is Tiger Tiger Woods, ya'll! Hush now.







    word......seniority TRICK!!!





    what i dont understand is ok Apple wants to go x86....but why Intel??? AMD produces better chips that are closer to RISC architecture anyway. what does AMD's roadmap look like compared to Intel?? if OS X is going to run on x86 anyways, why would they keep their products amalgamated with Intel? im not a big fan of the monopolizing companies, i think it discourages technological advancements. if Intel has the Mac market as well as PC what's goin to spawn development interest??



    i think mac users are the ones eatin crow. intel has just conquered another market so they can further monopolize the chip market. i mean, the same people on AI that are sayin how great this is were the same ones sayin how much faster the G4/G5 were than the P4. i still think PPC is a better architecture than x86. like you said intel keeps scrappin designs due to problems....so what is all this research and design cost goin to do to macs? apple just becomes another OEM, and IMO they cant survive as simply that. could apple survive as a software company?? maybe. you see what happened with itanium, so why is intel all of a sudden barred from any possibility of stalling?



    and are we gonna have to boot up from the BIOS ?
Sign In or Register to comment.