It occurs to me that many of you should have switched to PCs long ago. Now that Apple is a PC maker, you don't have to feel guilty about it, but you guys could have had your Intel spec orgies from day one instead.
I notice you put a lot of emphasis on the CPU to determine whether a computer is a Mac or PC. Most others apparently emphasize the operating system. Okay, that's just personal preference I guess, whatever counts most to someone. I personally like the PPC, but it is nowhere near the top of my list. Also, I count the Mac as a PC already, meaning it is a personal computer. Again, just an individual way of thinking.
I do have a question. Since you do put so much emphasis on the CPU, what is it about Intel processors that you dislike so much? Is it the architecture? I know it carries along a lot of legacy baggage. Or is it Intel? Intel is known as Chipzilla and often thought of as the MS of chips. Anyway, I'd just like to hear why the processor means so much to you?
Speculating on the performance of the new systems and the benefits of once chip design over another is interesing, and I enjoy the insight I get from everyone in here, but in the end, I think most of us know what we're going to end up purchasing by '07. Let's all be serious here - who is going to jump ship when apple switches to Intel?
Our choices are going to be 1) Apple with Intel, Ives' design, Apple Elegance, and OSX integrated with the best Intel has to offer.
2) Dell/Gateway/e-machine with intel/AMD.
3) Linux on an intel or AMD.
I know I am going to go for choice 1. The other "alernatives" aren't alternatives, at least for me, and probably not for most other people who post in here(?).
Intel may very well be wanting to ride Apple's wave of success. Intel probably has plans to help Apple expand further into the marketplace with Apple branded devices powered by Intel hardware.
i can't help but feel that the offerings provided by Apple are going to have unique hardware components that Intel wants to push. Macs have always been plagued by hardware that fails to be the top of the line, unlike PCs that can always be configured to utilize the best components the market provides. hopefully this is also going to be the reality of the Mac in the next year and a half.
also Intel has always managed to provide developers with leading edge compilers making their hardware perform better.
Speculating on the performance of the new systems and the benefits of once chip design over another is interesing, and I enjoy the insight I get from everyone in here, but in the end, I think most of us know what we're going to end up purchasing by '07. Let's all be serious here - who is going to jump ship when apple switches to Intel?
Our choices are going to be 1) Apple with Intel, Ives' design, Apple Elegance, and OSX integrated with the best Intel has to offer.
2) Dell/Gateway/e-machine with intel/AMD.
3) Linux on an intel or AMD.
I know I am going to go for choice 1. The other "alernatives" aren't alternatives, at least for me, and probably not for most other people who post in here(?).
There's also the option to build your own system... not with OSX unfortunately (yet), but if I can help it I would build my own before I ever buy from an OEM.
Best hardware from the best vendors = a system with hardware at least as solid and stable as anything going into a Mac, and it's priced about the same as a similarly spec'ed OEM system.
Comments
Originally posted by Big Mac
It occurs to me that many of you should have switched to PCs long ago. Now that Apple is a PC maker, you don't have to feel guilty about it, but you guys could have had your Intel spec orgies from day one instead.
I notice you put a lot of emphasis on the CPU to determine whether a computer is a Mac or PC. Most others apparently emphasize the operating system. Okay, that's just personal preference I guess, whatever counts most to someone. I personally like the PPC, but it is nowhere near the top of my list. Also, I count the Mac as a PC already, meaning it is a personal computer. Again, just an individual way of thinking.
I do have a question. Since you do put so much emphasis on the CPU, what is it about Intel processors that you dislike so much? Is it the architecture? I know it carries along a lot of legacy baggage. Or is it Intel? Intel is known as Chipzilla and often thought of as the MS of chips. Anyway, I'd just like to hear why the processor means so much to you?
Our choices are going to be 1) Apple with Intel, Ives' design, Apple Elegance, and OSX integrated with the best Intel has to offer.
2) Dell/Gateway/e-machine with intel/AMD.
3) Linux on an intel or AMD.
I know I am going to go for choice 1. The other "alernatives" aren't alternatives, at least for me, and probably not for most other people who post in here(?).
i can't help but feel that the offerings provided by Apple are going to have unique hardware components that Intel wants to push. Macs have always been plagued by hardware that fails to be the top of the line, unlike PCs that can always be configured to utilize the best components the market provides. hopefully this is also going to be the reality of the Mac in the next year and a half.
also Intel has always managed to provide developers with leading edge compilers making their hardware perform better.
Originally posted by AquaMac
Ever try looking inside a PC? Mac hardware is much more professional.
Intel mobos are pretty clean. 2-bit (pun intended) taiwanese mobos are certainly hack jobs at best.
Originally posted by SerpentFruit
Speculating on the performance of the new systems and the benefits of once chip design over another is interesing, and I enjoy the insight I get from everyone in here, but in the end, I think most of us know what we're going to end up purchasing by '07. Let's all be serious here - who is going to jump ship when apple switches to Intel?
Our choices are going to be 1) Apple with Intel, Ives' design, Apple Elegance, and OSX integrated with the best Intel has to offer.
2) Dell/Gateway/e-machine with intel/AMD.
3) Linux on an intel or AMD.
I know I am going to go for choice 1. The other "alernatives" aren't alternatives, at least for me, and probably not for most other people who post in here(?).
There's also the option to build your own system... not with OSX unfortunately (yet), but if I can help it I would build my own before I ever buy from an OEM.
Best hardware from the best vendors = a system with hardware at least as solid and stable as anything going into a Mac, and it's priced about the same as a similarly spec'ed OEM system.