Why? You don't want a computer that's always at least as fast hardware wise as your windows "friends"? You'd rather it get slower? Apple has always had problems since the beginning of time. They always come out with something super fast and amazing only to not be able to update it for 2 years... The history with motorola, ibm has been bad. At the very least with Intel you'll get a faster computer now.
I love my dual 2.5ghz g5, fully loaded, that cost me $3,900.... However my $1500 windows machine at work is much faster, and cheepier to maintain.
Imagine more affordable computers with OS X, that are even faster than what you have now.
I often get asked to do price/performance comparisons on the Mac vs PC. It's hard to do since the price of the Windows PCs vary widely depending on the motherboard used and from whom you buy. I did go to @XiComputer for a quote on the AMD Opteron 252 (Dual 2.6GHz) with 4GB of memory, DVD burner, 10K Raptor boot drive, and 160GB data drive, a configuration that matched the Dual G5/2.5GHz Power Mac we tested. I also ran their numbers for the Intel Dual Xeon 3.4GHz system (same config):
The Dual Opteron 252 quote came in at $5593 (before tax and shipping).
The Dual Xeon 3.4GHz came in at $4197.
The Apple Online Store quote for the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac was $4870 + $179 for the 10K Raptor (ZipZoomFly) for a total of $5079. (Apple typically overcharges for memory. Buying the four 1GB PC3200 modules from sources at "sane" prices drops the overall price of the Mac to $4351.)
This was from the last cross platform shootout they had. Now with that said I would like to think that these manufactures are not shipping in the volumes that Apple would be so the price break would be better for Apple and I would think that there would be a special Apple discount as well so it looks like Apple could drop prices maybe by as much as 20% but maybe more like 10 or 15%.
"Microsoft's decision to build its own computer hardware, with help from I.B.M., was a direct assault on a market that Intel was counting on for future growth. It is likely that Intel forged the alliance with Apple in an effort to counter the powerful home entertainment and game systems coming from Microsoft and Sony."
My comment: Perhaps, Apple gets a good deal from Intel as a result of the Microsoft move to IBM for the XBox
"While the new partnership is a clear and long-coveted win for Intel, the world's largest chip maker, it portends a potentially troublesome shift for Apple, the iconoclastic maker of sleek personal computers and consumer electronics gadgets."
"Mr. Jobs, who left Apple in 1985 to found Next Inc., went through a similar transition when he moved his NextStep operating system from Motorola chips to Intel's x86 processors. When Mr. Jobs sold Next to Apple in 1997 and then returned to the company to lead its resurgence, he moved the operating system to the PowerPC. But it has been widely reported that the company has kept alive a small development project called Marklar that has developed an Intel-compatible version of the Macintosh operating system."
My comment: This is the first I've ever heard of this, I've never heard of Marklar ... this sounds interesting and may be the clue to how this (speculated) partnership between Apple and Intel may work
I often get asked to do price/performance comparisons on the Mac vs PC. It's hard to do since the price of the Windows PCs vary widely depending on the motherboard used and from whom you buy. I did go to @XiComputer for a quote on the AMD Opteron 252 (Dual 2.6GHz) with 4GB of memory, DVD burner, 10K Raptor boot drive, and 160GB data drive, a configuration that matched the Dual G5/2.5GHz Power Mac we tested. I also ran their numbers for the Intel Dual Xeon 3.4GHz system (same config):
The Dual Opteron 252 quote came in at $5593 (before tax and shipping).
The Dual Xeon 3.4GHz came in at $4197.
The Apple Online Store quote for the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac was $4870 + $179 for the 10K Raptor (ZipZoomFly) for a total of $5079. (Apple typically overcharges for memory. Buying the four 1GB PC3200 modules from sources at "sane" prices drops the overall price of the Mac to $4351.)
This was from the last cross platform shootout they had. Now with that said I would like to think that these manufactures are not shipping in the volumes that Apple would be so the price break would be better for Apple and I would think that there would be a special Apple discount as well so it looks like Apple could drop prices maybe by as much as 20% but maybe more like 10 or 15%.
You were replying to a guy that just off hand has said that a cheap Windows Machine is faster than a MACchine.
When ever I have responded through the years to one of these challenges stated exactly the same way in person, MACs always win by a large margin.
When I have done this even cheap old MACchines beat new winWows.
I am often surprised at how slow the Mac feels, and yet how badly it beats winWows in a side by side comparison.
The reason winWows lovers respond the way they do is because winWows refreshes the window first as soon as possible, but the menus and tools are not usable until later.
Even if you show them that the Mac is MUCH FASTER they will still say they prefer winWows.
ITs A THING IN THE HUMAN PSYCHY. WE WANT SO BADLY FOR THINGS TO BE SIMPLE AND LOGICAL. Especially programmers are built this way, most of them will NEVER get past thinking Microsoft is good at software development, Chevy builds stylish cars, and Bank of America is the safest bank.
Whatever is the biggest they MUST believe in no matter how much proof you give to the contrary they will NEVER believe in your more complex world, but it does make them good at coding simple stuff !!!
The bottom line is winWows feeeeels fast but it is actually very slow, which means it is making YOU SLOW !
Well, we've pretty much talked out every possibility. Let's see what happens tomorrow.
My final thought for the weekend is, given the amazing amount of ink this story has generated in the mainstream press (MSNMB, WSJ, NYT), nobody from IBM or Apple has stepped forward to say the rumors aren't true.
That's curious. You'd think if IBM and Apple were staying married, one party or the other would speak up rather than see their relationship sullied in the press.
You were replying to a guy that just off hand has said that a cheap Windows Machine is faster than a MACchine.
When ever I have responded through the years to one of these challenges stated exactly the same way in person, MACs always win by a large margin.
When I have done this even cheap old MACchines beat new winWows.
I am often surprised at how slow the Mac feels, and yet how badly it beats winWows in a side by side comparison.
The reason winWows lovers respond the way they do is because winWows refreshes the window first as soon as possible, but the menus and tools are not usable until later.
Even if you show them that the Mac is MUCH FASTER they will still say they prefer winWows.
Huh... I thought that it showed that these machines that perform about the same cost about the same. You can see a high end, not the Mac and a low end, not the Mac. My point was that Apple could have some costs reduced as in Intel could design the MBs or at least work with Apple and maybe even manufacture them for Apple. I know that some windows machines can be slow but maybe that has some to do with the software as well. It will be up to Apple to insure that OSX runs well on Intel hardware. If you look at the results of the tests you will see that all of these machines are running neck and neck, so switching hardware should not hamper Apple that much. Maube it is time to do a few things, such as, put OSX on Intel hardware and see what runs faster then, and get with a supplier that has been courting Apple for the last 20 years, and put most supply and pricing issues behind them. I think that we would all be happy with Intel inside if Apple does that. Big if still. And don't forget what Andy Grove promised to Steve 'supposedly Apple would not be able to beat the pricing / savings, and the supply.
PS I was also trying to say that a $1500 Wintel was not in the running. Prices would not that much maybe more like 10 to15% if Apple chooses to pass along the savings. Intel would have special pricing for Apple either way. I know that if this happens that Intel would be a very happy company. I know that they would love to work with Apple that has 'the' reputation for making cutting edge technology accessable to a huge audience, windows no, OSX yes. This helps Intel more than most can imagine. Intel is building all things wireless into their MBs, Intel would most likely want to work on the next versions of USB/Firewire, Apple would love to have seamless wireless networking built into their portables, Apple would love to offer Dual Core CPUs in their laptops. Intel would love to innovate and not be tied to the MS legacy as mch as possible.
I've owned one of most of the generations of the mac since 1985. I love Apple and will go with it anywhere. I will follow Steve to the dark side, if that's where he wants to take Apple.
Huh... I thought that it showed that these machines that perform about the same cost about the same. You can see a high end, not the Mac and a low end, not the Mac. My point was that Apple could have some costs reduced as in Intel could design the MBs or at least work with Apple and maybe even manufacture them for Apple. I know that some windows machines can be slow but maybe that has some to do with the software as well. It will be up to Apple to insure that OSX runs well on Intel hardware. If you look at the results of the tests you will see that all of these machines are running neck and neck, so switching hardware should not hamper Apple that much. Maube it is time to do a few things, such as, put OSX on Intel hardware and see what runs faster then, and get with a supplier that has been courting Apple for the last 20 years, and put most supply and pricing issues behind them. I think that we would all be happy with Intel inside if Apple does that. Big if still. And don't forget what Andy Grove promised to Steve 'supposedly Apple would not be able to beat the pricing / savings, and the supply.
YES, you showed that, but I was pointing out that people that make obviously incorrect statements like that usually don't change their minds, proof or evidence has no effect on them.
These types always publicly bow to the GODs of bullies and say "See we won." Even when they have lost, money and BIGNESS is the only thing that matters to them.
YES, you showed that, but I was pointing out that people that make obviously incorrect statements like that usually don't change their minds, proof or evidence has no effect on them.
These types always publicly bow to the GODs of bullies and say "See we won." Even when they have lost, money and BIGNESS is the only thing that matters to them.
Well from what I have heard from the NeXTies get ready to crow if Apple does move to Intel. Apparently OSX should FLY on these machines.
PS not an Intel lover, just repeating what I have heard and this is from about three years back long before this brew-ha-ha.
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by MACchine
You were replying to a guy that just off hand has said that a cheap Windows Machine is faster than a MACchine.
When ever I have responded through the years to one of these challenges stated exactly the same way in person, MACs always win by a large margin.
When I have done this even cheap old MACchines beat new winWows.
I am often surprised at how slow the Mac feels, and yet how badly it beats winWows in a side by side comparison.
The reason winWows lovers respond the way they do is because winWows refreshes the window first as soon as possible, but the menus and tools are not usable until later.
Even if you show them that the Mac is MUCH FASTER they will still say they prefer winWows.
ITs A THING IN THE HUMAN PSYCHY. WE WANT SO BADLY FOR THINGS TO BE SIMPLE AND LOGICAL. Especially programmers are built this way, most of them will NEVER get past thinking Microsoft is good at software development, Chevy builds stylish cars, and Bank of America is the safest bank.
Whatever is the biggest they MUST believe in no matter how much proof you give to the contrary they will NEVER believe in your more complex world, but it does make them good at coding simple stuff !!!
The bottom line is winWows feeeeels fast but it is actually very slow, which means it is making YOU SLOW !
Reread TFA at Scobleizer. He doesn't say that there at all, and I cannot recall him saything that in the past.
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 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.
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.
Comments
Originally posted by webmail
Why? You don't want a computer that's always at least as fast hardware wise as your windows "friends"? You'd rather it get slower? Apple has always had problems since the beginning of time. They always come out with something super fast and amazing only to not be able to update it for 2 years... The history with motorola, ibm has been bad. At the very least with Intel you'll get a faster computer now.
I love my dual 2.5ghz g5, fully loaded, that cost me $3,900.... However my $1500 windows machine at work is much faster, and cheepier to maintain.
Imagine more affordable computers with OS X, that are even faster than what you have now.
From www.barefeats.com
I often get asked to do price/performance comparisons on the Mac vs PC. It's hard to do since the price of the Windows PCs vary widely depending on the motherboard used and from whom you buy. I did go to @XiComputer for a quote on the AMD Opteron 252 (Dual 2.6GHz) with 4GB of memory, DVD burner, 10K Raptor boot drive, and 160GB data drive, a configuration that matched the Dual G5/2.5GHz Power Mac we tested. I also ran their numbers for the Intel Dual Xeon 3.4GHz system (same config):
The Dual Opteron 252 quote came in at $5593 (before tax and shipping).
The Dual Xeon 3.4GHz came in at $4197.
The Apple Online Store quote for the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac was $4870 + $179 for the 10K Raptor (ZipZoomFly) for a total of $5079. (Apple typically overcharges for memory. Buying the four 1GB PC3200 modules from sources at "sane" prices drops the overall price of the Mac to $4351.)
This was from the last cross platform shootout they had. Now with that said I would like to think that these manufactures are not shipping in the volumes that Apple would be so the price break would be better for Apple and I would think that there would be a special Apple discount as well so it looks like Apple could drop prices maybe by as much as 20% but maybe more like 10 or 15%.
Quote #1
---------
"Microsoft's decision to build its own computer hardware, with help from I.B.M., was a direct assault on a market that Intel was counting on for future growth. It is likely that Intel forged the alliance with Apple in an effort to counter the powerful home entertainment and game systems coming from Microsoft and Sony."
My comment: Perhaps, Apple gets a good deal from Intel as a result of the Microsoft move to IBM for the XBox
Quote #2
--------
"While the new partnership is a clear and long-coveted win for Intel, the world's largest chip maker, it portends a potentially troublesome shift for Apple, the iconoclastic maker of sleek personal computers and consumer electronics gadgets."
My Comment: Tme & technical issues will tell
Quote #3
---------
"Mr. Jobs, who left Apple in 1985 to found Next Inc., went through a similar transition when he moved his NextStep operating system from Motorola chips to Intel's x86 processors. When Mr. Jobs sold Next to Apple in 1997 and then returned to the company to lead its resurgence, he moved the operating system to the PowerPC. But it has been widely reported that the company has kept alive a small development project called Marklar that has developed an Intel-compatible version of the Macintosh operating system."
My comment: This is the first I've ever heard of this, I've never heard of Marklar ... this sounds interesting and may be the clue to how this (speculated) partnership between Apple and Intel may work
The article is located at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/te...y/06apple.html
Originally posted by Brendon
From www.barefeats.com
I often get asked to do price/performance comparisons on the Mac vs PC. It's hard to do since the price of the Windows PCs vary widely depending on the motherboard used and from whom you buy. I did go to @XiComputer for a quote on the AMD Opteron 252 (Dual 2.6GHz) with 4GB of memory, DVD burner, 10K Raptor boot drive, and 160GB data drive, a configuration that matched the Dual G5/2.5GHz Power Mac we tested. I also ran their numbers for the Intel Dual Xeon 3.4GHz system (same config):
The Dual Opteron 252 quote came in at $5593 (before tax and shipping).
The Dual Xeon 3.4GHz came in at $4197.
The Apple Online Store quote for the G5/2.5GHz Power Mac was $4870 + $179 for the 10K Raptor (ZipZoomFly) for a total of $5079. (Apple typically overcharges for memory. Buying the four 1GB PC3200 modules from sources at "sane" prices drops the overall price of the Mac to $4351.)
This was from the last cross platform shootout they had. Now with that said I would like to think that these manufactures are not shipping in the volumes that Apple would be so the price break would be better for Apple and I would think that there would be a special Apple discount as well so it looks like Apple could drop prices maybe by as much as 20% but maybe more like 10 or 15%.
You were replying to a guy that just off hand has said that a cheap Windows Machine is faster than a MACchine.
When ever I have responded through the years to one of these challenges stated exactly the same way in person, MACs always win by a large margin.
When I have done this even cheap old MACchines beat new winWows.
I am often surprised at how slow the Mac feels, and yet how badly it beats winWows in a side by side comparison.
The reason winWows lovers respond the way they do is because winWows refreshes the window first as soon as possible, but the menus and tools are not usable until later.
Even if you show them that the Mac is MUCH FASTER they will still say they prefer winWows.
ITs A THING IN THE HUMAN PSYCHY. WE WANT SO BADLY FOR THINGS TO BE SIMPLE AND LOGICAL. Especially programmers are built this way, most of them will NEVER get past thinking Microsoft is good at software development, Chevy builds stylish cars, and Bank of America is the safest bank.
Whatever is the biggest they MUST believe in no matter how much proof you give to the contrary they will NEVER believe in your more complex world, but it does make them good at coding simple stuff !!!
The bottom line is winWows feeeeels fast but it is actually very slow, which means it is making YOU SLOW !
What changes would you make to Intel processors to Macintize them ??????????????????????
My final thought for the weekend is, given the amazing amount of ink this story has generated in the mainstream press (MSNMB, WSJ, NYT), nobody from IBM or Apple has stepped forward to say the rumors aren't true.
That's curious. You'd think if IBM and Apple were staying married, one party or the other would speak up rather than see their relationship sullied in the press.
Originally posted by MACchine
You were replying to a guy that just off hand has said that a cheap Windows Machine is faster than a MACchine.
When ever I have responded through the years to one of these challenges stated exactly the same way in person, MACs always win by a large margin.
When I have done this even cheap old MACchines beat new winWows.
I am often surprised at how slow the Mac feels, and yet how badly it beats winWows in a side by side comparison.
The reason winWows lovers respond the way they do is because winWows refreshes the window first as soon as possible, but the menus and tools are not usable until later.
Even if you show them that the Mac is MUCH FASTER they will still say they prefer winWows.
Huh... I thought that it showed that these machines that perform about the same cost about the same. You can see a high end, not the Mac and a low end, not the Mac. My point was that Apple could have some costs reduced as in Intel could design the MBs or at least work with Apple and maybe even manufacture them for Apple. I know that some windows machines can be slow but maybe that has some to do with the software as well. It will be up to Apple to insure that OSX runs well on Intel hardware. If you look at the results of the tests you will see that all of these machines are running neck and neck, so switching hardware should not hamper Apple that much. Maube it is time to do a few things, such as, put OSX on Intel hardware and see what runs faster then, and get with a supplier that has been courting Apple for the last 20 years, and put most supply and pricing issues behind them. I think that we would all be happy with Intel inside if Apple does that. Big if still. And don't forget what Andy Grove promised to Steve 'supposedly Apple would not be able to beat the pricing / savings, and the supply.
PS I was also trying to say that a $1500 Wintel was not in the running. Prices would not that much maybe more like 10 to15% if Apple chooses to pass along the savings. Intel would have special pricing for Apple either way. I know that if this happens that Intel would be a very happy company. I know that they would love to work with Apple that has 'the' reputation for making cutting edge technology accessable to a huge audience, windows no, OSX yes. This helps Intel more than most can imagine. Intel is building all things wireless into their MBs, Intel would most likely want to work on the next versions of USB/Firewire, Apple would love to have seamless wireless networking built into their portables, Apple would love to offer Dual Core CPUs in their laptops. Intel would love to innovate and not be tied to the MS legacy as mch as possible.
I can't wait to see the plan.
Originally posted by Brendon
Huh... I thought that it showed that these machines that perform about the same cost about the same. You can see a high end, not the Mac and a low end, not the Mac. My point was that Apple could have some costs reduced as in Intel could design the MBs or at least work with Apple and maybe even manufacture them for Apple. I know that some windows machines can be slow but maybe that has some to do with the software as well. It will be up to Apple to insure that OSX runs well on Intel hardware. If you look at the results of the tests you will see that all of these machines are running neck and neck, so switching hardware should not hamper Apple that much. Maube it is time to do a few things, such as, put OSX on Intel hardware and see what runs faster then, and get with a supplier that has been courting Apple for the last 20 years, and put most supply and pricing issues behind them. I think that we would all be happy with Intel inside if Apple does that. Big if still. And don't forget what Andy Grove promised to Steve 'supposedly Apple would not be able to beat the pricing / savings, and the supply.
YES, you showed that, but I was pointing out that people that make obviously incorrect statements like that usually don't change their minds, proof or evidence has no effect on them.
These types always publicly bow to the GODs of bullies and say "See we won." Even when they have lost, money and BIGNESS is the only thing that matters to them.
Originally posted by MACchine
YES, you showed that, but I was pointing out that people that make obviously incorrect statements like that usually don't change their minds, proof or evidence has no effect on them.
These types always publicly bow to the GODs of bullies and say "See we won." Even when they have lost, money and BIGNESS is the only thing that matters to them.
Well from what I have heard from the NeXTies get ready to crow if Apple does move to Intel. Apparently OSX should FLY on these machines.
PS not an Intel lover, just repeating what I have heard and this is from about three years back long before this brew-ha-ha.
Too much stuff to comment on.
Originally posted by hankx32
Will we be able to see video of Steve's keynote at the WWDC tomorrow? Will it be posted on Apple.com?
Normally, when that happens Apple makes it known well in advance. They didn't broadcast his last keynote at Macworld.
They haven't said a thing about it. It would be on their site, but it's not.
Perhaps they won't be doing it anymore. I can't imagine why.
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.
Originally posted by MACchine
You were replying to a guy that just off hand has said that a cheap Windows Machine is faster than a MACchine.
When ever I have responded through the years to one of these challenges stated exactly the same way in person, MACs always win by a large margin.
When I have done this even cheap old MACchines beat new winWows.
I am often surprised at how slow the Mac feels, and yet how badly it beats winWows in a side by side comparison.
The reason winWows lovers respond the way they do is because winWows refreshes the window first as soon as possible, but the menus and tools are not usable until later.
Even if you show them that the Mac is MUCH FASTER they will still say they prefer winWows.
ITs A THING IN THE HUMAN PSYCHY. WE WANT SO BADLY FOR THINGS TO BE SIMPLE AND LOGICAL. Especially programmers are built this way, most of them will NEVER get past thinking Microsoft is good at software development, Chevy builds stylish cars, and Bank of America is the safest bank.
Whatever is the biggest they MUST believe in no matter how much proof you give to the contrary they will NEVER believe in your more complex world, but it does make them good at coding simple stuff !!!
The bottom line is winWows feeeeels fast but it is actually very slow, which means it is making YOU SLOW !
Originally posted by Sam Damon
Reread TFA at Scobleizer. He doesn't say that there at all, and I cannot recall him saything that in the past.
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.
Originally posted by MACchine
I have a question for YOU unruly MACInteliminaters ???
What changes would you make to Intel processors to Macintize them ??????????????????????
1. CISC -> RISC
2. AltiVec
3. a special chip so Mac OS X won't run on any old x86 machine (assuming they go to x86 which I doubt)
Originally posted by Brendon
Well from what I have heard from the NeXTies get ready to crow if Apple does move to Intel. Apparently OSX should FLY on these machines.
PS not an Intel lover, just repeating what I have heard and this is from about three years back long before this brew-ha-ha.
Sure. You claim you talked to some "NeXTies" back when we were mired in G4 land, and you think those comments still apply to today? Great anal-ysis.
This is going to be a wild ride for apple this year.
-Nitriletiger
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.