What's all the fuss about?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    Stupid , Apple learned not a thing from windows taking over the world. Apples value is its OS not its great styled but slooow PPC's. Apple should be selling the hell out of its OS to home builts and anyone else who wants it. Dummies.



    Do you really think Apple could handle supporting every configuration of every computer in existence because that's what you're asking. It would be a nightmare of epic proportions. There is no way they could handle it. They made the right decision. OS X on Intel with Apple manufacturered hardware is the only way to go.
  • Reply 22 of 53
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    http://stream.apple.akadns.net/



    If someone finds a way to actually download the keynote (as opposed to streaming) it please let us know. I know there used to be a way to do this but they have made it difficult if not impossible to do lately.
  • Reply 23 of 53
    chungleechunglee Posts: 32member
    "Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.



    ?We will not sell or support Windows, but we are not doing anything in the hardware that would preclude someone from using it,? said Moody."





    i have been longing for the above. this is the best of both worlds. this alone is worth it for me to purchase macintel.



    anyone who's been afraid to switch to mac because of a few programs that has to be run on windows can now enjoy a mac and then boot into windows for the occasional app that's not available for the mac.



    does it realy matter if it's power pc or intel. obviously jobs saw various roadmaps from all the chip suppliers and intel had the best. we do not have a g5 powerbook because of ibm not apple. what's the point in sticking with ibm when they can't provide us mac users with the appropriate chips.



    jobs learned from the motorola g4 issues and he wasn't going to go through that again. if in the future intel can't provide the necessary chips then i hope apple management has a plan then as well. apple has provided compelling hardware since his return and has learned from his mistakes and makes bold moves. this is what you want from a ceo.



    he got rid of clones, learned from the cube and released a mac mini, etc... now every chip vendor is on alert. if you can't provide us with what you promised and what we want, we will move on.



    i can't wait to get a macintel so i can dual boot.



    bring it on!!!!



    chung lee
  • Reply 24 of 53
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chunglee

    "Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.



    ?We will not sell or support Windows, but we are not doing anything in the hardware that would preclude someone from using it,? said Moody."





    i have been longing for the above. this is the best of both worlds. this alone is worth it for me to purchase macintel.



    anyone who's been afraid to switch to mac because of a few programs that has to be run on windows can now enjoy a mac and then boot into windows for the occasional app that's not available for the mac.



    does it realy matter if it's power pc or intel. obviously jobs saw various roadmaps from all the chip suppliers and intel had the best. we do not have a g5 powerbook because of ibm not apple. what's the point in sticking with ibm when they can't provide us mac users with the appropriate chips.



    jobs learned from the motorola g4 issues and he wasn't going to go through that again. if in the future intel can't provide the necessary chips then i hope apple management has a plan then as well. apple has provided compelling hardware since his return and has learned from his mistakes and makes bold moves. this is what you want from a ceo.



    he got rid of clones, learned from the cube and released a mac mini, etc... now every chip vendor is on alert. if you can't provide us with what you promised and what we want, we will move on.



    i can't wait to get a macintel so i can dual boot.



    bring it on!!!!



    chung lee




    exactly - this is a good time to be a Mac user - I just hope the performance beats the G5.
  • Reply 25 of 53
    tuttletuttle Posts: 301member
    The fuss?



    Despite the positive spin Steve tried to put on this disaster, at best Apple will be lucky to retain some percentage of their current installed base a few years from today.



    Today Apple sells proprietary systems based on PPC chips.

    In a year or so Apple will be selling proprietary systems based on x86 chips. Yawn.



    Between now and then it is hard to imagine that Apple's computer sales won't plummet. Apple is cashing in on the enormous success and cash the iPod has generated to detour Apple on a route that will lead them right back to where they are today.



    No one can possibly believe that anyone who didn't go out and buy a PowerMac in the past or present is going to magically do so a year from now just because the CPU has changed. Current desktop Intel chips are slower and cost about the same as Apple's current PPC chips. The only upside is Apple will have a faster portable chip.



    Steve has to be praying no one comes out with a decent portable music player anytime soon. If someone does and it becomes the new hip must have consumer device, I don't think Apple will last more than a couple of years. If something doesn't, Apple will be at best right back to selling proprietary systems that cost somewhere between a little more and a lot more compared to what consumers can get from the current x86 OEMs.
  • Reply 26 of 53
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tuttle

    No one can possibly believe that anyone who didn't go out and buy a PowerMac in the past or present is going to magically do so a year from now just because the CPU has changed. Current desktop Intel chips are slower and cost about the same as Apple's current PPC chips. The only upside is Apple will have a faster portable chip.



    Steve has to be praying no one comes out with a decent portable music player anytime soon. If someone does and it becomes the new hip must have consumer device, I don't think Apple will last more than a couple of years. If something doesn't, Apple will be at best right back to selling proprietary systems that cost somewhere between a little more and a lot more compared to what consumers can get from the current x86 OEMs.




    Apple must have a reason - obviously they can't be on two processors for too long. Half of Apple's sales are laptops so that's a good reason to switch.
  • Reply 27 of 53
    chungleechunglee Posts: 32member
    "The fuss?



    Despite the positive spin Steve tried to put on this disaster, at best Apple will be lucky to retain some percentage of their current installed base a few years from today.



    Today Apple sells proprietary systems based on PPC chips.

    In a year or so Apple will be selling proprietary systems based on x86 chips. Yawn.



    Between now and then it is hard to imagine that Apple's computer sales won't plummet. Apple is cashing in on the enormous success and cash the iPod has generated to detour Apple on a route that will lead them right back to where they are today.



    No one can possibly believe that anyone who didn't go out and buy a PowerMac in the past or present is going to magically do so a year from now just because the CPU has changed. Current desktop Intel chips are slower and cost about the same as Apple's current PPC chips. The only upside is Apple will have a faster portable chip.



    Steve has to be praying no one comes out with a decent portable music player anytime soon. If someone does and it becomes the new hip must have consumer device, I don't think Apple will last more than a couple of years. If something doesn't, Apple will be at best right back to selling proprietary systems that cost somewhere between a little more and a lot more compared to what consumers can get from the current x86 OEMs."







    what is the alternative? stick with ibm and receive no mobile chip and only incremental increase in desktop chips?



    you have no idea what the intel roadmap is and what intel has promised or is capable of. what we do know is that ibm either can't/won't/doesn't care about apple. apple only accounts for 2% of all the chips produced at the fishkill plant in ny. percentage released by ibm last week. the article i read basically has an ibm executive telling apple don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.



    intel has gone on record saying they have been trying to court apple for 20 years etc... don't you want a motivated chip vendor?



    unless you are an insider how in the hell do you know what chip prices are/performance of chip etc...your post is !00% fud. apple has gone on record stating windows will not be able to run on the macintel but windows will be able to. that in of itself is a huge plus. if you are a computer consumer you can run two operating systems from the same machine. this was the only way for apple get huge marketshare for osx. the ipod halo affect is great but limited to only ipod buyers. now you can expose osx to the entire computing market.



    chung



    |
  • Reply 28 of 53
    smalmsmalm Posts: 677member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    Half of Apple's sales are laptops so that's a good reason to switch.



    The laptops are surely the main reason for Apple to switch to Intel.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chunglee

    intel has gone on record saying they have been trying to court apple for 20 years etc... don't you want a motivated chip vendor? |



    Who will motivate Intel more. Dell, their largest customer, or Apple, who sells about 3% of what Dell does? Apple is not in a position of strength with regards to Intel.



    Quote:

    unless you are an insider how in the hell do you know what chip prices are/performance of chip etc...your post is !00% fud. apple has gone on record stating windows will not be able to run on the macintel but windows will be able to. that in of itself is a huge plus. if you are a computer consumer you can run two operating systems from the same machine. this was the only way for apple get huge marketshare for osx. the ipod halo affect is great but limited to only ipod buyers. now you can expose osx to the entire computing market.



    chung



    | [/B]



    And until Apple ships something, your take is 100% spin. Look, I hope you are right, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be asking hard questions right now.



    I also don't think dual boot, with the need of buying two operating systems, is going to be that appealing to consumers who aren't computerphiles.
  • Reply 30 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tuttle

    TCurrent desktop Intel chips are slower and cost about the same as Apple's current PPC chips. The only upside is Apple will have a faster portable chip.



    It might be true that PPC chips are faster than intel chips right now. but the future does look catastrophic. No portable chip on the horizon, almost no advance in the G5 since its introduction.



    Where are the two architectures in two or three years? Intel is capable of producing faster and better processors, they gained a lot of momentum in the recent months. What can we expect of IBM?



    It might be a bold move, but staying with PPC might just be worse.



    But anyway, a remarkable day today, and an occasion to get out that whiskey bottle and drink the "Power"Mac good bye -- at least, now I know where the "i" in iMac comes from...
  • Reply 31 of 53
    thereubsterthereubster Posts: 402member
    what is the alternative? stick with ibm and receive no mobile chip and only incremental increase in desktop chips?



    you have no idea what the intel roadmap is and what intel has promised or is capable of.

    chung



    | [/B][/QUOTE]

    Exactly, is it not clear that this is the exact reason Apple has switched? Intel offers them a future path, IBM clearly has not. Only a truely stupid company would not be looking several years ahead and planning for the future. Obviously Intel offered them the future they want. Also its pretty clear that things with IBM have soured considerably lately. And again it is necessary to point out that OSX WILL NOT RUN on anything except Apple Hardware, now or in the future, unless Apple chooses to allow it. So they still will not be in direct competition with Dell, etc, who will still have to flog Windows to an increasingly unimpressed public.
  • Reply 32 of 53
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    Stupid? "sloow PPC's?" On Apple's own web site, they show a G5 outperforming a pentium. Also, the last time I check the supercomputer top 500 site, the VA tech system running SLOWER intel processors (and more) was below the Apple system.



    So who is the stupid one now? Both Apple and the top 500 supercomputer results agree with me.



    Longhorn will be the final blow.




    For consumers its about Gaming and Macs get Hammered. Apple benches have as much to do with Truth as Steve's B.S. on IBM the past few years. Its about the consumer folks and no one else. There isnt a G5 that can take on a P4 or AMD Athlon on 1 - 1 hence Apple using 2 cpu's for years. Remember all those powermacs in V.Tech have 2 Cpu's in them not one. They have twice the Qty of coarse they are faster in spinning atoms but its about the CONSUMERS not a few colleges trying to make the front page.
  • Reply 33 of 53
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Quote:

    I also don't think dual boot, with the need of buying two operating systems, is going to be that appealing to consumers who aren't computerphiles.





    That's non-supported Dual Boot as well. What company is going to buy a Powerbookintel and try to run Windows unsupported? Not many. Nice to see that PT Barnum was right though.



    Quote:

    It might be true that PPC chips are faster than intel chips right now. but the future does look catastrophic. No portable chip on the horizon, almost no advance in the G5 since its introduction.



    IBM doesn't divulge info on their chips. There's no way that you could prove that IBM wasn't working on a low power chip. Hell the Xbox chip is likely to be low enough power. It'll be interesting to get the truth about what was in it for Apple for selling their soul.







  • Reply 34 of 53
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by D.J. Adequate

    Who will motivate Intel more. Dell, their largest customer, or Apple, who sells about 3% of what Dell does? Apple is not in a position of strength with regards to Intel.







    And until Apple ships something, your take is 100% spin. Look, I hope you are right, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be asking hard questions right now.



    I also don't think dual boot, with the need of buying two operating systems, is going to be that appealing to consumers who aren't computerphiles.




    I want OS X only on my Mac - I want a fast computer and I was fed up of waiting for the G5. Apple customers have been pissed with the slow improvements in CPU and this switch to Intel represents that struggle.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Thereubster

    So they still will not be in direct competition with Dell, etc, who will still have to flog Windows to an increasingly unimpressed public.



    I hate Dell and Windows, too. But Dell doesn't seem to be hurting right now, so I'm not sure the public agrees with us.
  • Reply 36 of 53
    chungleechunglee Posts: 32member
    no one has announced what chip is going to be used from intel. what might be good for dell might be good for apple. so no one knows except things that have been stated from the companies. one of which is that windows will be able to run on new macintels and that osx will not be able to run on pc's.



    for anyone who has ever considered switching to mac from all the buzz, less security issues can now do so with even less barriers then before. i can only surmise that is a better situation for osx then people it is now.



    i stated an opinion that you considered spin but that's different then fud.



    for the record, i only know what i have read in the papers. apple might not have leverage with any chip manufacturer but as a consumer it makes me feel better that my computer company of choice has chosen a chip vendor who has gone on record fawning over prefered comany opposed to sticking with a vendor who has not lived up to the promises it has obviously made.



    chung
  • Reply 37 of 53
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    This is so funny; everybody's knickers in a twist. This is business. Get over it.



    Its not about the relative performance of G5 v P4 now, its about performance two years time. Its also about having to compete on speed and facilities in portables. Its also about super-cheap chips for PVR's etc. Its also about MARKET SHARE. You know, that thing that everybody says they want. Commoditisation of one more component in the machine will allow Apple to compete an price more easly. Apple will still differentiate on software, design, user experience etc. It just removes another reason for Joe Fuckwit not to buy a Mac. Being able to run Windows on the machines is a stroke of fukin genius.



    Having a giant like Intel kissing Steve's butt is a glorious thing.
  • Reply 38 of 53
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,401member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    For consumers its about Gaming and Macs get Hammered. Apple benches have as much to do with Truth as Steve's B.S. on IBM the past few years. Its about the consumer folks and no one else. There isnt a G5 that can take on a P4 or AMD Athlon on 1 - 1 hence Apple using 2 cpu's for years. Remember all those powermacs in V.Tech have 2 Cpu's in them not one. They have twice the Qty of coarse they are faster in spinning atoms but its about the CONSUMERS not a few colleges trying to make the front page.



    Click here,

    go down to where VA tech and Apple is listed (I think around 7th place) and count the processors. Then, go down lower and count how many faster Intel's there are with more processors and then come back and answer me.
  • Reply 39 of 53
    is the quicktime video not working for anyone else?
  • Reply 40 of 53
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chunglee

    no one has announced what chip is going to be used from intel. what might be good for dell might be good for apple. so no one knows except things that have been stated from the companies. one of which is that windows will be able to run on new macintels and that osx will not be able to run on pc's.



    I only heard Schiller say it might be possible, but wouldn't be supported.



    And what you are saying about Intel is what we were saying about IBM a year ago.



    I hope you are right. I'm not trying to spread FUD, I just haven't heard enough from Apple and want them to address these issues.
Sign In or Register to comment.