I think this was a great move. A couple of things nobody ever thinks about:
(1)
On the Windows side you have
? Microsoft advertising Windows
? Intel advertising Pentiums
? Every single computer manufacturer advertising their own computers
But on the Mac side
? Apple has to advertise the OS
? Apple has to advertise the computers
? Apple has to advertise the processors
Now, Apple gets the benefit of Intel advertising, and the Intel advertising machine is HUGE.
(2)
Despite Apple's best efforts, most people still think you can compare MHz across different architectures. Now they don't have to worry about this because they're using the same architecture - and they'll always have computers on par with whatever is running the Windows world.
Also, keep in mind that Intel offered Apple a better deal than they were getting from IBM. This means either cheaper machines or high profits, both of which are good for the company.
Biggest this decade, he said. Nothing compared to what it was in the late 80's and early 90's. Trust me, its much harder to get a job as a Mac developer than it ever has been in the past.
If it were that clear cut, duh. I fear Apple dies anyway.
I seriously doubt it. We know windows booting wont be supported, all we know is it might be possible. I don't think that will sway many enterprise IT departments.
But, Mr. Adequate, how does the highest number of developers at the conference in the last decade equate to the "already shrinking number of Mac developers" that you alluded to in your previous post? Surely the number shrank to a level 10 years ago and has been growing back up to that level ever since?
Man, with fans like this, Apple doesn't need MS out to kill it, you guys will do it before the products even hit the market.
FUD, FUD, FUD. No better than an RDF, just more bitter.
We're just venting. Eventually the Macintel products will be here and if they meet a price vs performance ration that we all like we'll buy. Nothing much has changed. Apple is still a cool company, Steve Jobs' is still a master marketer and the beat goes on.
However I will say that now Apple has no perceived advantage anymore. PC users were successfully marketed on the PowerPC G5 being a fast processor that they should be looking at as well as OS X the wunder OS. Well Apple has effectively killed half that marketing duo. Not much you can do to market your computer against the other 4 billion Pentium 4 based computers.
I remain steadfast. I don't think it is positive overall. We'll see in a couple of years how the chips fall. I'll still be here.
I do betrayed. I've been told that PowerPC was "Pentium Crushing" and now I'm supposed to drop that and welcome Intel with open arms?
PowerPC may have been Pentium Crushing some time ago, but it's not anymore. Pentiums are at dual core whereas PowerPC is stuck at 2.7 at most, single core.
Things change. Intel has changed. The market has changed. Evolution. Life.
Sure if you make Steve Jobs' RDF your own which you obviously have. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony obviously disagree that Intel is the hotspot for microprocessors tight now ..but hell what do they know??
None of those consoles use the G5, though..
As it became clear that IBM would fail to deliver on the G5, they approached Intel which has a much more promising roadmap, and one that suits Apple's plans better. OSX was designed to work on all kinds of CPU's, so why not?
And you would rather Apple stay with these two forever than achieve performance parity with PCs and offer state-of-the-art hardware?
"Achieve performance parity?" How come when I go to the top 500 supercomputer list, the VA Tech system is ahead of other X86 systems that have FASTER and MORE processors?
I guess your idea of performance parity is for mac users to take a step backwards.
Apple-"Come over to Mac OS Leopard and get all these new whizzbang features!!" .
Switcher- "Great and I have a P4 3.8Ghz computer! How much is Leopard I want to install it today"
Apple- "uh sorry...Leopard won't run on your computer but we have a shiny new P4 4.2Ghz for you!"
Switcher- "but...they are the same platform. Why should I buy a new computer to run your OS on the same hardware?"
Apple- "Hey I gotta eat man"
Switcher- "Wow a $400 premium you must be eating filet mignon"
This stinks folks.
Am hoping, and the only way I see this working - is if Apple remains with their GX branding. So, the intel chips will be G6's. Just as IBM's chips are G5's.
As it became clear that IBM would fail to deliver on the G5, they approached Intel which has a much more promising roadmap, and one that suits Apple's plans better. OSX was designed to work on all kinds of CPU's, so why not?
Simple as that really.
Oh please. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to deal with this disaster.
I remain steadfast. I don't think it is positive overall. We'll see in a couple of years how the chips fall. I'll still be here.
Good.
And here I *do* think it's positive overall, because what's the biggest problem with getting switchers? Migration.
Look, right now you can show a Windows user how much better it really is on MacOS X, and they might even agree with you - but there's no way they're going to give up their software library.
MacOS X/Intel, even if it doesn't boot Windows... will still run WINE. Voila. Switchers still get all their old software, and can migrate over as they feel the need to. Don't ever have to boot into Windows.
Now... I can hear the "But then why would anyone develop for Mac then?" starting. Cocoa perhaps? Look at this change coming down the pipe. What is the Cocoa workload? A recompile covers most of it. Will there be tweaking? Oh hell yes. Will it be a 'port'? Nope. I'll bet my last dollar that PPC -> Intel will be a smaller move for Cocoa developers than Carbon -> Cocoa was. (And here you thought there wasn't a good reason to make that move, you silly devs you...)
2007 will have MacOS X vs. Longhorn, and .NET vs. Cocoa.... *on the same hardware*. No more excuses, no more handwaving. Same hardware, head to head. Let the games begin.
PowerPC may have been Pentium Crushing some time ago, but it's not anymore. Pentiums are at dual core whereas PowerPC is stuck at 2.7 at most, single core.
Things change. Intel has changed. The market has changed. Evolution. Life.
Yes and the PPC 2.7Ghz G5 is faster per clock than the Intel chip. Hell Anandtech's June 3rd comparison of OS X vs Linux basically concluded that PPC hardware is up to snuff. It's OSX that isn't performing. No surprise here since Apple hasn't fully commited to their own platform.
I wouldn't be putting the Pentium D up as a dual core poster child Gene. It's the poorest DC solution out. AMD's DC solution allows the chips to communicate together. Intel's DC Pentium D must use the FSB to snoop each others caches and communicate. Thus a Pentium DC is only really saving a socket compared to todays current Powermacs DP systems. There is no other saving.
Smoke and mirros folks. Intel's roadmap isn't written in stone. They cancelled Tejas and the next Xeon successor last year. They recently cancelled their LCos chips after crowing about how they would enable 60" screens for sub $2k prices. Anyone who bets on Intel paperlaunches is going to get bloodied.
However I will say that now Apple has no perceived advantage anymore.
If apple has no perceived advantage, then neither does Bentley - might as well buy a VW...
Look at a G5 tower, and then look at a Dell box. Work with windows, and then work with OSX. You will remember what the perceived advantages of Apple are.
Oh please. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to deal with this disaster.
Why do people get so worked up about this? Would you really want to work on a platform that is slower just so you could know that there is a PowerPC chip inside? The G5 was clearly going nowhere (2.7ghz after two years -- it was supposed to be at over 4ghz by now), and even worse, it proved impossible to get into a portable.
Some people here just need to chill out. PowerPC chips are perhaps "better", but it's of no use when X86 chips will be faster. No one really cares what processor sits inside a Mac anyways, as long as it isn't slow. And slow is exactly what Macs have been.
How many of you actually believe half of what Apple or Intel says? When Apple claimed it's G5 is four times faster than a Pentium 4, did you really believe that?
(If you did, you need a better RDF deflector shield)
If the end result is we get slightly faster but cooler processors at about the same price point today, what's the problem?
Who says we're gonna be stuck with basically the same hardware as Dell? The chip is changing. That's all. It's still going to be a Mac. For many years, Apple has IMHO led the way in function and design and usability of its hardware. There's nothing to suggest they won't continue to just because they're changing chip vendors.
well, he screwed up. i'm just buying a rebranded sony now, with shit-ass specs. forget it. good thing the iBook is new, because i dont think i'm buying another mac.
In two years they definitely are. They barely hold their own against P4's today. Ask anyone with an iBook if its snappy. Or see how smoothly those HD trailers look on brand new 17" PowerBooks.
This is what I see happening in the near future...
1) Apple will start to sell its closed (READ: you must buy our stuff if you want to use OS X) Intel based systems for about 1-2 years.
2) Apple will then open up OS X so that it will run on any Intel based system (with minimum specs of course).
3) After that, Apple will move out of the hardware business... (except the iPod & stuff like that)
I can see some good points to this, and some bad points...
For me, I've always loved Apple designed computers. I think they're great. It will be a sad day when Apple does decide to move out of the hardware development business. On the flip side, I see this as "cheaper hardware for all" that will still run OS X. This is a good thing. The main thing I love about my "Apple Experience" is the "EXPERIENCE"... That is the OS & it's apps!! Apple makes some awesome looking machines, but that doesn't help me with my productivity. The main thing I hate about the "Apple Experience" is the price of the hardware... I've put up with it because it works great & looks nice, but the main reason is I can run OS X!! I'd be much happier if the hardware was a little cheaper. I'm not saying that all Apple stuff is overpriced, just some of it...
I've always thought that RISC architecture was better then x386 architecture, but since IBM & Freescale can't get their butts in gear and make higher clocked chips, I see Apple having no other choice then to jump ship before the ship sinks.
Comments
(1)
On the Windows side you have
? Microsoft advertising Windows
? Intel advertising Pentiums
? Every single computer manufacturer advertising their own computers
But on the Mac side
? Apple has to advertise the OS
? Apple has to advertise the computers
? Apple has to advertise the processors
Now, Apple gets the benefit of Intel advertising, and the Intel advertising machine is HUGE.
(2)
Despite Apple's best efforts, most people still think you can compare MHz across different architectures. Now they don't have to worry about this because they're using the same architecture - and they'll always have computers on par with whatever is running the Windows world.
Also, keep in mind that Intel offered Apple a better deal than they were getting from IBM. This means either cheaper machines or high profits, both of which are good for the company.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
Biggest this decade, he said. Nothing compared to what it was in the late 80's and early 90's. Trust me, its much harder to get a job as a Mac developer than it ever has been in the past.
If it were that clear cut, duh. I fear Apple dies anyway.
I seriously doubt it. We know windows booting wont be supported, all we know is it might be possible. I don't think that will sway many enterprise IT departments.
But, Mr. Adequate, how does the highest number of developers at the conference in the last decade equate to the "already shrinking number of Mac developers" that you alluded to in your previous post? Surely the number shrank to a level 10 years ago and has been growing back up to that level ever since?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Man, with fans like this, Apple doesn't need MS out to kill it, you guys will do it before the products even hit the market.
FUD, FUD, FUD. No better than an RDF, just more bitter.
We're just venting. Eventually the Macintel products will be here and if they meet a price vs performance ration that we all like we'll buy. Nothing much has changed. Apple is still a cool company, Steve Jobs' is still a master marketer and the beat goes on.
However I will say that now Apple has no perceived advantage anymore. PC users were successfully marketed on the PowerPC G5 being a fast processor that they should be looking at as well as OS X the wunder OS. Well Apple has effectively killed half that marketing duo. Not much you can do to market your computer against the other 4 billion Pentium 4 based computers.
I remain steadfast. I don't think it is positive overall. We'll see in a couple of years how the chips fall. I'll still be here.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I do betrayed. I've been told that PowerPC was "Pentium Crushing" and now I'm supposed to drop that and welcome Intel with open arms?
PowerPC may have been Pentium Crushing some time ago, but it's not anymore. Pentiums are at dual core whereas PowerPC is stuck at 2.7 at most, single core.
Things change. Intel has changed. The market has changed. Evolution. Life.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Sure if you make Steve Jobs' RDF your own which you obviously have. Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony obviously disagree that Intel is the hotspot for microprocessors tight now ..but hell what do they know??
None of those consoles use the G5, though..
As it became clear that IBM would fail to deliver on the G5, they approached Intel which has a much more promising roadmap, and one that suits Apple's plans better. OSX was designed to work on all kinds of CPU's, so why not?
Simple as that really.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
And you would rather Apple stay with these two forever than achieve performance parity with PCs and offer state-of-the-art hardware?
"Achieve performance parity?" How come when I go to the top 500 supercomputer list, the VA Tech system is ahead of other X86 systems that have FASTER and MORE processors?
I guess your idea of performance parity is for mac users to take a step backwards.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I can see Apple trying to woo a switcher in 2007.
Apple-"Come over to Mac OS Leopard and get all these new whizzbang features!!" .
Switcher- "Great and I have a P4 3.8Ghz computer! How much is Leopard I want to install it today"
Apple- "uh sorry...Leopard won't run on your computer but we have a shiny new P4 4.2Ghz for you!"
Switcher- "but...they are the same platform. Why should I buy a new computer to run your OS on the same hardware?"
Apple- "Hey I gotta eat man"
Switcher- "Wow a $400 premium you must be eating filet mignon"
This stinks folks.
Am hoping, and the only way I see this working - is if Apple remains with their GX branding. So, the intel chips will be G6's. Just as IBM's chips are G5's.
Otherwise yeah, read above. It will stink.
Anyone think this is a possibility?
Originally posted by Sopphode
None of those consoles use the G5, though..
As it became clear that IBM would fail to deliver on the G5, they approached Intel which has a much more promising roadmap, and one that suits Apple's plans better. OSX was designed to work on all kinds of CPU's, so why not?
Simple as that really.
Oh please. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to deal with this disaster.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I remain steadfast. I don't think it is positive overall. We'll see in a couple of years how the chips fall. I'll still be here.
Good.
And here I *do* think it's positive overall, because what's the biggest problem with getting switchers? Migration.
Look, right now you can show a Windows user how much better it really is on MacOS X, and they might even agree with you - but there's no way they're going to give up their software library.
MacOS X/Intel, even if it doesn't boot Windows... will still run WINE. Voila. Switchers still get all their old software, and can migrate over as they feel the need to. Don't ever have to boot into Windows.
Now... I can hear the "But then why would anyone develop for Mac then?" starting. Cocoa perhaps? Look at this change coming down the pipe. What is the Cocoa workload? A recompile covers most of it. Will there be tweaking? Oh hell yes. Will it be a 'port'? Nope. I'll bet my last dollar that PPC -> Intel will be a smaller move for Cocoa developers than Carbon -> Cocoa was. (And here you thought there wasn't a good reason to make that move, you silly devs you...)
2007 will have MacOS X vs. Longhorn, and .NET vs. Cocoa.... *on the same hardware*. No more excuses, no more handwaving. Same hardware, head to head. Let the games begin.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
PowerPC may have been Pentium Crushing some time ago, but it's not anymore. Pentiums are at dual core whereas PowerPC is stuck at 2.7 at most, single core.
Things change. Intel has changed. The market has changed. Evolution. Life.
Yes and the PPC 2.7Ghz G5 is faster per clock than the Intel chip. Hell Anandtech's June 3rd comparison of OS X vs Linux basically concluded that PPC hardware is up to snuff. It's OSX that isn't performing. No surprise here since Apple hasn't fully commited to their own platform.
I wouldn't be putting the Pentium D up as a dual core poster child Gene. It's the poorest DC solution out. AMD's DC solution allows the chips to communicate together. Intel's DC Pentium D must use the FSB to snoop each others caches and communicate. Thus a Pentium DC is only really saving a socket compared to todays current Powermacs DP systems. There is no other saving.
Smoke and mirros folks. Intel's roadmap isn't written in stone. They cancelled Tejas and the next Xeon successor last year. They recently cancelled their LCos chips after crowing about how they would enable 60" screens for sub $2k prices. Anyone who bets on Intel paperlaunches is going to get bloodied.
However I will say that now Apple has no perceived advantage anymore.
If apple has no perceived advantage, then neither does Bentley - might as well buy a VW...
Look at a G5 tower, and then look at a Dell box. Work with windows, and then work with OSX. You will remember what the perceived advantages of Apple are.
Originally posted by Tuttle
Oh please. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to deal with this disaster.
Why do people get so worked up about this? Would you really want to work on a platform that is slower just so you could know that there is a PowerPC chip inside? The G5 was clearly going nowhere (2.7ghz after two years -- it was supposed to be at over 4ghz by now), and even worse, it proved impossible to get into a portable.
Some people here just need to chill out. PowerPC chips are perhaps "better", but it's of no use when X86 chips will be faster. No one really cares what processor sits inside a Mac anyways, as long as it isn't slow. And slow is exactly what Macs have been.
(If you did, you need a better RDF deflector shield)
If the end result is we get slightly faster but cooler processors at about the same price point today, what's the problem?
Originally posted by Tuttle
Oh please. Whatever you guys need to tell yourselves to deal with this disaster.
Or perhaps you're just being a drama queen.
Originally posted by Sopphode
And slow is exactly what Macs have been.
I think the RDF has been completely flushed from system now.
Yes the 2.7Ghz 970s are slow...
Originally posted by Tuttle
Yes the 2.7Ghz 970s are slow...
In two years they definitely are. They barely hold their own against P4's today. Ask anyone with an iBook if its snappy. Or see how smoothly those HD trailers look on brand new 17" PowerBooks.
Something clearly needs to be done, no?
1) Apple will start to sell its closed (READ: you must buy our stuff if you want to use OS X) Intel based systems for about 1-2 years.
2) Apple will then open up OS X so that it will run on any Intel based system (with minimum specs of course).
3) After that, Apple will move out of the hardware business... (except the iPod & stuff like that)
I can see some good points to this, and some bad points...
For me, I've always loved Apple designed computers. I think they're great. It will be a sad day when Apple does decide to move out of the hardware development business. On the flip side, I see this as "cheaper hardware for all" that will still run OS X. This is a good thing. The main thing I love about my "Apple Experience" is the "EXPERIENCE"... That is the OS & it's apps!! Apple makes some awesome looking machines, but that doesn't help me with my productivity. The main thing I hate about the "Apple Experience" is the price of the hardware... I've put up with it because it works great & looks nice, but the main reason is I can run OS X!! I'd be much happier if the hardware was a little cheaper. I'm not saying that all Apple stuff is overpriced, just some of it...
I've always thought that RISC architecture was better then x386 architecture, but since IBM & Freescale can't get their butts in gear and make higher clocked chips, I see Apple having no other choice then to jump ship before the ship sinks.