Anyone else feel cheated ?
You know... way back in late 2002 / early 2003, Intel had 3.06 ghz Hyperthreading Pentium 4's and very decent chips for laptops. Apple could have switched to Intel back then but instead we were treated to 1.42 ghz G4s and the like.
There must be more to dropping IBM from the lineup, if Apple drove on with PPC back then then why wouldn't they do so now. I think Apple has had this "switch" planned for a long time and IBM was developing the PPC 970 for itself anyway.
I suspect that back in 2002, many mac users had not yet transitioned to OS X, and an architecture change on top of that might have convinced many developers to jump ship. So rather than change to Intel then and there, Apple used IBM as a stopgap. I dont have a G5 myself, are the performance gains really that much better over intel ?
Personally Ive been in the market for a powerbook for like the last two years, and its always been something that kept me waiting, slow processors, other manufacturers have better screens, and even waiting for Tiger. Now, it seems the best bang for my buck will be waiting for Apple to start putting Pentium Ms in their Powerbooks, but seriously, why wait ? I'm an adept Linux user who uses Linux daily, I could have a Pentium M right now... I just thought Apple might blow us all away with an awesome G5 powerbook.
Enough ranting, I still cant help feeling like Ive been led along
EDIT: I guess I should note also... Im not against the switch to Intel, I just think it should have been done a lot sooner and we were all fed a bunch of BS to keep us in the loop... the infinite loop ...
There must be more to dropping IBM from the lineup, if Apple drove on with PPC back then then why wouldn't they do so now. I think Apple has had this "switch" planned for a long time and IBM was developing the PPC 970 for itself anyway.
I suspect that back in 2002, many mac users had not yet transitioned to OS X, and an architecture change on top of that might have convinced many developers to jump ship. So rather than change to Intel then and there, Apple used IBM as a stopgap. I dont have a G5 myself, are the performance gains really that much better over intel ?
Personally Ive been in the market for a powerbook for like the last two years, and its always been something that kept me waiting, slow processors, other manufacturers have better screens, and even waiting for Tiger. Now, it seems the best bang for my buck will be waiting for Apple to start putting Pentium Ms in their Powerbooks, but seriously, why wait ? I'm an adept Linux user who uses Linux daily, I could have a Pentium M right now... I just thought Apple might blow us all away with an awesome G5 powerbook.
Enough ranting, I still cant help feeling like Ive been led along
EDIT: I guess I should note also... Im not against the switch to Intel, I just think it should have been done a lot sooner and we were all fed a bunch of BS to keep us in the loop... the infinite loop ...
Comments
turboSPE
Originally posted by turbospe
I don't feel cheated necessarily, just kind of...dirty. I know I'll buy a new computer in the next year, and I'll feel a little whorish knowing Intel's inside.
turboSPE
As long as I don't see the word "Intel" anywhere on the exterior of the case, I'll be fine. If that is the case though, Steve should just buy a plane ticket to hell, because that's where he would be going.
I think in the end what made them change was the laptops needed a new chip. It wasn't going to be the G5 and IBM didn't want to invest in a completely new chip. That left Freescale, who simply aren't interested in delivering fast enough, or a switch to x86.
I think you'd find they only really came to this decision in the last couple months as the Powerbook continued to languish. Certainly they have considered it for many years but I think when the G5 came even Apple thought they were back on track. They were wrong and have moved to Plan B.
My personal opinion is it is sad. PowerPC is a nice architecture but now Apple's fortunes don't rely on their chip manufacturer, which has haunted them for the past 5 years now. Interesting to note their OS X on Intel plan started with Motorola's first stuff up and now IBM has finished it.
Originally posted by turbospe
I don't feel cheated necessarily, just kind of...dirty. I know I'll buy a new computer in the next year, and I'll feel a little whorish knowing Intel's inside.
turboSPE
Why? Really, what's the big deal? You somehow don't feel "dirty" knowing IBM is inside?
Originally posted by AsLan^
You know... way back in late 2002 / early 2003, Intel had 3.06 ghz Hyperthreading Pentium 4's and very decent chips for laptops. Apple could have switched to Intel back then but instead we were treated to 1.42 ghz G4s and the like.
This actually could be a very long discussion. I've teased with a friend of mine that all tech companies do a bit of lying by their very nature. Can we all recall a time when Google swore up and down that they would only be a search engine and never a portal? Should we feel bad that Intel told us it was all about the megahertz or Itanium when it instead became about power consumption, dual cores and so on? Was Intel lying when they ended up basically using AMD style 64 bit extensions? When they backed off the megahertz speed and went dual core? When they told you that you really needed a 3 ghz laptop with 45 minute battery life and began selling a 1.5 ghz laptop with 5 hour battery life at the same time?
I mean even right now you are being told you REALLY need to adopt PCI-e when I haven't read about a single app that soaks up all the bandwidth of AGP 8X. So are they lying a bit to insure the next standard grows? Of course they are and I believe it is pretty much standard operating procedure for tech companies. Apple does it as well.
There must be more to dropping IBM from the lineup, if Apple drove on with PPC back then then why wouldn't they do so now. I think Apple has had this "switch" planned for a long time and IBM was developing the PPC 970 for itself anyway.
It just seems like Apple keeps getting stuck in the middle. The G4 has become a great embedded processor. Apple needs a desktop processor though. IBM took part of their technology and made the G5, but it doesn't appear to be progressing. They have also created cell which again, appears to work better as an embedded processor for videogame systems but not well enough for a desktop.
I suspect that back in 2002, many mac users had not yet transitioned to OS X, and an architecture change on top of that might have convinced many developers to jump ship. So rather than change to Intel then and there, Apple used IBM as a stopgap. I dont have a G5 myself, are the performance gains really that much better over intel ?
I don't think anyone makes a transition like this unless they have to do so. Obviously they were hoping that something would help move PPC along and it has, but not in ways that help Apple.
Personally Ive been in the market for a powerbook for like the last two years, and its always been something that kept me waiting, slow processors, other manufacturers have better screens, and even waiting for Tiger. Now, it seems the best bang for my buck will be waiting for Apple to start putting Pentium Ms in their Powerbooks, but seriously, why wait ? I'm an adept Linux user who uses Linux daily, I could have a Pentium M right now... I just thought Apple might blow us all away with an awesome G5 powerbook.
I can relate because I've wanted a new laptop as well. You sound like you could get by with something else and I know I could as well as I own both a PC and a Mac. However I have used Mac's long enough to be through all these transitions. Apple is amazing at making them near seamless while introducing clean breaks that help things move along better in the future.
Apple made a strong break with OS9 for example but we are all better now for it. When they went from 68xxx to PPC, they sold overlapping systems for quite a while. They introduced fat binaries back then as well and the processor emulator was derided as incomplete. (It emulated a 68020 which had no MMU or math co-processor) It was good enough that I can't personally recall ever having issues with the transition. I expect this one to be even easier because the programming is more abstracted from the hardware now.
Instead of going high end, go low. Get an iBook or even a mini and buy again in two years when all these things will make any machine today look ridiculous.
Nick
When I said "cheated" I really meant, I guess I meant we have been cheated out of what Apple promised us and that was "the best such and such" when in reality they had OS X running on Intel in a dungeon somewhere... that was actually "the best." What they gave us was almost the best, or the best they were willing to give us. I have no doubt in my mind that their OS X on Intel x86 was outperforming OS X on PPC until the advent of the Dual G5 2.5 Ghz.
Mac users make sacrifices, higher costs, less hardware options, arguably lower performace, it seems that these sacrifices were arbitrary because at any time Apple could have switched to Intel and eliminated some of them.
Originally posted by turbospe
I don't feel cheated necessarily, just kind of...dirty. I know I'll buy a new computer in the next year, and I'll feel a little whorish knowing Intel's inside.
turboSPE
Look, It is JUST a chip, Intel makes faster, better chips for the lap/desktop, Apple will still have their silly closed firmware so OSX will not run on the 500$ costco box, you will have a 2+ ghz laptop with at least double the bus, better video chips, access to PC standard video cards (just use the bsd x86 drivers)
Mac users will have it better, but since the OS still will rely on hardware, you can still be a snobby elitist if you must.
so a laptop with double the speed, twice the battery life, and a much faster bus than the pathetic little G4 could dream of is a bad thing? sign me up for the bad thing please.
Originally posted by tonton
I seriously doubt Apple has ANY Intel boxes running Mac OS X faster than a dual 2.7 GHz Power Mac. We had the best.
That said, obviously, Steve thinks Intel is going to continue getting faster and Power PC is not. He is making the transition in advance of the time when Pentiums are faster than G5s, because right now, they're just not.
2 words: dual core. If intel hasone chip with two 3.6 ghz cores then a mac mini with one chip could theoreticly blow away todays top powermac g5
And a PM with 2 chips, 4 cores could take desktop smp to the next level, no final render when with enough ram the final render could be done in real time or faster.. and since it is the same pentium 4 that dell, hp, gateway use, it will be cheaper than the custom built G5 that only apple used.
Originally posted by a_greer
2 words: dual core. If intel hasone chip with two 3.6 ghz cores then a mac mini with one chip could theoreticly blow away todays top powermac g5
And a PM with 2 chips, 4 cores could take desktop smp to the next level, no final render when with enough ram the final render could be done in real time or faster.. and since it is the same pentium 4 that dell, hp, gateway use, it will be cheaper than the custom built G5 that only apple used.
I think this is the issue. It is clear that of the two companies (IBM and Intel), Intel had the most appealing processors going forward. I am sure that IBM will have a 970MP in due course, but this doesn't help Apple with the laptop problem. By the time the transition starts, you can bet we will have dual-core low power chips from Intel (whether these are 64 bit or not is an issue). By the time the Pro line have to migrate, I would imagine there is going to be something pretty powerful to compel users.
I think that this is a case of no real option. For the sake of the powerbook, they had to change the architecture. We will see if it all works out.
Steve was pretty clear in the Keynote that computers based on the current P4 (excepting the dev boxes) were not going to happen. I hope we will see something worthwhile in the future.
(And yes, it did feel like a Faustian deal was being done, but as long as Intel weren't exaggerating when they said they were excited by Apple, then we should be OK...)
that's why he can do this now.
Originally posted by spyder
As long as I don't see the word "Intel" anywhere on the exterior of the case, I'll be fine. If that is the case though, Steve should just buy a plane ticket to hell, because that's where he would be going.
Oh this could create a whole new "Intel hide sticker tag" industry, no?
Be creative.
Originally posted by rok
the reason it couldn't happen then, but can happen now: the Transitive acquisition. we all thought it was apple's way of converting file formats back and forth from their applications, and a bridge to/from the pdf format (which it might still be), but in reality, steve had this gift drop in his lap to make rosetta work without a performance hit, and he bought them out the next day.
that's why he can do this now.
You're confusing "Transitive" which Apple did not acquire with Schemasoft which Apple did acquire.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You're confusing "Transitive" which Apple did not acquire with Schemasoft which Apple did acquire.
oops, sorry. you're right.
Originally posted by k squared
Why? Really, what's the big deal? You somehow don't feel "dirty" knowing IBM is inside?
I wouldn't say I construed it as a big deal. I just always felt special knowing that my Mac had everything my PC didn't (no Windows, no Intel, no ugly beige box, etc.). Like I said, I'll definitely buy one, I just won't feel as special anymore.
turboSPE
Originally posted by turbospe
I wouldn't say I construed it as a big deal. I just always felt special knowing that my Mac had everything my PC didn't (no Windows, no Intel, no ugly beige box, etc.). Like I said, I'll definitely buy one, I just won't feel as special anymore.
turboSPE
I for one am glad that I buy computers for something other than "feeling special."
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Oh this could create a whole new "Intel hide sticker tag" industry, no?
Be creative.
we should create a 'long live PowerPC' sticker to stick over the intel inside sticker
I seriously doubt Apple has ANY Intel boxes running Mac OS X faster than a dual 2.7 GHz Power Mac. We had the best.
While I agree that I doubt Apple has any Intel boxes running OSX faster than PPC boxes, that is likely nothing more than a function of how much work they've put into it.
Apple is seriously going to have to learn to drop this Napoleon complex bullshit that forces them to constantly knife-the-baby.
First they burn the bunny now Jobs bemoans IBM's ineptitude on stage? How many bridges do you have to burn, jack ass? And for what, so Maccies can jerk off on Internet websites?
How about not being a prick thereby making sure you have good relationships with everyone producing the most cutting-edge product around? I'm tired of this "I've got my hat in my hand but it's not really my fault!" crap Jobs pulls.
- 5 years ago, after Motorola fucked so much with the G4, SJ come to 2 conclusions :
1) The marketshare of Apple is too small, and it will be always difficult to have a competitive and complete lineup of customs chips for them.
2) an another transition will kill Apple, The PPC transition is just 5 years ago, and has been a big mess : ppc optimisation isn't still finish.
So Apple had 3 choices :
- stay with moto and died
- stay with IBM, who seems to be interested by a low end server and desktop chip : at least it will give some extra time.
- migrate in the X86 world, and become just one big customer of the dominant market of CPU : and here the bigger company is clearly Intel.
Choice 1 was a suicide, and also choice 3. So Apple went to choice 2, but think that in the long term, choice 3 could save their ass, at the condition that the transition will be much more easier than the precedent one.
I am convinced if Apple made this transition, it's because they had no other choices. Apple is currently in good shape, and now has a clear future. Apple has enough strength to support the 2 next coming years, who will be bad for them (luckily they have the I pod)
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I am convinced if Apple made this transition, it's because they had no other choices. Apple is currently in good shape, and now has a clear future. Apple has enough strength to support the 2 next coming years, who will be bad for them (luckily they have the I pod)
it's also very likely that apple needed SOME sort of killer non-Mac-OS based product to sustain it, just in case (iPod/iTMS combo), and they needed a ton of money in the bank to float them if sales stall (which they have had for a while, and everyone was kinda suspicious as to why a company of apple's size was hording as much liquid capital as it was... now we know it was the mother of "rainy day funds"). i'm sure it was a combination of skill and luck that got them to this point.
Apple was just unlucky enough to have their user base start to suspect somethign when the Powerbooks were stalling and using things like scrolling trackpads and extra ram to divert attention away from the marginal performance increases, and how they tried like hell to make having a friggin' air conditioner in your desktop sound like a good thing. ibm's lack of output finally forced apple's hand (i woudl say right after apple announced the last powerbooks and watched those sales stall, steve KNEW the writing was ont he wall... it was either now or never).
You know... way back in late 2002 / early 2003, Intel had 3.06 ghz Hyperthreading Pentium 4's and very decent chips for laptops. Apple could have switched to Intel back then but instead we were treated to 1.42 ghz G4s and the like.
No I don't actually.
Pentium 4 is not good for laptops, was never good for laptops, and will never be good for laptops. It's architecture at present manufacturing ability is completely unsuited for portable designs because of high energy consumption per useful work that it does. Pentium 4 laptops are nothing more than stoves to cook eggs on.