How can you tell the difference? Really - my mac mini feels lightning quick, and I can't tell the difference between it and one of the G5 towers when doing normal work.
Processor speed is not that interesting anymore - what is interesting is low-cost. If all the cars are 1000+ hp, who cares if you have 1000 hp or 10,000 hp.
Man, you're in a different biz than me. I have to process terabytes of data, and the Mac Mini won't quite cut it.
Processor speed (and bus speed) are VERY interesting.
Sorry, look at how many chips Apple will buy vs. how many Dell will buy. Apple is still the ugly step child. They are kind of a trophy for Intel--something they can brag about finally capturing--but Apple will make no dent in their bottom line.
That's right, unless MacIntel boxes start selling like hotcakes, and even then we're looking at incremental development as a major player. But Apple has the scrappiness of a stray dog and the elegance of a monied doyenne. They have amazed the industry by not merely hanging in but by thriving. They will continue to do so, even as the tech stream grows murkier by the minute. (Thank G-d the iPod put the company in a financial position that makes this "transition" possible.)
Jobs is an optimist and has reason to be. He is doing everything he can to make his company a viable player for the long term, bumps in the road notwithstanding. Bring on the universal binaries!
An interesting take, and one with which I agree, from editor Rob Griffiths at MacWorld...
Quote:
But once I got past the initial shock of the announcement, I?ve come to realize that this is a very good move for the platform... When I thought back on my years of Mac usage, I realized that the CPU was basically irrelevant to my experience. It didn?t matter if it was a 68K Motorola, a PowerPC G4, or a PowerPC G5. What appeals to me about the Mac is, quite simply, the operating system and its associated user interface and applications. They all just plain work. So if Apple can manage this transition to Intel, and not lose the ?essence? of the Mac, I think I?ll be fine with it.
[B]Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.
It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.
If Apple has truly made it "click this box" easy to create universal binaries and have some system by which they can do something similar for Altivec/SSE/blahblahwhatever migrations then I see no logical reason to not simply advocate a policy of hardware flexibility.
Why take all your eggs out of one basket and put them all into another? If IBM pulls something awesome out of its ass why not be able to take advantage of it?
Going with Intel is an extremely safe move as far as performance go, but there's no logical reason to think that the worm could not turn once again, so save yourself and your users the future headache and just teach them to not give a crap what chip is in there.
If Apple has truly made it "click this box" easy to create universal binaries and have some system by which they can do something similar for Altivec/SSE/blahblahwhatever migrations then I see no logical reason to not simply advocate a policy of hardware flexibility.
Why take all your eggs out of one basket and put them all into another? If IBM pulls something awesome out of its ass why not be able to take advantage of it?
Going with Intel is an extremely safe move as far as performance go, but there's no logical reason to think that the worm could not turn once again, so save yourself and your users the future headache and just teach them to not give a crap what chip is in there.
Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.
It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.
Or maybe this is just all wishful thinking ....
It may or may not be wishful thinking...but I happen to think you are spot on. This is about making the CPU more of a commodity.
An interesting take, and one with which I agree, from editor Rob Griffiths at MacWorld...
Quote:
But once I got past the initial shock of the announcement, I?ve come to realize that this is a very good move for the platform... When I thought back on my years of Mac usage, I realized that the CPU was basically irrelevant to my experience. It didn?t matter if it was a 68K Motorola, a PowerPC G4, or a PowerPC G5. What appeals to me about the Mac is, quite simply, the operating system and its associated user interface and applications. They all just plain work. So if Apple can manage this transition to Intel, and not lose the ?essence? of the Mac, I think I?ll be fine with it.
This is what I really believe, yes I understand why some people are interested in the hardware aspect of the PPC v. Intel chips, but for me at least when it comes down to it, I have my Apple computer for the OS, not the processor or the motherboard, or anything else hardware wise really. For it is the elegance, productivity, and ease of use that OS X provides. Everything I do i could probabely do on a Windonws machine, however I do not like using Windows, I would get so mad because I would have all this crap keep poping up that I did not want and or need. In short OS X is simplicit yet still productive and that is what I value about OS X.
I, too, have my mac for the OS, not the processor.
On the other hand, I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax. And a large chunk of that ball (harware sales) are totally unpredictable right now. I don't think anyone expects a sudden surge in sales, and most don't reasonably expect sales to remain at their current levels. Most likely, we're looking at pretty weak hardware sales for the foreseeable future.
Unless of course they slash the prices, but in that case increased sales doesn't mean shit.
So yeah, many people who are nervous don't necessarily pin those feeling on the fact that OS X is going to be on Intel. It's about the state of their stock until that transition is well underway...
Yes, and Sun's not doing so well, and oh, how about that SGI? I've never seen a company that could dependably choose the WORST option each time, every time, like SGI...
But you don't understand why they still have problems.
It was because they waited too long. Both companies were at the top of the heap in their respective areas.
But as x86 machines began to get closer to their performance at far lower prices, they turned their noses up at the thought that they would ever be serious competition.
By the time they looked down, they were surrounded. They finally made their moves, and they did good jobs of it too. But they were already so undercut that they haven't recovered. And they may not.
Jobs made a very good point at the keynote. With the chart up there showing Apple's 40% increase in sales against the industry's 10%, he said that because Apple was strong, this was the time to do it.
He's right. If Apple's sales were in the toilet and they made this switch then people would be saying; "uh oh, this is their last ditch chance, they're doing any desperate thing they can to get attention", and it might very well fail.
But to do it when your sales are at an all time high, profits are up, you have other product lines that are doing very well, and public awareness of the company as a provider of quality products is not under serious threat, it the best timing I can think of.
Apple seems to have done a good job of it. Programs are already running, and development machines are going out the door.
For those who have small programs that are shareware and can't afford the total of $1,500 for the development kit including the select membership, I'm sure that any Apple store would allow you to spend some time at a free machine at the store to try your stuff out. The idea that they wouldn't is unrealistic. Just don't make a habit of hogging a machine for hours at a time. I've already spoken to the manager of the SoHo store here in NYC about this.
I remember the switch from 68xx to PPC as going very smoothly. Old programs did run more slowly on the new, much faster, machines. But that passed.
As Apple HAS done a very good job of this so far, my worries have mostly passed about the technical shift itself.
The rest is user perception. If Apple can show that buying a machine now is not going to be a mistake, then I think that problem will take care of itself. I expect some falloff, but as I say, if it's managed well it should come back. The old machines won't be left in the dust for some time to come. Just remember that developers have every reason to produce the universal binaries, and none to not produce them. It will take years after the x86 machines are established for them to surpass 50% of the Macs out there. By that time any of the old machines will have been ready for pasture anyway, and moving to a new one will be no different than it is today.
In my user group here we have around 800 members a fair percentage of them still are using OS 9 and earlier. They know that for most of their machines new software or OS X itself is impossible, but they don't care. When one of these people decides to move up, they just do it.
I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax.
I just sold my stock. I am convinced that Apple will survive and thrive over the next decade, but there will be at least one quarter of dissapointing earnings in the next couple years.
My magic stock value formula says that Apple is currently worth $25.67/share - I will buy it back below that price.
I, too, have my mac for the OS, not the processor.
On the other hand, I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax. And a large chunk of that ball (harware sales) are totally unpredictable right now. I don't think anyone expects a sudden surge in sales, and most don't reasonably expect sales to remain at their current levels. Most likely, we're looking at pretty weak hardware sales for the foreseeable future.
Unless of course they slash the prices, but in that case increased sales doesn't mean shit.
So yeah, many people who are nervous don't necessarily pin those feeling on the fact that OS X is going to be on Intel. It's about the state of their stock until that transition is well underway...
Yes, I have 10,000 shares of Apple stock. Am I concerned? Of course I am! And it is dropping a bit. I just checked on my real time account, and it;s a bit under 37. But it had dropped to 34 a few weeks ago and recovered. We'll see. Apple has to assure the investor community that they can manage this well. If they can convince the public that this won't cause them any problems, then they will succeed. If those of us here, who should know better, stop acting as though this is going to matter for more than 5% of the user out there, then Apple will succeed.
This feeling of betrayal is simply childish! This is not a religion, This is not a philosophy. This is a company making hardware and software. They do what they think is best for them, and by extention, us. The whole reason for them doing this was that they know that their customers, and their potential customers are not going to be happy down the line if IBM can't or is unwilling to do what they need.
I'm reading here that we lose the Cell, the Power 5 and 6 etc. That's nonsence. We don't have the Cell, the Power 5 and 6 etc.!
Moving to the Cell would be more disruptive than moving to x86. Apple was ready for that for years. The Cell is so different that it's being doubted that it would be effective as a general purpose cpu. Maybe later as a daughter card for rendering, yes. But this move does nothing to stop that should Apple decide to go thar way later.
As for the Power chips, these are VERY expensive chips, as are the IA-64 chips from Intel. Try $3,000 and up for the top of the line units. Slower ones are cheaper, but start at $1,000 or so.
What gain there?
Perhaps Apple might contemplate keeping XServes with the PPC if customers demand it, but there would have to be significant demand.
Sorry, look at how many chips Apple will buy vs. how many Dell will buy. Apple is still the ugly step child. They are kind of a trophy for Intel--something they can brag about finally capturing--but Apple will make no dent in their bottom line. And if they start to hurt Dell, and Dell threatens to go to AMD? Well, we might find those nice Intel processors come a little slower.
Let go of the RFD and I'll let go of the FUD. Then maybe we can discuss the unanswered questions this leaves, and the dangers and possibilities it represents.
I think you missed my point.
By going with Intel, Apple is not relying on a manufacturer to produce chips especially for them. Its ok for Apple to be relatively insignificant to Intel, because Intel is in the business of making very good CPUs. They will do this even if Apple closes shop tomorrow. See the difference?
Both Motorola and IBM were producing the GX series almost exclusively for Apple. Motorola eventually succumbed to scale economies and transitioned most of its focus to the embedded market.
This is an excellent business move because Apple has removed a major obstacle from its path: processor speed. How long have you read this forum? As long as I can remember, people have been pissin' and moanin' about Motorola, then IBM. Neither of these companies has produced what was promised, but, because of their reliance on a niche processor, Apple had nowhere to turn.
This is a great time. The Mac OS if finally strong enough to differentiate itself on the merits of the system, instead of relying on the fortunes of other companies that do not have the best interest of the Mac in mind.
Let the FUD go!
-edit-
This link was posted above, but here it is again because it speaks about the issues I'm referring to...its all business.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Mandrake LINUX will feel familiar to any Mac user.
By going with Intel, Apple is not relying on a manufacturer to produce chips especially for them. Its ok for Apple to be relatively insignificant to Intel, because Intel is in the business of making very good CPUs. They will do this even if Apple closes shop tomorrow. See the difference?
Both Motorola and IBM were producing the GX series almost exclusively for Apple. Motorola eventually succumbed to scale economies and transitioned most of its focus to the embedded market.
This is an excellent business move because Apple has removed a major obstacle from its path: processor speed. How long have you read this forum? As long as I can remember, people have been pissin' and moanin' about Motorola, then IBM. Neither of these companies has produced what was promised, but, because of their reliance on a niche processor, Apple had nowhere to turn.
This is a great time. The Mac OS if finally strong enough to differentiate itself on the merits of the system, instead of relying on the fortunes of other companies that do not have the best interest of the Mac in mind.
Let the FUD go!
This is exactly what I'm saying.
We have to lose some of that "Mac Fanatic" aura some cultivate so carefully.
Since most of the people here who are complaining the most about the loss of the PPC are not those to whom it would matter anyway, it's just posing.
If some are saying that they are now going to go to Windows because of this, that's rediculous. So id Apple was 100% brfore, and Wintel was 0%, and Apple is now in your eyes 50%, tou're going to go all the way to 0%?. Give us a break please. What if Apple had switched in the early 90's? If instead of moving to the PPC they went straight to Intel? We wouldn't be talking about betrayal because most of you here would have been too young to remember it.
So they are doing it now. Just understand that it wasn't done to "betray" anyone, but because Apple had been looking at the PPC consortium for years, and was concerned THROUGHOUT that ENTIRE time that this might be necessary.
Comments
Originally posted by e1618978
How can you tell the difference? Really - my mac mini feels lightning quick, and I can't tell the difference between it and one of the G5 towers when doing normal work.
Processor speed is not that interesting anymore - what is interesting is low-cost. If all the cars are 1000+ hp, who cares if you have 1000 hp or 10,000 hp.
Man, you're in a different biz than me. I have to process terabytes of data, and the Mac Mini won't quite cut it.
Processor speed (and bus speed) are VERY interesting.
Originally posted by kwatson
Man, you're in a different biz than me. I have to process terabytes of data, and the Mac Mini won't quite cut it.
Processor speed (and bus speed) are VERY interesting.
You are not a typical user - I write software, and all my compiling and linking is done on a sun server anyway.
The only mainstream use for CPU is games - besides that 99% of users are fine with mini-style performance.
originally posted by D.J. Adequate:
Sorry, look at how many chips Apple will buy vs. how many Dell will buy. Apple is still the ugly step child. They are kind of a trophy for Intel--something they can brag about finally capturing--but Apple will make no dent in their bottom line.
That's right, unless MacIntel boxes start selling like hotcakes, and even then we're looking at incremental development as a major player. But Apple has the scrappiness of a stray dog and the elegance of a monied doyenne. They have amazed the industry by not merely hanging in but by thriving. They will continue to do so, even as the tech stream grows murkier by the minute. (Thank G-d the iPod put the company in a financial position that makes this "transition" possible.)
Jobs is an optimist and has reason to be. He is doing everything he can to make his company a viable player for the long term, bumps in the road notwithstanding. Bring on the universal binaries!
-------------------------
Warming to it in Nashvegas
But once I got past the initial shock of the announcement, I?ve come to realize that this is a very good move for the platform... When I thought back on my years of Mac usage, I realized that the CPU was basically irrelevant to my experience. It didn?t matter if it was a 68K Motorola, a PowerPC G4, or a PowerPC G5. What appeals to me about the Mac is, quite simply, the operating system and its associated user interface and applications. They all just plain work. So if Apple can manage this transition to Intel, and not lose the ?essence? of the Mac, I think I?ll be fine with it.
Originally posted by Sybaritic
[B]Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.
It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.
Why take all your eggs out of one basket and put them all into another? If IBM pulls something awesome out of its ass why not be able to take advantage of it?
Going with Intel is an extremely safe move as far as performance go, but there's no logical reason to think that the worm could not turn once again, so save yourself and your users the future headache and just teach them to not give a crap what chip is in there.
Originally posted by groverat
If Apple has truly made it "click this box" easy to create universal binaries and have some system by which they can do something similar for Altivec/SSE/blahblahwhatever migrations then I see no logical reason to not simply advocate a policy of hardware flexibility.
Why take all your eggs out of one basket and put them all into another? If IBM pulls something awesome out of its ass why not be able to take advantage of it?
Going with Intel is an extremely safe move as far as performance go, but there's no logical reason to think that the worm could not turn once again, so save yourself and your users the future headache and just teach them to not give a crap what chip is in there.
the Grove speaks
Originally posted by Sybaritic
Yep. PowerPC isn't dead by any means. The real problem has been with the portables, but the high end of the PowerPC is promising. Naturally, the transition to Intel will begin with the low end. At first this roadmap struck everyone as counter-intuitive, but clearly it makes sense. Apple NEEDS what Intel can offer on the low-heat side, but depending upon what IBM comes up with relative to Intel's 64-bit offerings, we may never see a complete transition to Intel and be surprised by yet another about face. Jobs is asking developers to ready Fat Binaries all around, which would make a reverse move easier.
It's really up to IBM. They don't seem to care about working hard for Apple (the financial incentive is not there), but Jobs is positioning his company for OPTIONS. In the unlikely event that Apple and IBM partner again, Apple will be ready.
Or maybe this is just all wishful thinking ....
It may or may not be wishful thinking...but I happen to think you are spot on. This is about making the CPU more of a commodity.
Originally posted by anand
Yes, but now apple will have to make it feel as fast, if not faster than windows. Otherwise, who would buy it.
Speaking of which, if you watch the WWDC keynote, that demo sure is pretty zippy (at least until he deliberately gets into the emulated stuff).
Originally posted by DanMacMan
An interesting take, and one with which I agree, from editor Rob Griffiths at MacWorld...
But once I got past the initial shock of the announcement, I?ve come to realize that this is a very good move for the platform... When I thought back on my years of Mac usage, I realized that the CPU was basically irrelevant to my experience. It didn?t matter if it was a 68K Motorola, a PowerPC G4, or a PowerPC G5. What appeals to me about the Mac is, quite simply, the operating system and its associated user interface and applications. They all just plain work. So if Apple can manage this transition to Intel, and not lose the ?essence? of the Mac, I think I?ll be fine with it.
This is what I really believe, yes I understand why some people are interested in the hardware aspect of the PPC v. Intel chips, but for me at least when it comes down to it, I have my Apple computer for the OS, not the processor or the motherboard, or anything else hardware wise really. For it is the elegance, productivity, and ease of use that OS X provides. Everything I do i could probabely do on a Windonws machine, however I do not like using Windows, I would get so mad because I would have all this crap keep poping up that I did not want and or need. In short OS X is simplicit yet still productive and that is what I value about OS X.
On the other hand, I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax. And a large chunk of that ball (harware sales) are totally unpredictable right now. I don't think anyone expects a sudden surge in sales, and most don't reasonably expect sales to remain at their current levels. Most likely, we're looking at pretty weak hardware sales for the foreseeable future.
Unless of course they slash the prices, but in that case increased sales doesn't mean shit.
So yeah, many people who are nervous don't necessarily pin those feeling on the fact that OS X is going to be on Intel. It's about the state of their stock until that transition is well underway...
Originally posted by kwatson
Yes, and Sun's not doing so well, and oh, how about that SGI? I've never seen a company that could dependably choose the WORST option each time, every time, like SGI...
But you don't understand why they still have problems.
It was because they waited too long. Both companies were at the top of the heap in their respective areas.
But as x86 machines began to get closer to their performance at far lower prices, they turned their noses up at the thought that they would ever be serious competition.
By the time they looked down, they were surrounded. They finally made their moves, and they did good jobs of it too. But they were already so undercut that they haven't recovered. And they may not.
Jobs made a very good point at the keynote. With the chart up there showing Apple's 40% increase in sales against the industry's 10%, he said that because Apple was strong, this was the time to do it.
He's right. If Apple's sales were in the toilet and they made this switch then people would be saying; "uh oh, this is their last ditch chance, they're doing any desperate thing they can to get attention", and it might very well fail.
But to do it when your sales are at an all time high, profits are up, you have other product lines that are doing very well, and public awareness of the company as a provider of quality products is not under serious threat, it the best timing I can think of.
Apple seems to have done a good job of it. Programs are already running, and development machines are going out the door.
For those who have small programs that are shareware and can't afford the total of $1,500 for the development kit including the select membership, I'm sure that any Apple store would allow you to spend some time at a free machine at the store to try your stuff out. The idea that they wouldn't is unrealistic. Just don't make a habit of hogging a machine for hours at a time. I've already spoken to the manager of the SoHo store here in NYC about this.
I remember the switch from 68xx to PPC as going very smoothly. Old programs did run more slowly on the new, much faster, machines. But that passed.
As Apple HAS done a very good job of this so far, my worries have mostly passed about the technical shift itself.
The rest is user perception. If Apple can show that buying a machine now is not going to be a mistake, then I think that problem will take care of itself. I expect some falloff, but as I say, if it's managed well it should come back. The old machines won't be left in the dust for some time to come. Just remember that developers have every reason to produce the universal binaries, and none to not produce them. It will take years after the x86 machines are established for them to surpass 50% of the Macs out there. By that time any of the old machines will have been ready for pasture anyway, and moving to a new one will be no different than it is today.
In my user group here we have around 800 members a fair percentage of them still are using OS 9 and earlier. They know that for most of their machines new software or OS X itself is impossible, but they don't care. When one of these people decides to move up, they just do it.
I think that it will be the same here as well.
Stop kvetching already.
I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax.
I just sold my stock. I am convinced that Apple will survive and thrive over the next decade, but there will be at least one quarter of dissapointing earnings in the next couple years.
My magic stock value formula says that Apple is currently worth $25.67/share - I will buy it back below that price.
He's very pragmatic and he has some interesting comments and speculation on the whole situation.
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
I think he's right. In the end it's probably good, but it doesn't mean it's not a little sad.
Originally posted by rageous
I, too, have my mac for the OS, not the processor.
On the other hand, I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax.
...
1. "I, too, have my mac for the OS, not the processor."
me too
2. "On the other hand, I have my Apple stock....."
Not anymore, I bailed today. Bumpy road ahead. Hopefully I'll be back early next year.
Originally posted by rageous
I, too, have my mac for the OS, not the processor.
On the other hand, I have my Apple stock because of the whole ball of wax. And a large chunk of that ball (harware sales) are totally unpredictable right now. I don't think anyone expects a sudden surge in sales, and most don't reasonably expect sales to remain at their current levels. Most likely, we're looking at pretty weak hardware sales for the foreseeable future.
Unless of course they slash the prices, but in that case increased sales doesn't mean shit.
So yeah, many people who are nervous don't necessarily pin those feeling on the fact that OS X is going to be on Intel. It's about the state of their stock until that transition is well underway...
Yes, I have 10,000 shares of Apple stock. Am I concerned? Of course I am! And it is dropping a bit. I just checked on my real time account, and it;s a bit under 37. But it had dropped to 34 a few weeks ago and recovered. We'll see. Apple has to assure the investor community that they can manage this well. If they can convince the public that this won't cause them any problems, then they will succeed. If those of us here, who should know better, stop acting as though this is going to matter for more than 5% of the user out there, then Apple will succeed.
This feeling of betrayal is simply childish! This is not a religion, This is not a philosophy. This is a company making hardware and software. They do what they think is best for them, and by extention, us. The whole reason for them doing this was that they know that their customers, and their potential customers are not going to be happy down the line if IBM can't or is unwilling to do what they need.
I'm reading here that we lose the Cell, the Power 5 and 6 etc. That's nonsence. We don't have the Cell, the Power 5 and 6 etc.!
Moving to the Cell would be more disruptive than moving to x86. Apple was ready for that for years. The Cell is so different that it's being doubted that it would be effective as a general purpose cpu. Maybe later as a daughter card for rendering, yes. But this move does nothing to stop that should Apple decide to go thar way later.
As for the Power chips, these are VERY expensive chips, as are the IA-64 chips from Intel. Try $3,000 and up for the top of the line units. Slower ones are cheaper, but start at $1,000 or so.
What gain there?
Perhaps Apple might contemplate keeping XServes with the PPC if customers demand it, but there would have to be significant demand.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
Sorry, look at how many chips Apple will buy vs. how many Dell will buy. Apple is still the ugly step child. They are kind of a trophy for Intel--something they can brag about finally capturing--but Apple will make no dent in their bottom line. And if they start to hurt Dell, and Dell threatens to go to AMD? Well, we might find those nice Intel processors come a little slower.
Let go of the RFD and I'll let go of the FUD. Then maybe we can discuss the unanswered questions this leaves, and the dangers and possibilities it represents.
I think you missed my point.
By going with Intel, Apple is not relying on a manufacturer to produce chips especially for them. Its ok for Apple to be relatively insignificant to Intel, because Intel is in the business of making very good CPUs. They will do this even if Apple closes shop tomorrow. See the difference?
Both Motorola and IBM were producing the GX series almost exclusively for Apple. Motorola eventually succumbed to scale economies and transitioned most of its focus to the embedded market.
This is an excellent business move because Apple has removed a major obstacle from its path: processor speed. How long have you read this forum? As long as I can remember, people have been pissin' and moanin' about Motorola, then IBM. Neither of these companies has produced what was promised, but, because of their reliance on a niche processor, Apple had nowhere to turn.
This is a great time. The Mac OS if finally strong enough to differentiate itself on the merits of the system, instead of relying on the fortunes of other companies that do not have the best interest of the Mac in mind.
Let the FUD go!
-edit-
This link was posted above, but here it is again because it speaks about the issues I'm referring to...its all business.
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
Originally posted by kwatson
I've been holding out for the 'quad' with PCIe.
I'm going to let this sink in for a few more days, then I think I'm out shopping for a dualie AMD64. My big decision will be - Windows, FreeBSD, or Linux?
Mandrake LINUX will feel familiar to any Mac user.
Originally posted by Keda
I think you missed my point.
By going with Intel, Apple is not relying on a manufacturer to produce chips especially for them. Its ok for Apple to be relatively insignificant to Intel, because Intel is in the business of making very good CPUs. They will do this even if Apple closes shop tomorrow. See the difference?
Both Motorola and IBM were producing the GX series almost exclusively for Apple. Motorola eventually succumbed to scale economies and transitioned most of its focus to the embedded market.
This is an excellent business move because Apple has removed a major obstacle from its path: processor speed. How long have you read this forum? As long as I can remember, people have been pissin' and moanin' about Motorola, then IBM. Neither of these companies has produced what was promised, but, because of their reliance on a niche processor, Apple had nowhere to turn.
This is a great time. The Mac OS if finally strong enough to differentiate itself on the merits of the system, instead of relying on the fortunes of other companies that do not have the best interest of the Mac in mind.
Let the FUD go!
This is exactly what I'm saying.
We have to lose some of that "Mac Fanatic" aura some cultivate so carefully.
Since most of the people here who are complaining the most about the loss of the PPC are not those to whom it would matter anyway, it's just posing.
If some are saying that they are now going to go to Windows because of this, that's rediculous. So id Apple was 100% brfore, and Wintel was 0%, and Apple is now in your eyes 50%, tou're going to go all the way to 0%?. Give us a break please. What if Apple had switched in the early 90's? If instead of moving to the PPC they went straight to Intel? We wouldn't be talking about betrayal because most of you here would have been too young to remember it.
So they are doing it now. Just understand that it wasn't done to "betray" anyone, but because Apple had been looking at the PPC consortium for years, and was concerned THROUGHOUT that ENTIRE time that this might be necessary.
Originally posted by Tidris
Mandrake LINUX will feel familiar to any Mac user.
No, it wouldn't.