I can no longer drive a Porsche - they switched to Nitchicon capacitors in the ECU computer! Just the thought of those nasty little buggers in there ruins the whole experience for me.
I think I would rather drive a Dodge than a Porsche with Nitchicon capacitors in the ECU. The Dodge uses the same capacitors, but at least I am not driving a tainted Porsche!
People said the same thing when Apple moved to the PPC.
"WTF is Apple doing going with processors from Big Blue"
My how quickly we forget or rather become acclimated. Most Mac users are on the platform because love the OS plain and simple. I couldn't give a rip about the processor as long as I'm getting the performance I need.
Intel's roadmap is looking as good as anyones and they have the cash to move from 65 to 45nm. This decision was smart by Apple.
I'm just glad we won't be moving to Netbust architecture. Bring on the dual core 4MB cache Conroe baby!!
People said the same thing when Apple moved to the PPC.
"WTF is Apple doing going with processors from Big Blue"
But then there was not the iPod, nor iTMS, nor iApps. It is not the move to Intel per se that makes me worry, it is Apple's own statement that they will do nothing to prevent people to install Windows on their Intel-Mac. Now Apple is not stupid to not realise the danger of doing so. That's why I see a plan behind this, but I don't know what is it. Macworld's analysts just gave their own and reasonable hint.
Apple is smart to forgo on shunning windows support on their computer. This doesn't hurt them at all. They don't have to support windows configurations. Leave that up to VMware and anyone else who wants to jump into virtualization.
People need to read the writing on the wall. Virtualization is going to happen down to the I/O on your hardware. I see nothing wrong with running Linux, Vista and OS X at the same time all at 64-bit.
Apple has the fit and finish with their apps to attract anyone. With VM they get the compatibility they need yet they still keep their distinct Macness including industrial design.
I'm more jazzed about the platform than ever. What's Wintel giving you? OS X wannabe in Vista.
Macs have never been about the processor. Motorola was always behind. IBM made it more respectable but as THT says...they don't want to invest in PPC for desktop solutions. The costs are going to escalate as we march on to 45nm. Intel is the top dawg for the forseeable future.
AFAIK, no one responded to the PowerPC alliance like we're responding to this Intel switch. If Apple had switched from 68K to x86 a decade ago, you'd hear the same response you're hearing today. The implications of x86 are very serious, and I'm still not prepared to wear the rose colored glasses that would allow me to dismiss these concerns as trivial.
AFAIK, no one responded to the PowerPC alliance like we're responding to this Intel switch. If Apple had switched from 68K to x86 a decade ago, you'd hear the same response you're hearing today. The implications of x86 are very serious, and I'm still not prepared to wear the rose colored glasses that would allow me to dismiss these concerns as trivial.
Dude...think of it as OS X supporting a new platform. If PPC gains ground and becomes the next best thing 5 years from now, Apple will already be ready for it.
I have struggled to deal with it, but I am at my wits end. Apple's insane decision has been something I have found harder and harder to deal with.
Other people seemed able to cope with this insane time-warp., but I cannot. It makes me sick to the stomach! Yes I know that the G4 was an OK processor in its day but my goodness. Its like time is standing still in Apple land.
I am being FORCED by Apple to use a machine that is THREE YEARS old. Because if I buy a new one, I only get a fractional performance boost. Its not worth upgrading. Whatever happened to Moores law?
Yes I know the G5 promised a lot. But for a lot of folks it failed to deliver. When is it going to reach 3GHz? - I think we will see an 8 processor Octomac first. And what about a G5 Powerbook? I think we will only see that when they can find a way from stopping it from melting its way down to the Earth's core.
What was Steve thinking? How could they reach this hair-brained decision? Don't they know that sticking with a geriatric CPU architecture makes this go-getting company look like a speedboat dragging a two ton anchor?
I cannot stomach it for a moment longer.
You know what I think? I think Apple should shift processors to something a bit better - even if it means a year of awkward transition.
Funny that that geriatric processor is besting IBMs best in many ways.
So far I've read a bunch of bleating but no real reason why the Intel transition is a bad thing.
Personally I look forward to quiet Macs that still have power. I look forward to more incremental processor upgrades. I look forward to Apple concentrating less on designing new hardware and more about optimizing their software.
I have struggled to deal with it, but I am at my wits end. Apple's insane decision has been something I have found harder and harder to deal with.
Other people seemed able to cope with this insane time-warp., but I cannot. It makes me sick to the stomach! Yes I know that the G4 was an OK processor in its day but my goodness. Its like time is standing still in Apple land.
I am being FORCED by Apple to use a machine that is THREE YEARS old. Because if I buy a new one, I only get a fractional performance boost. Its not worth upgrading. Whatever happened to Moores law?
Yes I know the G5 promised a lot. But for a lot of folks it failed to deliver. When is it going to reach 3GHz? - I think we will see an 8 processor Octomac first. And what about a G5 Powerbook? I think we will only see that when they can find a way from stopping it from melting its way down to the Earth's core.
What was Steve thinking? How could they reach this hair-brained decision? Don't they know that sticking with a geriatric CPU architecture makes this go-getting company look like a speedboat dragging a two ton anchor?
I cannot stomach it for a moment longer.
You know what I think? I think Apple should shift processors to something a bit better - even if it means a year of awkward transition.
Boo Hoo.
Carni
This comment makes no sense. The G5 represents a substantial performance boost over the G4. In no way is Apple "forcing" you to stick with a G4--or is it a G3? I have a 2003 model 2.0 GHz G5 at home. I am posting this response on a 2005 model 2.7 GHz G5. The performance boost of the new machine over my older G5 at home is also noticeable. It is one thing to keep an older machine because you can't afford to upgrade. That is fine and the older machine probably works great. But it is simply not correct to claim that the G5 is not worth the upgrade because its performance is not good enough.
i am on the concerned side of this argument. i do not consider myself computer savvy but am worried about what i've seen. over the past four years all of my roommates have used dell computers and almost all have had numerous computer problems, whereas my trusty G4 never had one. i am just worried that the mac architecture will become identical to that of the PCs and be susceptible to the same problems. also, after moving to intel are the macs going to lose their fit n' finish (both software and hardware) that put set them on another level and made them so easy and efficient to use. i hope the next computer i buy isn't some gaudy plastic matte black monstrosity. their uniqueness gave them an identity and i don't want them to lose that.
Beyond that, QA issues have to do with individual companies standards and again have nothing to do with the choice of processor vendor.
i know this. i am just saying that i hope this intel transition isn't the beginning of some new apathetic mentality, where apple is content to sit back and be part of the norm. i just hope they continue to push the envelope in terms of their design and remain distinctive.
ps. the virii info. was useful... didn't know that. thanks
i am just saying that i hope this intel transition isn't the beginning of some new apathetic mentality, where apple is content to sit back and be part of the norm.
Your worry has merit, looking at Apple's "far too comfortable" behaviour in the 90s. However, I have a feeling Jobs understands the problem far better these days.
i guess it's the os, because unless apple gets the faster processors first, how will apple maintain the differentiation to other computers??? first the os, then the design, features. what else is there??
Funny that that geriatric processor is besting IBMs best in many ways.
So far I've read a bunch of bleating but no real reason why the Intel transition is a bad thing.
Personally I look forward to quiet Macs that still have power. I look forward to more incremental processor upgrades. I look forward to Apple concentrating less on designing new hardware and more about optimizing their software.
Intel= goooooood
Right on. Processor independence IS A GOOD THING! If a great PPC chip is released in the future for servers, then Apple can use it. If a great Intel chip is released for laptops, then Apple can use it. This sets Apple up for a more flexible future and can only benefit us.
"And of course, all of the people (I don´t know them, of course) I´ve seen installing OS X X86 on their PCs"
Exactly--no one you know, but people you've seen on teh IntarWebs. When someone other than the .0001% ubernerds can make it happen, wake me up--and then I'll go back to sleep when the drivers don't function for shit.
Just the opposite, historically, Intel has never made a single good processor from 8086 to P4 if you know their internal architecture and make programs at assembly language level :-)
This comment makes no sense. The G5 represents a substantial performance boost over the G4. In no way is Apple "forcing" you to stick with a G4--or is it a G3? I have a 2003 model 2.0 GHz G5 at home. I am posting this response on a 2005 model 2.7 GHz G5. The performance boost of the new machine over my older G5 at home is also noticeable. It is one thing to keep an older machine because you can't afford to upgrade. That is fine and the older machine probably works great. But it is simply not correct to claim that the G5 is not worth the upgrade because its performance is not good enough.
My three year old Powerbook runs at 1GHz. After three long years the latest replacement model is still clocked at 1.67GHz. I should also mention that the new Powerbook is heavier and has less battery life.
The G4 processor is an anchor slowing down Apple's ability to offer its customers a credible portable computer.
Yes the G5 does indeed offer some performance benefits. But far fewer than were promised. It has failed to scale to more than 2.5GHz ( and needs liquid cooling to go faster) and failed to evolve into a portable solution. Once again the slow evolution of the processor architecture is holding back the ability for Apple to deliver.
Apple's software is leading the way in the industry. The hardware is trailing the pack and that is down to the processor.
For those that don't get sarcasm - I am saying that the transition is a good thing. Had Apple failed to act then THAT would have been a betrayal.
Comments
Originally posted by e1618978
I can no longer drive a Porsche - they switched to Nitchicon capacitors in the ECU computer! Just the thought of those nasty little buggers in there ruins the whole experience for me.
I think I would rather drive a Dodge than a Porsche with Nitchicon capacitors in the ECU. The Dodge uses the same capacitors, but at least I am not driving a tainted Porsche!
That was cold...
I like!
Originally posted by Robin Hood
Well in that case I have good news for you: you are wrong. Apple is not killing the Mac.
Hmmm...
"WTF is Apple doing going with processors from Big Blue"
My how quickly we forget or rather become acclimated. Most Mac users are on the platform because love the OS plain and simple. I couldn't give a rip about the processor as long as I'm getting the performance I need.
Intel's roadmap is looking as good as anyones and they have the cash to move from 65 to 45nm. This decision was smart by Apple.
I'm just glad we won't be moving to Netbust architecture. Bring on the dual core 4MB cache Conroe baby!!
Originally posted by hmurchison
People said the same thing when Apple moved to the PPC.
"WTF is Apple doing going with processors from Big Blue"
But then there was not the iPod, nor iTMS, nor iApps. It is not the move to Intel per se that makes me worry, it is Apple's own statement that they will do nothing to prevent people to install Windows on their Intel-Mac. Now Apple is not stupid to not realise the danger of doing so. That's why I see a plan behind this, but I don't know what is it. Macworld's analysts just gave their own and reasonable hint.
People need to read the writing on the wall. Virtualization is going to happen down to the I/O on your hardware. I see nothing wrong with running Linux, Vista and OS X at the same time all at 64-bit.
Apple has the fit and finish with their apps to attract anyone. With VM they get the compatibility they need yet they still keep their distinct Macness including industrial design.
I'm more jazzed about the platform than ever. What's Wintel giving you? OS X wannabe in Vista.
Macs have never been about the processor. Motorola was always behind. IBM made it more respectable but as THT says...they don't want to invest in PPC for desktop solutions. The costs are going to escalate as we march on to 45nm. Intel is the top dawg for the forseeable future.
Originally posted by Big Mac
AFAIK, no one responded to the PowerPC alliance like we're responding to this Intel switch. If Apple had switched from 68K to x86 a decade ago, you'd hear the same response you're hearing today. The implications of x86 are very serious, and I'm still not prepared to wear the rose colored glasses that would allow me to dismiss these concerns as trivial.
Dude...think of it as OS X supporting a new platform. If PPC gains ground and becomes the next best thing 5 years from now, Apple will already be ready for it.
Other people seemed able to cope with this insane time-warp., but I cannot. It makes me sick to the stomach! Yes I know that the G4 was an OK processor in its day but my goodness. Its like time is standing still in Apple land.
I am being FORCED by Apple to use a machine that is THREE YEARS old. Because if I buy a new one, I only get a fractional performance boost. Its not worth upgrading. Whatever happened to Moores law?
Yes I know the G5 promised a lot. But for a lot of folks it failed to deliver. When is it going to reach 3GHz? - I think we will see an 8 processor Octomac first. And what about a G5 Powerbook? I think we will only see that when they can find a way from stopping it from melting its way down to the Earth's core.
What was Steve thinking? How could they reach this hair-brained decision? Don't they know that sticking with a geriatric CPU architecture makes this go-getting company look like a speedboat dragging a two ton anchor?
I cannot stomach it for a moment longer.
You know what I think? I think Apple should shift processors to something a bit better - even if it means a year of awkward transition.
Boo Hoo.
Carni
So far I've read a bunch of bleating but no real reason why the Intel transition is a bad thing.
Personally I look forward to quiet Macs that still have power. I look forward to more incremental processor upgrades. I look forward to Apple concentrating less on designing new hardware and more about optimizing their software.
Intel= goooooood
Originally posted by Carniphage
I have struggled to deal with it, but I am at my wits end. Apple's insane decision has been something I have found harder and harder to deal with.
Other people seemed able to cope with this insane time-warp., but I cannot. It makes me sick to the stomach! Yes I know that the G4 was an OK processor in its day but my goodness. Its like time is standing still in Apple land.
I am being FORCED by Apple to use a machine that is THREE YEARS old. Because if I buy a new one, I only get a fractional performance boost. Its not worth upgrading. Whatever happened to Moores law?
Yes I know the G5 promised a lot. But for a lot of folks it failed to deliver. When is it going to reach 3GHz? - I think we will see an 8 processor Octomac first. And what about a G5 Powerbook? I think we will only see that when they can find a way from stopping it from melting its way down to the Earth's core.
What was Steve thinking? How could they reach this hair-brained decision? Don't they know that sticking with a geriatric CPU architecture makes this go-getting company look like a speedboat dragging a two ton anchor?
I cannot stomach it for a moment longer.
You know what I think? I think Apple should shift processors to something a bit better - even if it means a year of awkward transition.
Boo Hoo.
Carni
This comment makes no sense. The G5 represents a substantial performance boost over the G4. In no way is Apple "forcing" you to stick with a G4--or is it a G3? I have a 2003 model 2.0 GHz G5 at home. I am posting this response on a 2005 model 2.7 GHz G5. The performance boost of the new machine over my older G5 at home is also noticeable. It is one thing to keep an older machine because you can't afford to upgrade. That is fine and the older machine probably works great. But it is simply not correct to claim that the G5 is not worth the upgrade because its performance is not good enough.
sincerely,
a pessimist
Beyond that, QA issues have to do with individual companies standards and again have nothing to do with the choice of processor vendor.
Originally posted by Hiro
Beyond that, QA issues have to do with individual companies standards and again have nothing to do with the choice of processor vendor.
i know this. i am just saying that i hope this intel transition isn't the beginning of some new apathetic mentality, where apple is content to sit back and be part of the norm. i just hope they continue to push the envelope in terms of their design and remain distinctive.
ps. the virii info. was useful... didn't know that. thanks
Originally posted by jiggz
i am just saying that i hope this intel transition isn't the beginning of some new apathetic mentality, where apple is content to sit back and be part of the norm.
Your worry has merit, looking at Apple's "far too comfortable" behaviour in the 90s. However, I have a feeling Jobs understands the problem far better these days.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Funny that that geriatric processor is besting IBMs best in many ways.
So far I've read a bunch of bleating but no real reason why the Intel transition is a bad thing.
Personally I look forward to quiet Macs that still have power. I look forward to more incremental processor upgrades. I look forward to Apple concentrating less on designing new hardware and more about optimizing their software.
Intel= goooooood
Right on. Processor independence IS A GOOD THING! If a great PPC chip is released in the future for servers, then Apple can use it. If a great Intel chip is released for laptops, then Apple can use it. This sets Apple up for a more flexible future and can only benefit us.
"And of course, all of the people (I don´t know them, of course) I´ve seen installing OS X X86 on their PCs"
Exactly--no one you know, but people you've seen on teh IntarWebs. When someone other than the .0001% ubernerds can make it happen, wake me up--and then I'll go back to sleep when the drivers don't function for shit.
Just the opposite, historically, Intel has never made a single good processor from 8086 to P4 if you know their internal architecture and make programs at assembly language level :-)
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
Originally posted by Mr. Me
This comment makes no sense. The G5 represents a substantial performance boost over the G4. In no way is Apple "forcing" you to stick with a G4--or is it a G3? I have a 2003 model 2.0 GHz G5 at home. I am posting this response on a 2005 model 2.7 GHz G5. The performance boost of the new machine over my older G5 at home is also noticeable. It is one thing to keep an older machine because you can't afford to upgrade. That is fine and the older machine probably works great. But it is simply not correct to claim that the G5 is not worth the upgrade because its performance is not good enough.
My three year old Powerbook runs at 1GHz. After three long years the latest replacement model is still clocked at 1.67GHz. I should also mention that the new Powerbook is heavier and has less battery life.
The G4 processor is an anchor slowing down Apple's ability to offer its customers a credible portable computer.
Yes the G5 does indeed offer some performance benefits. But far fewer than were promised. It has failed to scale to more than 2.5GHz ( and needs liquid cooling to go faster) and failed to evolve into a portable solution. Once again the slow evolution of the processor architecture is holding back the ability for Apple to deliver.
Apple's software is leading the way in the industry. The hardware is trailing the pack and that is down to the processor.
For those that don't get sarcasm - I am saying that the transition is a good thing. Had Apple failed to act then THAT would have been a betrayal.
Carni