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.
As the GHz cannot increase forever, the wire therefore the transistors and the CPU cannot shrink infinitely, since both high frequency and tiny wire generate heat. Companies seem to have reached the 'high' end, in a foreseen future, they are going to reach the 'low' limit even sooner. Excellent architecture and clever programming will really shine by that time. Switch back (waste of ... for nothing) or stick behind?
What an utterly stupid, pathetic. lame and childish thread this is. Its like a support group for 14 year old retards. I.e somebody who can't get on with his life because of the name on the processor in his computer. WTF!!!???
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
You are not talking about the work that you can do with your computer. You are whining about numbers on a specification sheet. I don't worry about a p1$$1ng contests with Windows-using dweebs over whose are the largest. I use my computers everyday to get work done. I am lucky that I only have to use Macs. They are my tools, which allow me to be my most productive. My ego is not all tied-up in my computers.
I can understand some of the comments that are being made here, especially since it would feel that we are switching to the Dark Side of things. Hell, even I was not too great about the transition when it was first announced. However, after reading some of the things here, and my experiences in the Linux/FreeBSD side of things, I have come to a couple of conclusions:
1) Processor Independence. There is NO OS out there that has achieved Processor Independence to the scale that Apple is going for. This gives the company the capacity of being able to use either processor for a number of different scenerios.
2) Scaliability. This to me is the big one. As many of the posters here have heard from their Windows counterparts, "Macs aren't as good because they are not as fast." We have tried to dispel the Megahertz Myth for so long, and have had ZERO success with it (ok, maybe some of you have, but I haven't ). So, by accepting the Intel archeticture, we are now on the same level as the rest of the Industry, and also removing the whole speed arguement against Macs.
3) Windows Integration. No, I do not mean installing Windows on your Mac. I think the whole idea is just perposturous. However have an emulation layer that can accept Windows calls will be (more than likely) developed. However, that is not what I mean. Windows users are tired of Viruses of any sort. Viruses are NOT tied to archeticture, but tied to the OS itself (as mentioned by Hiro and others). Once the IntelMacs hit the street, and are in greater numbers; I see Apple doing the unthinkable: Going Head-to-Head with Microsoft Windows. Here is where the integration happens, have an OS that automatically detects all of your mail, documents and what not, and installs over your old OS to the new and shiny MacOS. This will allow greater acceptance, and a huge switcher turnout.
Anyways, that is all I have to say for right now, more to come later.
You are not talking about the work that you can do with your computer. You are whining about numbers on a specification sheet. I don't worry about a p1$$1ng contests with Windows-using dweebs over whose are the largest. I use my computers everyday to get work done. I am lucky that I only have to use Macs. They are my tools, which allow me to be my most productive. My ego is not all tied-up in my computers.
I'll do some more whining for you.
I don't care two hoots for MHz or for geek numbers. All I care about is what I can do with my Mac. And I can do an awful lot. It's great for a whole bunch of stuff. In fact it is so great that I am not in the least little bit inclined to upgrade. And that IS THE PROBLEM for Apple.
There are two things I want to do with my Powerbook that it cannot manage.
1) Run a 3d package. Lightwave, Maya (XSI I wish)
2) Run compositing software.
My Powerbook can do this, but its utterly sluggish. So sluggish that it isn't worth it. Can I upgrade my Powerbook? Yes but it'll only get fractionally faster. There isn't enough power in my PowerBook.
Now if the CPU were on par with a Centrino - or even a dual Centrino - now that would be worth the price upgrade.
Roughly fifty percent of the CPUs that Apple sells are laptops.
These laptops have the world's best OS. They have amazing applications. They have tremendous industrial design. They are probably the best hardware of their kind. They are insanely great except for one thing - in terms of CPU horsepower they are on a par with much older PCs that are already in the bargain bins.
That's just embarrassing for someone like Jobs who wants everything to be great.
So once again. I cannot stomach the idea of NOT making the transition.
if you can (let's just speculate for a minute) install OSX and Vista on the same Mac (or maybe PC) and viruses are tied to the OS, then what happens if you contract a windows virus that wipes your hard disk? does that also get rid of OSX as well?
This move was inevitable. There are not enough of us to justify hardware development or software optimization. There was a time where the PowerPC could have supplanted x86 as the dominant hardware but elitism and Apple's "me me me" attitude towards other companies killed that.
I only have to remember the 3 months with no iMac available to buy before the G5 iMac came out to understand Apple's switch. This was after a long list of frustrations from IBM and Moto. Remember the "3 gigs in a year"? Steve J said it and then an IBM VP walked on stage and said the same thing. Apple was planning on a power road map and kept getting hit with bumpy roads that went no where.
You were given a "sneak preview" of Apple's frustrations when Steve J said that OS X was running on a Mactel from Day One. Also that all Apple apps are running on Mactels as well as PPCs. Wisest insurance that Apple ever took out.
Combine the delivery failures from Moto and IBM with the fact that OS X and apps were Mactel ready and the decision becomes clearer, and a lot more understandable.
I have no doubts that there will be a lot of geeks trying to get production copies of OS X to run on a PC, but I think it will be very difficult and probably rather expensive. These boxes, if they are made, will have to be self supporting in terms of customer service and that means reinstalling OS X as often as one has to reinstall XP.
I do think that the Mactels are going to be impressive. (Has anyone compared the speed of a Mactel with a PC to see the difference in speed?) There is also going to be a lot of engineering & design work going into the Mactels, making Dells look pretty lame in their appearance. I'm looking forward to some pretty exciting products the first half of next year and will not worry about the name on the processor.
That won't be much of a problem for Apple who's going to be starving a leopard for the next year.
Good one. But if I was a leopard, I would never underestimate horns like those in this page .
Seriously though, I find it very tough for Apple to go head-to-head with Microsoft. The power of a monopoly like this is too big for a company like Apple. Perhaps Windows has all its problems with viruses and the like, legacy support, successfully turning easy things into troublesome ones etc, but if Microsoft and Apple run their horses on the same computer, I doubt that anyone here can predict what will happen in some years thereafter.
Seriously though, I find it very tough for Apple to go head-to-head with Microsoft. The power of a monopoly like this is too big for a company like Apple. Perhaps Windows has all its problems with viruses and the like, legacy support, successfully turning easy things into troublesome ones etc, but if Microsoft and Apple run their horses on the same computer, I doubt that anyone here can predict what will happen in some years thereafter.
That is the whole point here. I think that after a year, maybe two, they will have enough mindshare to where they will say that their OS can be bought, and ran on any PC that meets "n" requirements. Apple isn't there... YET, and that may be their big thing that they are going for.
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
If you are a slave to the kings english interpretation of how to apply plural forms to a dead language, yes. But being the original language is dead it's rules are a bit up for grabs. And dictionaries are repositories for past patterns of usage, not keepers of a standard, so if you know what I meant, then it worked didn't it! And isn't that what communications all about???
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
"And then soaps dropped and I saw a bunch of anii."
And then there appeared many genii and we all went poof(t)! Speaking of the kings english (hint, hint)
BTW, the link in one of the early replies in this thread, http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/11/i...u-to-wine.html led me here, http://advogato.org/article/860.html , where I read, "With VT (which is in Intel's Yonah cpu's which will be due out in time for the first round of Intel based Apple's) forget dual boot. You will be able to run OSX & Windows (or linux or whatever) in parallel simultaneously on the same machine. This is huge! This means that your next PC purchase can be an Apple, so you can use the stupid tools work MAKES you use, but you can use OSX for everything you want to use, so you can get shit DONE. This is a much cooler demo than Xen running Linux & plan9 running together, because really - who cares about those if you're a consumer?
But consumers know Mac, consumers know Windows. Consumers will see them both running together and start to think "Can I do that with my Dell?" The answer will be NO (not legally , but buy an Apple and you're good to go.
What about Palladium when the Macs get switched. I was happy that this kind of stupid behaviour control was not implemented on my platform of choice but now that Apple is switching to Intel?
What about Palladium when the Macs get switched. I was happy that this kind of stupid behaviour control was not implemented on my platform of choice but now that Apple is switching to Intel?
You can bet that they will get something like that. The clear signs that Apple is slowly moving to an online movie service are not unrelated to the Intel switch, IMO. It is the whole technological package that is attractive for Apple, not only the CPUs.
Comments
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.
As the GHz cannot increase forever, the wire therefore the transistors and the CPU cannot shrink infinitely, since both high frequency and tiny wire generate heat. Companies seem to have reached the 'high' end, in a foreseen future, they are going to reach the 'low' limit even sooner. Excellent architecture and clever programming will really shine by that time. Switch back (waste of ... for nothing) or stick behind?
Originally posted by mugwump
The plural of virus is viruses.
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
"And then soaps dropped and I saw a bunch of anii."
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Originally posted by mugwump
The plural of virus is viruses.
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
"And then soaps dropped and I saw a bunch of anii."
Quote of the year!
Originally posted by Carniphage
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
You are not talking about the work that you can do with your computer. You are whining about numbers on a specification sheet. I don't worry about a p1$$1ng contests with Windows-using dweebs over whose are the largest. I use my computers everyday to get work done. I am lucky that I only have to use Macs. They are my tools, which allow me to be my most productive. My ego is not all tied-up in my computers.
1) Processor Independence. There is NO OS out there that has achieved Processor Independence to the scale that Apple is going for. This gives the company the capacity of being able to use either processor for a number of different scenerios.
2) Scaliability. This to me is the big one. As many of the posters here have heard from their Windows counterparts, "Macs aren't as good because they are not as fast." We have tried to dispel the Megahertz Myth for so long, and have had ZERO success with it (ok, maybe some of you have, but I haven't
3) Windows Integration. No, I do not mean installing Windows on your Mac. I think the whole idea is just perposturous. However have an emulation layer that can accept Windows calls will be (more than likely) developed. However, that is not what I mean. Windows users are tired of Viruses of any sort. Viruses are NOT tied to archeticture, but tied to the OS itself (as mentioned by Hiro and others). Once the IntelMacs hit the street, and are in greater numbers; I see Apple doing the unthinkable: Going Head-to-Head with Microsoft Windows. Here is where the integration happens, have an OS that automatically detects all of your mail, documents and what not, and installs over your old OS to the new and shiny MacOS. This will allow greater acceptance, and a huge switcher turnout.
Anyways, that is all I have to say for right now, more to come later.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You are not talking about the work that you can do with your computer. You are whining about numbers on a specification sheet. I don't worry about a p1$$1ng contests with Windows-using dweebs over whose are the largest. I use my computers everyday to get work done. I am lucky that I only have to use Macs. They are my tools, which allow me to be my most productive. My ego is not all tied-up in my computers.
I'll do some more whining for you.
I don't care two hoots for MHz or for geek numbers. All I care about is what I can do with my Mac. And I can do an awful lot. It's great for a whole bunch of stuff. In fact it is so great that I am not in the least little bit inclined to upgrade. And that IS THE PROBLEM for Apple.
There are two things I want to do with my Powerbook that it cannot manage.
1) Run a 3d package. Lightwave, Maya (XSI I wish)
2) Run compositing software.
My Powerbook can do this, but its utterly sluggish. So sluggish that it isn't worth it. Can I upgrade my Powerbook? Yes but it'll only get fractionally faster. There isn't enough power in my PowerBook.
Now if the CPU were on par with a Centrino - or even a dual Centrino - now that would be worth the price upgrade.
Roughly fifty percent of the CPUs that Apple sells are laptops.
These laptops have the world's best OS. They have amazing applications. They have tremendous industrial design. They are probably the best hardware of their kind. They are insanely great except for one thing - in terms of CPU horsepower they are on a par with much older PCs that are already in the bargain bins.
That's just embarrassing for someone like Jobs who wants everything to be great.
So once again. I cannot stomach the idea of NOT making the transition.
What would happen without the transition?
Carni
Originally posted by Mr. Me
... However, all evidence to date indicates that Intel-based Macs will not be built on a published open standard.
All evidence to date indicates that they will. There is nothing proprietary about the developer systems, and that's the only evidence there is.
This whole transition is about changing to commodity hardware. Apple's software, Mac OS X, will become the focus of the community, as it should be.
In any industry, with maturity comes commoditization. Hardware is mature. Software, evidently, is not - at least in Apple's and Microsoft's eyes.
if you can (let's just speculate for a minute) install OSX and Vista on the same Mac (or maybe PC) and viruses are tied to the OS, then what happens if you contract a windows virus that wipes your hard disk? does that also get rid of OSX as well?
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Once the IntelMacs hit the street, and are in greater numbers; I see Apple doing the unthinkable: Going Head-to-Head with Microsoft Windows.
A word of warning though: I hear lately that Microsoft got some long horns on its head...
Originally posted by PB
A word of warning though: I hear lately that Microsoft got some long horns on its head...
That won't be much of a problem for Apple who's going to be starving a leopard for the next year.
You were given a "sneak preview" of Apple's frustrations when Steve J said that OS X was running on a Mactel from Day One. Also that all Apple apps are running on Mactels as well as PPCs. Wisest insurance that Apple ever took out.
Combine the delivery failures from Moto and IBM with the fact that OS X and apps were Mactel ready and the decision becomes clearer, and a lot more understandable.
I have no doubts that there will be a lot of geeks trying to get production copies of OS X to run on a PC, but I think it will be very difficult and probably rather expensive. These boxes, if they are made, will have to be self supporting in terms of customer service and that means reinstalling OS X as often as one has to reinstall XP.
I do think that the Mactels are going to be impressive. (Has anyone compared the speed of a Mactel with a PC to see the difference in speed?) There is also going to be a lot of engineering & design work going into the Mactels, making Dells look pretty lame in their appearance. I'm looking forward to some pretty exciting products the first half of next year and will not worry about the name on the processor.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
That won't be much of a problem for Apple who's going to be starving a leopard for the next year.
Good one. But if I was a leopard, I would never underestimate horns like those in this page
Seriously though, I find it very tough for Apple to go head-to-head with Microsoft. The power of a monopoly like this is too big for a company like Apple. Perhaps Windows has all its problems with viruses and the like, legacy support, successfully turning easy things into troublesome ones etc, but if Microsoft and Apple run their horses on the same computer, I doubt that anyone here can predict what will happen in some years thereafter.
Originally posted by PB
Seriously though, I find it very tough for Apple to go head-to-head with Microsoft. The power of a monopoly like this is too big for a company like Apple. Perhaps Windows has all its problems with viruses and the like, legacy support, successfully turning easy things into troublesome ones etc, but if Microsoft and Apple run their horses on the same computer, I doubt that anyone here can predict what will happen in some years thereafter.
That is the whole point here. I think that after a year, maybe two, they will have enough mindshare to where they will say that their OS can be bought, and ran on any PC that meets "n" requirements. Apple isn't there... YET, and that may be their big thing that they are going for.
Originally posted by mugwump
The plural of virus is viruses.
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
If you are a slave to the kings english interpretation of how to apply plural forms to a dead language, yes. But being the original language is dead it's rules are a bit up for grabs. And dictionaries are repositories for past patterns of usage, not keepers of a standard, so if you know what I meant, then it worked didn't it! And isn't that what communications all about???
Originally posted by kim kap sol
"And then soaps dropped and I saw a bunch of anii."
<shakes head> <smiling>
Originally posted by PB
The plural of virus is viruses.
"I went to the showers and I saw a bunch of penii ???"
"And then soaps dropped and I saw a bunch of anii."
And then there appeared many genii and we all went poof(t)! Speaking of the kings english (hint, hint)
BTW, the link in one of the early replies in this thread, http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/11/i...u-to-wine.html led me here, http://advogato.org/article/860.html , where I read, "With VT (which is in Intel's Yonah cpu's which will be due out in time for the first round of Intel based Apple's) forget dual boot. You will be able to run OSX & Windows (or linux or whatever) in parallel simultaneously on the same machine. This is huge! This means that your next PC purchase can be an Apple, so you can use the stupid tools work MAKES you use, but you can use OSX for everything you want to use, so you can get shit DONE. This is a much cooler demo than Xen running Linux & plan9 running together, because really - who cares about those if you're a consumer?
But consumers know Mac, consumers know Windows. Consumers will see them both running together and start to think "Can I do that with my Dell?" The answer will be NO (not legally
Originally posted by kroehl
What about Palladium when the Macs get switched. I was happy that this kind of stupid behaviour control was not implemented on my platform of choice but now that Apple is switching to Intel?
You can bet that they will get something like that. The clear signs that Apple is slowly moving to an online movie service are not unrelated to the Intel switch, IMO. It is the whole technological package that is attractive for Apple, not only the CPUs.