MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I agree it's the OS that's the main appeal of Mac computers, but I, for one, find Apple's cases and other gadgets inseparable from the appeal. For example, I would be bored stiff with OSX running on an ugly HP machine. I'm a very visual person, and I want my Porsche to the just the right color even if what's under the hood makes it all happen.

Those people who are still using Classic apps or feel reluctant to buy new versions of their apps will likely want to buy a PPC based Mac now, so they know they can still continue to use that software for a while. With the universal binaries, future software should continue to work too. Perhaps it's not even such a bad idea to buy a new Mac now!

Classic is not supported at all with the new systems so if you have that one Classic app you need on occassion and don't want to upgrade it (Quark), buy a new machine this year.

I am tired of people dissing the PowerPC. It did its job and would likely still be viable if Motorola and IBM had done their jobs properly. At several points in the PowerPC development cycle the PowerPC outclassed available products from AMD and Intel, particularly in power/performance metrics. That's why Apple's Powerbooks have been competitive despite using the older G4 processor. The G3 has proven to have staying power and the Xbox 360 and PS3 are both using PowerPC variants. To reiterate, the switch to Intel does not mean that the Apple 'lied' about the superiority of the PowerPC architecture. It just means that IBM did not provide the resources to adequately evolve the PowerPC. You might also note that Intel switched over to a PowerPC-like approach favoring power efficiency and dual cores over high clock rates.

MDN, you have to call people on their technical inaccuracies. Statements like this are just another way of backhanding Apple and Apple users with another derogatory label.

The only issue I have with this whole move is the way that Apple has played on the strengths of RISC over CISC architecture: we were sold the benefits of the IBM PowerPC chips, now we have to accept that Intel chips are the future. I'm struggling big time with this. And hasn't IBM produced 3GHz+ chips for the 3 big console? Why haven't they made it to the Mac? Maybe Apple really is too small for IBM to care about.

In the long run, I'm sure that the switch to Intel will be a good thing for Apple. Steve Jobs does not move anytime an 'analyst' says he should: he seems to take ages with the big decisions, and they usually turn out to be the right ones. I believe he's made a right decision this time too.

But at the moment, all I can see is that damn Intel Jingle turning up everytime the Mac is mentioned, and I can't stand that thing!

The Macs sporting Intel chips won't physically look any different than Macs look now. Why are people thinking that Macs from now on will look like the Wintel boxes? The processor does not drive the exterior box design. Macs will still be Macs. Universal binaries and Rosetta are going to make this transition a lot smoother than the doomsday naysayers are letting on. Apple has been working on this transition for 5 years- it was not an overnight decision. The knee-jerk responses around here are actually starting to be amusing because it points out how little people understand about Apple and the culture of Mac.

To the "It's the OS crowd"

That's fine, but when all is said & done next year, where is their any evidence that the Intel Macs will be substantially faster than the dual G5 2.7's today?

Why didn't Stevie do a side by side on how much FASTER the 32bit Intel P4 3.6 running his demo is compared to, say a dual 64bit G5 2.7?

The answer is because it's NOT. All of this hassle, expense, & bloat to run on a new platform that was not shown to be ANY faster. What happens to all the music apps (Apple Logic Pro included) that are heavily tied to Altivec optimizations? They'll just magically get faster without it? Pfft.

I watched a keynote today in which there was no evidence presented of any Mac hardware or software speed increases for the next few years.

Skip the MS-like promises, SHOW me how much faster/better OSX runs on the Intel architecture relative to the G5's, THEN I'll believe.

Dvorak is such a tool.

Ricardo remember in Steve's Keynote where he emphasized power consumption? It's all about laptops - which is where the computer industry is going.

I don't put any stock into what this windbag says. He takes every opportunity he can to bash the platform, about which he really knows nothing. He has utter contempt for Mac users, because he doesn't get it why people love it so much, therefore we must all be cultist idiots. Truth is, he's been ridiculed so many times by Mac users for his short sightedness and innacuracies that bashing the plafrom and trying to help it's demise is his revenge.

And yes, it's the OS stupid.

"I watched a keynote today in which there was no evidence presented of any Mac hardware or software speed increases for the next few years."

Don't beleive it. Apple wouldn't be doing this if there wasnt a good reason froma hardware sandpoint. There is. It's about laptops. The G5 was never going to make it into a laptop plain and simple. Intel must have shown Steve something that was compelling enough to make this huge gamble.

For all the naysayers I say wait and see.

i think this is going to make a lot of people realize that the mystique is not in the processor, it is in the operating system and the industrial design of the container. people are going to start asking microsoft why they can't build operating systems as well as apple, after all, they are running on the same machines. and people are going to start wondering why dell, et al. can't build better looking and more reliable computers, after all, apple can do it with the same processor, drives, etc.

At least the move to Intel will kill one 'complaint' about Apple computers. The damned megahertz myth. We'll soon all be on Intel chips so they can't say that its not as fast as an Intel Pentium 4 whatever chip!!


Christopher Powers


p.s. I also hope this makes porting games a lot easier...

Well, won't the megahertz myth be working for apple this time?

Joe Blow: "Whoa, those macs are on a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4! That's like, a lot faster than those 2.7 GHz G5s!"

Don't forget that what Steve was showing on the keynote is just a developer kit. This is basically the same as the Power Mac G5 developer kits that Microsoft used for the Xbox360. When compared to the Xbox360, the Mac G5 posssses only a fraction of the (graphics processing) power that the final product (Xbox360) will contain. I suspect that the same holds true for Intel. The Pentium 4 is almost at the end of its lifecycle. I don't think Steve was interested in that when he visited Intel. Much more likely, Intel is developing something that caught Apple's eye. Remember, they are going to introduce Macs based on intel chips in 2006-2007. If the wanted to use the Pentium 4, they could have released them tomorrow. Also Steve said that the roadmap of Intel would be a better fit to Apple than the roadmaps of other chipmanufacturers. IBM is apparently more interesed in developing a single design for mass market applications (gaming consoles) that does not change in design or clock speed in the chip's lifespan, whereas Freescale is mostly interested in embedded products. Both of these do not fit Apple. What Intel is building however, is as of yet unknown. I wonder if Intel is going to be as secretive about its products as previous Apple suppliers.

It is the OS... plus, of course, the quality of the hardware that runs it. This is the best thing Apple could have done, we are going to see some great PowerBooks/iBooks next year! Not to mention desktops, etc.

Hmmm... wonder if if I could get an add-on card for my Pismo based on Intel? Who knows, maybe...

About 5%. Worth giving up.

It's the OS and the inovation that keeps people with Macs. It's the ease of use that keeps people with Macs. Sure Windows is a graphical user interface but it is still clunky and easily breakable. Try moving and application from the applications folder on a PC and see what happens compared to a Mac which will still work fine. That's what people like about Apple's products. There made for people instead of for engineers or other computers. Sometimes it's the little things that Apple does that makes the difference.

The Power PC chip is awesome. The companies making them are not awesome. It's not Apple's or Power PC's fault. It's IBM's and Motorola's fault. Period.

"That's what these people will never be able to grasp, it seems; it's not pretty cases or exotic processors, it's the OS, stupid. But, you have to really use one to understand."

Wow, all of a sudden MDN is the enlightened one and everyone else is the idiot. He knows the processor doesn't matter despite the fact he was singing the chorus of why Apple wouldn't go to Intel not to long ago.

Way to play both sides MDN

I'm still struggling with this. I keep telling myself that it would okay, Intel isn't as bad as Microsoft and actually I have admired Intel's embrace of Linux, which made me see the company in a different light. It's still hard to swallow the BIG pill and know that PowerPC, which was an important part of the Mac design will now be gone.

One question for all of you; Do you think Intel will neglect Apple the same way IBM did? Apple is still small fry in regards to Intel and their revenue stream.

@ ricardo:

Intel's Pentium Extreme Edition is dual core, 3.2 GHz and hyperthreaded as well DDR2 as of today.

So, by the time high-end Macs make the move to Intel, can you honestly tell me that with chips that might well be 65nm, running at over 4 GHz and mated to Leopard that a dual 2.7GHz Mac will not seem like a distant memory.

Seriously, what you're doing now is the flip-reverse of what Microsofties do when they compare Tiger to Longhorn, when they should be comparing it to XP which is what they have now.

In two and a bit years, Intel (and one would hope IBM) would be a long way from where we are today, the difference being that Intel seemingly wanted to fight for Apple's business and IBM wanted to go off and power games consoles.

And let's be honest, we still don't know whether Apple might have some strange trick up its sleeve. Imagine a Cell processor being used in much the same way that the Quadras used to use Moto's 56001 - it probably won't happen, but if it did…

As a long time Mac user, I'm a little stung by the change. However, the more I think about it, the more benefits I see. The PPC didn't work out not because of the chip, but the chip makers. There are very few people willing or able to make quality PPC chips for Macs. However, when Macs start using x86 chips, then there will be more options for them in terms of chip-makers. Moreover, Mac's chips won't be custom-made...they will be the same as Wintels use, and will always have the option of going with superior x86 chips from elsewhere. In this sense, it is a very smart move by Apple.

I also have to agree with Dvorak *shudder* that the heathy sales of iPods and iTunes music (with movies coming?) make it a good time to do this. Mac sales will certainly slump, and the media products will prop them up through the transition.

I'm also willing to bet we will finally start seeing massive advertising sometime next year. This MUST be what Apple has been waiting on.

I said this in another forum and I will repeat it again since you people seem to be so ignorant of Apple's product line. The Mac mini si 32 bit!!!!!!!!!!! So the initial switch to intel which will be in the mac mini will have nothing to do with Apple's move to 64 bit with the G5's. Heck even the powerbooks are 32 bit!!!!!!!!!! When they move the G5's to intel later in the transition they will be 64 bit.

Oh, now all of a sudden the chip wasn't important at all.

Gawd, what a pathetic turncoat thing to say.

PPC was a big part of the MacZealot argumentation. But now that Jobs has dumped it, the fanboys are stumbling over eachother in their hurry to deny it. I bet that last friday, half of them were still screaming that it could not be true and that they'd never buy a Mac with Intel Inside.

Oh well, it's sad, but who cares. It's only natural that no one wants to be on the losing side. Welcome to the former dark side, boys. Glad Steve has seen the light and that you sheep are following him no matter what.

All your OS are belong to us

Baa-aa!

PPC was a big part of the MacZealot argumentation. But now that Jobs has dumped it, the fanboys are stumbling over eachother in their hurry to deny it. I bet that last friday, half of them were still screaming that it could not be true and that they'd never buy a Mac with Intel Inside.

PowerPC is not dead you fool! Lets think about this; When the rumors came out that the next generation Microsoft Xbox would be using PowerPC rather than Intel, you Wintel freaks were in denial, even after IBM made an announcement that they and Microsoft had a contractual agreement. Of course the first rational explanation you zealots came up with was that AMD would be the chosen one for the new Xbox and that since AMD and IBM are partners, that the mysterious Athlons (for the Xbox) would be fabbed at IBMs CPU generating plants. You Wintel freaks denied the thought of PowerPC going inside and XBox all the way until it became official and the specifications were released to the public.

I am pretty sure in the Windows world the impact of the chip in the XBOx is much much much smaller then Apple going to Intel. Comparing the two alsmot seems silly.

For Apple users, such as myself, much has changed on the Mac landscape. Let's not start comparing our outstanding computer to a gaming console. That is just sad.

Fact is all the Mac Zealots, many of which are hiding in teh shadows since yesterday got it dead wrong. Period! Our stories and arguments will have to change. We WILL seem hypocritical. Deal with it!

MDN seems to be, he is just changing his story as events unfold.

I am pretty sure in the Windows world the impact of the chip in the XBOx is much much much smaller then Apple going to Intel. Comparing the two alsmot seems silly.

If you browse through the various forums around the Xbox centric sites relating to the PowerPC move, you wouldn't think that. Like I said, most thought that AMD would have been the successor because they had assumed since the original Xbox was Intel-based, it would be easier to go with AMD than PowerPC. And since IBM and AMD have partnered up in regards semiconductor technology, it seem to make sense for those who hated the idea of the Xbox being powered by a CPU made by IBM (PowerPC).

Eh?!

The chip is important only in as much as it needs to progress over time.

In other words, The Intel chip that Apple actually puts into the first high-end Power Macintosh will be quicker than the chip in the development machines, and will also be faster than the 2.7GHz single-core DDR-based chips that they're using today.

If Intel alters its architectural philosophy to match PowerPC, then the only key differentiator is SSE versus Altivec, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the version of SSE that ships in two years time will have Apple-inspired instructions implemented so who knows what the reality of the first commercial Mactel systems will be.

Why didn't Stevie do a side by side on how much FASTER the 32bit Intel P4 3.6 running his demo is compared to, say a dual 64bit G5 2.7?

The answer is because it's NOT. All of this hassle, expense, & bloat to run on a new platform that was not shown to be ANY faster. What happens to all the music apps (Apple Logic Pro included) that are heavily tied to Altivec optimizations? They'll just magically get faster without it? Pfft.

Ah, you might want to retract that pffft.. those apps were being reformatted for Intel chips using Rosetta, on the fly.

So watching SJ use that 3.6 on the Keynote was actually slower than it will be when all the Apps are redone.

Why do a side-by-side when the Intel is clearly crippled? What.. I guess you missed the whole 'we'll help [the devs] make the switch and you've got a lot of time to do it...even if you don't do it, here's Rosetta that does conversion on the fly'

I am a new Mac user (coming from Windows) and was absolutely enjoying the "Mac mystique" as they put it ..
My XP laptop is lying in the dust ever since the new iMac G5 came ( a month back) ..

Sad, Jobs went with Intel .. but I agree that its really the OS that makes all the difference. Mac OS X is "UNIX", which speaks a name for itself and makes all the difference. Also, not to forget, the GUI of Mac OS X is light years ahead of whatever windows has to offer today.

With "universal binaries" round the corner, I plan to stick with my PPC G5 (with 1 GB RAM) for some years to come even as Apple makes its third transition from PPC to Intel.