Analysts at UBS maintain their “buy” rating on Apple Computer Inc. with their target price set to $54.
“In a research note published this morning, the analysts mention that the company intends to commence the shipment of Mac with Intel processors within one year. End-users are unlikely to witness a significant difference between Apple Computer’s transition to Intel processors and the company’s other hardware upgrades, the analysts say,” newratings.com reports.
Full article here.
Apple’s offer to open NFC in iPhone to rivals is set to be approved by EU antitrust regulators as soon as next month after it tweaked some…
Apple’s Phone 17 Plus will come with a smaller screen than the 6.7-inch display on the current-generation iPhone 15 Plus…
Taffy Brodesser-Akner, will re-team with Susannah Grant and Sarah Timberman to develop “Long Island Compromise” for Apple TV+ with…
The NBA’s exclusive negotiating window with incumbent media partners Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery will likely pass without a deal…
As Apple and other global tech firms to look beyond China to secure their supply chains, cut costs, and open up new markets, Apple is…
“…unlikely to witness a significant difference…”
…except for some performance gains, that is.
Apple was already suffering from performance gains using the G5 processor.
The performance gain of 3ghz never materialized 2 years later.
How do you know what they will be using in a year or two with Intel?
I bet it will be better than would the have stuck with IBM.
“Users won’t notice a difference” ? Only if there is support for Classic and Altivec in Rosetta so that my current programs don’t crash.
Yeah right, cuz you ALL previously talked up how much better P4’s were than the 64 bit G5’s.
Out of the IBM pot and into the Intel fire.
When Apple was compiling Mac OS X on x86 for the last 5 years, where were all these “experts” and “analysts” then?
Now that the cat is out of the bag (despite all the crow eating nay sayers), once again all the usual suspects are back with their precious “analysis”. Maybe they should keep their sys in their anal where it belongs.
Rock on Steve!
Wow, a “Buy” rating on Apple.
Duh!
Fire… bad. Change… bad, too. Hate…, hate…, spew…, spew….
Must…judge…prematurely…
Must be negativo… or… else…
Can’t… be… emotionally… detached…
(insert barfing noise here)
Best. Hate. Ever.
AAPL’s off more than a 1.30 today in contrast w/ the indexes.
Draw your own conclusions.
They will have to do extra work. And then make extra money when more people are buying their stuff.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Let us just say goodbye to OS 9 and the Classic yuck, it had its time but we are 5 years later now, time to let it go. Thank god Tiger marked the end of Classic installs by default.
Let it go people!
People are scared of change which is why the stock is off. Seriously, most of the analyst reports of what Intel in a Mac means are full of it. Read the comments on this site and you can see all of the confusion (much of it would be aleviated if folks actually watched the keynot speech). Sure, there is a secretive nature about Apple, but it would have been with PPC, too. I’d love to see how far off the stock would be if Apple hadn’t hedged its bets with x86 binaries of OS X long ago…
Frankly, I now see why Apple was clamping down on rumors. They really wanted to deliver this message themselves.
My big question is Rosetta – did Apple license Transitive’s emulator? Is the demo machine Steve used during the keynot really a quad-CPU pentium box? If so, Rosetta isn’t the panacea it is made out to be.
This all about the future, not the current.
Dearest “Intel Sucks,”
Re “Yeah right, cuz you ALL previously talked up how much better P4’s were than the 64 bit G5’s.“
As a matter of fact, the current batch of Pentiums ARE slower than the current batch of G5s for most processor-intensive tasks (which, not coincidentally, are mostly vectorizable and parallelizable). The reason for this processor switch, however, is that the FUTURE ROADMAP for Intel’s processor is better than that of IBM’s.
Apple’s management is not stupid. They have been maintaining x86 compatibility, and waiting to see whether PowerPC could maintain its performance advantage. It has held up until now (and if rumors are correct) into the next several months. Within a year though, x86 will be much faster on laptops (and other low-power designs) than PowerPC.
Re “Yeah right, cuz you ALL previously talked up how much better P4’s were than the 64 bit G5’s.”
Jobs didn’t slam the current offerings, he slammed the next 10 years of IBM offerings.. the road map..
“Let us just say goodbye to OS 9 and the Classic yuck, it had its time but we are 5 years later now, time to let it go. Thank god Tiger marked the end of Classic installs by default.”
I second that! I mean, come on, Apple released Tiger without Classic installed by default. And no one bitched about Apple somehow disrepectin’ Mac users for having them jump through hoops and install Classic manually. Hello! Tiger can’t run Classic apps by default!
And now we have yet another incessent whine that someone losing Classic support entirely in an Intel Mac will result in complete computer paralysis and productivity will suffer a major blow. Get real. Classic is so yesterday and good riddance. It was fun while it lasted, but thank God OS X is where it’s at.
“Jobs didn’t slam the current offerings, he slammed the next 10 years of IBM offerings.. the road map..”
Not only did Jobs didn’t slam the current offerings, he alluded to a couple of great PowerPC products yet to come.
So to those who suddenly think that the switch to Intel is an admission that PowerPC is a poor performer, wake up and listen! PowerPC is still an awesome performer today, and will continue to be very competitive for the next 9 months or so (can any other computer maker claim to have a 1.35 GHz FSB like the high-end PowerMac does?), the problem is that performance flat-lines in 2006.
PowerPC is still a great architecture, but with IBM developing new chips for Sony, Microsoft, AND Nintendo, Apple was unable to get IBM to pay attention and actually develop a chip that can compete with Intel’s best in 2006. And when talking about a roadmap, IBM was like, “Whuh? Whatever do you need a roadmap for? I guarantee we can deliver 3.0 GHz by 2007!”
Sad, but true. PowerPC can still kick Intel butt today. The problem is Intel will be kicking sand in IBM’s face in 2006, 2007, 2008, and on and on.
Ok. Yesterday I ate crow for my optimism that Apple wouldn’t be foolish.
Now I express my anger. I own approximately $2600 worth of high-end audio signal processing software that is reliant on the AltiVec capabilities of the superior PowerPC processor. These are 3-D room simulating reverbs and extremely processor-efficient plugins for MOTU Digital Performer. Rosetta can’t touch these.
I will not be repurchasing this software. I already did for OSX. Nor will I make any additional purchases of Apple computers for the foreseeable future. And I have divested my stock, as the next two years will return the famed “Beleaguered” label back to Apple. Here come the layoffs and ugly red ink.
I cannot recommend that anyone buy a Mac at this time, despite the all the happy “universal binaries” spin.
Too bad. Just when I could truly brag-up Apple, they shoot themselves in the foot and embrace 32-bit, backwards technology. “Roadmap” my ass. This is a been-there-already roadmap. I was relying on new trails being blazed (like Apple always had done up until now).
Wow, Informed, you know all that from reading the posts or is it just from cereal boxes? Come on, you really think that Apple will just abandon the people that got them where they are and that the processor is the key? It’s the OS, stupid!
You really think that if Apple went with the next generation of PowerPC that you’re software would be optimized to run on it? It’s a given that with every processor upgrade you’ll need to upgrade your software to benefit from the new processor advantages. If you’re not going to upgrade your software, then you can stick with the workstation you have without losing anything. Besides Intel has dual-core chips and at leaste 14 more multicore projects in the works. The switch to Intel is about the future product lines not the present or the past. Not to mention all of the advantages and possibilities it opens up.
Informed is absolutely right.
In a niche they currently excelled in, watch Macs in music studios disappear.
“Ok. Yesterday I ate crow for my optimism that Apple wouldn’t be foolish. Now I express my anger. ” (Informed)
Gee, un-Informed I really feel sorry about the way you “lost” your investment in all that software. I guess you’re saying now that in 2006 Mac’s will be transitioning to Intel CPU’s, your current Mac has somehow stopped working. It got a heart attack I guess from the news, right?
Please.
Rock on Steve!
misinformed:
You are, indeed, misinformed. Any “next generation of PowerPC” would include AltiVec by definition. Therefore, yes, my software would be optimized to run on it. There were no software issues going from G3 to G4 to G5 (the issues were going from OS9 to OSX). Therefore your claim that “It’s a given that with every processor upgrade you’ll need to upgrade your software to benefit from the new processor advantages” is pure ignorance.
As to your comment on rosy future of Intel processors: these future chips would require complete backward compatibility with x86 because that is what Xcode 2.1 is based on. Therefore, these future processors are not going to be some radically new chip that offering better performance than AltiVec.
Macadaddyoo:
Its not the OS in this case, stupid.
Wow, do you or MacMania know a damn thing about software?
Pull yourselves together people. Many of you are complaining about a problem that as of right now does not exist – no matter how many times you repeat it. Perhaps some of you buy brand new hardware every year in order to run four year old software? I don’t, and i don’t know many others that do.
I would recomend that we simply take inventory of where we are with our hardware/software and plan accordingly for the next year or two. If you need a new machine but would rather use Windows than purchase a Mac now, more power to ya. Switching platforms, new system, new software, Windows. Maybe I’m just not smart enough to figure out how this makes sense.
Anyway, my dual 2.5 appears to be running CS2 just as well today as it did last week, but maybe it’s just me.
NewType-
My Athlon64 has a 1.6 GHz FSB. And Hypertransport like the G5. AMD made that I think.
I sure wish Apple was going with AMD.
“no software issues going from G3 to G4 to G5” – informed
So some sw in G3 was already optimized for G5? LOL
No sw issues just means that the same sw that was running in G3 could run on the G5, not that it was using ANY of the features the G5 is offering.
For your information one can build software that TRULY makes use of what the G5 allows BUT it will not run neither on the G4 nor on the G3.
What are you talking about? The optimized G5 binaries will NOT then run on anything else! Go and inform yourself on the Apple Developers site.
The fact that the same sw is running on the G3, G4, and G5 means that it is NOT using features that are proper to the G5. If it is, G3 and G4 Macs cannot run it, silly.