MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Watch out mugging victims... Once you get a taste of not being ambushed in a dark alley and having your wallet stolen, you may never want to be mugged again.

Everyone, welcome to the brave new world of Macintel!!!

Want to look at the future specs of MacIntel hardware?

http://www.dell.com

WOOT!

Copernicus: "Want to look at the future specs of MacIntel hardware?

http://www.dell.com

WOOT!"

No. Apple (as well as the x86 industry) will be beyond that. Intel intends to launch Yonah in early 2006. This is a dual core processor made for portables.

Just one thing to look forward to as part of Apple's move to Intel.

now all we need is a demo version of Mac OS targeted at Windows users set up to dual boot and cease to function after a month

I am a former Windows user and current (for the last 7 years) Windows Systems Administrator. And I can tell you first hand the Mac is the ONLY way to go. It is like a taking a deep breath of fresh air after living in smog. Unfortunately I spend my days working among the smog, supporting Windows, poor hapless Windows users, and the corporate illiterate who don't know any better. But when I go home it is all Mac all the time (save for my year old Alienware, which is still a joy as they make great computers despite the fact they run Windows).

And while I probably sold more Dells in my lifetime then the "Dell Dude" I am now a HUGE Mac advocate who brings as many users to the light as possible. And trust me through my work and the trust my occupation instills in people (deserved or not) I am able to beat down many of the myths of Mac computing and bring some tech joy into people's lives.

Mac zealots aren't always the best salesman, not a knock just speaking the truth, but a guy who has (and continues) to live on both sides of the track makes the most objective Mac pusher. And I am more than happy to do my part.

Forget MacIntel. Forget Mactel. Say hello to Ma-ntel

Mantel Rules!

This is my point exactly on why the switch to Intel is a good thing. If Jobs would just show a little intestinal fortitude and release OS X for any Intel machine to use, ol' Billy boy would see his market share drop like a stunned pigeon.

"No. Apple (as well as the x86 industry) will be beyond that. Intel intends to launch Yonah in early 2006. This is a dual core processor made for portables."

That's my point. You don't think Dell will have that technology too?
Dell buys a lot more Intel chips than Apple. You will read about and buy "Yonah" portables on the Dell product site.
Nothing special, as every Pee Cee they have on QVC or Home Shopping Channel will now have the same internals as Apple Pee Cees.

As a result of the Intel move, HARDWARE wise, Apple will never be ahead of Dell/Gateway/Lenovo again. To me, that's sad.

Yeah, but Dell will still have Windows!

Copernicus,

I look at it the other way... It's rare the Mac has been ahead. I look forward to -- at the very least -- parity. For example, having access to top of the line video cards and processors. Plus, Apple will add some of its own magic to differentiate it from the masses.

Copernicus

What makes you think that Apple, who has had a long history of being "proprietary" even with standard components, will use the same internals as a Dell or HP?

It's one thing if Apple said they'll buy motherboards from Intel, which they certainly are not. Tehy're just buying chips. Despite what anyone has said, native compatibility with Windows or any other x86-based OS and components are not guaranteed.

MDN Magic Word: really, as in "Really ridiculous, all of you."

I look forward to it aswell, However, I dont think having Intel inside is going to help FPS. And I think apple still needs to prioritize its OpenGL performance, thats been holding the mac back from a performance standpoint...In Games that is...

My new Powerbook is awesome - yesterday's announcement didn't change that one bit - As Jack Welch likes to say, "a leader faces reality" and the reality is that future PowerPC products are for video games and they can't make a low power, low heat mobile chip with G5.

The other reality is that OS X is more stable and has more features that Windows is promising in the future, only you can get it right now. I am a switcher - 30 days now - and I tell everyone I know that they should use a Mac at home - if not in business, because most of my business contacts are working on systems architectures and Apple just isn't in that space yet.

I work in the Enterprise software space and have to deal with Windows at work - it's nice to know you can use a computer and get things done instead of constantly trying to work within limits that are imposed UPON you by the limits of the OS.

Once I get people to check out OS X, they don't have an interest in Windows.

it's also possible that intel to seal the deal will allow apple access to chips say 3 months before other manufacterers?

I guess we'll see what the future holds. Personally, such wins as the Virginia Tech G5 cluster validated the platform. I doubt the P4 Powermacs Apple is selling to the developers are capable of the same. Regardless, I wouldn't spend a nickel on them until the benchmarks prove they outperform the 64bit dual 2.7 G5 Powermacs. Jobs carefully avoided such performance comparisons which makes me wonder.

We'll see the benchmarks rolling in on those machines in a few weeks. I only hope it doesn't prove an embarrassment when compared to the currently shipping G5's.

Well, don't get your hopes up. G5 Powermac, according to the "old" Apple:

Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4
"To demonstrate the superiority of the Power Mac G5, Apple conducted tests using Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0, the most widely used application among creative professionals.

The dual 2.7GHz, dual 2.3GHz and dual 2.0GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 78% and 59% faster, respectively, than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based system, and 72%, 56% and 38% faster than the dual 3.6GHz Xeon-based system.(1)(2)"

LOL I know, Iknow, we're supposed to gulp down the kool-aid and forget about all of that...

"If Jobs would just show a little intestinal fortitude and release OS X for any Intel machine to use, ol' Billy boy would see his market share drop like a stunned pigeon."

inaminit,
This is rubbish. Repeat after me: "Apple is a hardware company." Releasing OS X to commodity x86 would not magically put Microsoft on the ropes. You're completely discounting the size of the Windows ecosystem, the sheer inertia of current PC users, and the considerable threat still posed by Microsoft. The short term effect of such a move would be to put a bullet in Mac sales, and there is no guarantee that they would be able to recover from such a decision. It is certainly possible at some future date that Apple may be in a strong enough position to make the transition to a software company, but that time is not now, nor will it be until sometime after Apple makes the transition in 2006-7, if ever.

No matter how inexpensive Macs get, commodity gear from PC mills will always be cheaper, and most people advocating opening OS X can't seem to grasp that Macs Just Work™ because Apple carefully limits the hardware pool that they need to qualify for use. If someone's home-built shitbox with an Acme graphics card, RAM from a box of Froot Loops, and a motherboard he bought off the back of a truck in Pakistan has horrible problems with OS X, who do you think he's going to blame? That's right: Apple, even though they can't be held responsible for crappy hardware or drivers. Attempting to make sure OS X works well with the floods of new component hitting the market every year would be a Sisyphean task, and not one any sane company would attempt. The closed pool of hardware works in Apple's favor; changing that dynamic would have terrible consequences for the Mac's reputation.

"inaminit,
This is rubbish. Repeat after me: "Apple is a hardware company." "

Viridian:
That's the kind of narrow mentality that has kept Apple in the miniscule market share region. I like my iMac, I like it a lot, it's my primary machine of choice. But the truth is, the AMD based machine I built last year is superior HARDWARE wise in every way. From the 2.2 ghz cpu to the Audigy Z sound card to the ATI 9650 video card. The reason I like the iMac better has nothing to do with the hardware, get it?

Did you read the guy's article up there, or just start posting? When Windows user's try OS X they don't want to go back. OS X, not the hardware.

Obviously Copernicus has never used a modern Powerbook.

Comparing a Mac laptop to a Dell is kind of like comparing a Mercedes to a Ford Taurus in terms of style, look and feel and of course, performance. (OSX)

Besisdes, I'm not talking about transitioning to a software company, all I'm saying is make the OS available, simply state that if it's not run on apple cetified hardware, let the buyer beware. After all I can go out now and buy just a copy of OS X, without any hardware. All I'm saying is, come on Jobs, let me do that with a copy of OS X for Intel platforms to.

inaminit: Did you read Viridian's extremely logical explanation of why it would DESTROY Apple if they allowed OS X to run on x86? Do you realize how many pirated copies of Windows are running out there on cheesy little AMD 2.2 ghz machines like yours (superior? I laugh in your general direction

Apple cannot afford to have its OS pirated in the way that Microsoft can and this is what would immediatly happen if Apple released an x86 version of its OS. MS has other lines of revenue. Apple's revenue is in its hardware, not the OS.

The same goes for the "why can't Apple allow downloaded AAC files run on my crappy Rio player?" people. The answer is the same. Because Apple makes NO MORE MONEY off of the sale of Rio players than it does off the sale of HP and Dell boxes! iTunes exists to sell iPods, OS X exists to sell PBs, PMs, iBooks, iMacs, and Minis.

Repeat after me:

Apple makes its money off of hardware sales.
Apple needs to control the hardware to make the OS experience as flawless as possible.
OS X runs so much better than Windows because Apple controls the hardware experience.
Apple is the most successful non-Windows running computer company of all time using the above methodology.
Apple has 16% of the installed computer market.
Apple wants to survive.

All these reasons and more are why it would never be so foolish as to allow its OS to run on someone elses hardware.

-B

Only the other 4 of the top 5 PC makers will be able to release machines with the same clock speeds simultaneously.
There is no way Apple would have to wait, but look at what happens every-time Toshiba release a new drive.
It turns out somebody (Apple) already has a big order in the pipeline and you can be sure they are getting a better price on it than anyone else.

So all the backyard pc manufacturers from Toshiba down will get their Intel chips later at a higher price.
Take out the cost to those builders of purchasing a Windows licence too as Apple will be able to afford to take a hit on that one and the fact that Apple were nearly destroyed last time they went for profit before market share.

This means that it will be possible for Macs to be cheaper, just like iPods already are.

Viridian, Beeblebrox:

I'm not saying you don't make good points. You do. But whether you like it or not, Apple hardware is not the best thing about owning a Mac. The OS is. The hardware lag is the very reason Jobs is going to Intel based machines. Your prejudice against the platform is unfounded and unsuported. Next year I'll be building another AMD based system. I'm sorry I can't get a copy of OS X to run on it, (perhaps I'll snag a copy of Slackware for this one now that the kids have their game system). And I'll probably also get another Mac system, maybe a Power Mac.

You can say "grappy little" this and that all you want, it won't make my home built systems inferior to Macs. Only Windows does that.

Beeblebrox:

Apple makes its money off of hardware sales.
Apple needs to control the hardware to make the OS experience as flawless as possible.
OS X runs so much better than Windows because Apple controls the hardware experience.
Apple is the most successful non-Windows running computer company of all time using the above methodology.
Apple has 16% of the installed computer market.
Apple wants to survive.


Well put (MDN Magic Word).

Inaminit:

Your point appears to be "I like OS X, I wish I could run it on my garage built PC".

Fine, I'm sure you and every other knowledgeable Windows user wishes the same thing.

Our point: "Ain't gonna happen." Going your direction means that Apple goes bankrupt in about a year. So yes, it would be great for PC users to be able to run the most advanced OS ever built but this would be corporate suicide for Apple so what is the point in wishing for it?

As for the hardware, I have yet to see a homebuilt machine that was as well desgined and had as high of quality parts as a Powermac G5 (and of course, you can't garage build a Powerbook clone in any case).

You may take pride in your home-built machine and that's great, more power to you. That does not make it as good as what the best computer manufacturer on the planet can do. I will guarantee you that sitting your AMD machine down next to my Dual G5 would be like putting a custom kit car next to an Audi A6. One might be good, the other is clearly superior.

The fit and finish of the Mac, the cooling system, the simply gorgeous motherboard, the aluminum case, port design, the ease of access to internal components, and a dozen other aspects of the hardware design put the G5 in a league of its own. Furthermore, the machine is, quite simply, faster than any home-built machine the average person is going to put together.

Of course, the new CPU from Intel/Apple will be even faster and put even more distance between the pro machine from Apple and the home-brew machine (as fun as it may be to build it) that you believe to be superior.

Bottom line, if you like to build your own machine, great!

Most people either don't have that kind of time on their hands or, like me, recognize that there is no way that I can go down to my shop and build a machine as elegant as a G5 tower.

All of this is moot in any case. Apple hardware is the only hardware that will ever run OS X. Even if your AMD was a superior machine, it is still running a 1980s vintage OS. I'm sure you wish it weren't so but them's the cold hard facts.

-B

Ricardo wrote:

"Well, don't get your hopes up. G5 Powermac, according to the "old" Apple:

Nearly Two Times Faster Than Pentium 4
"To demonstrate the superiority of the Power Mac G5, Apple conducted tests using Adobe Photoshop CS 8.0, the most widely used application among creative professionals.

The dual 2.7GHz, dual 2.3GHz and dual 2.0GHz Power Mac G5 systems ran the 45 filters 98%, 78% and 59% faster, respectively, than the 3.6GHz Pentium 4-based system, and 72%, 56% and 38% faster than the dual 3.6GHz Xeon-based system.(1)(2)"

LOL I know, Iknow, we're supposed to gulp down the kool-aid and forget about all of that..."

Ricardo - I have read your many posts here and have concluded you aren't happy about this move?

One thing Ricardo, in the English language there is an ability to refer to things in the past, present and even future!!!!

WATCH the Keynote. Steve plainly says that in the PAST the PPC WAS better than the x86.

He also mentions that there are current (i.e. present) PPC products that are awesome, and there are a few more to come (future).

The above results aren't incorrect. CURRENTLY the PPC based systems do slam the x86 systems (well at least in CERTAIN apps optimised in testing labs - come one, for every PPC is faster there is a x86 is faster result in the REAL world).

However, as MANY, MANY, MANY people have been able to grasp (just not enough yet), Steve NEVER mentioned x86 as the processor that will be used - YES the developer kit is x86, but HEY the devloper kit for the Xbox is an Apple G5 (PPC 970), and you all KNOW that IBM aren't supplying a PPC 970 chip to Microsoft, and so for some reason your ability to logic that step works - see what HYSTERIA does to cloud thinking?

So the issue here is the english language's ability to refer to the FUTURE. Just because in the FUTURE Steve and Apple believe that the Intel processors they use will be better than the PPC ones does not suddenly make all statements said in the PAST, or even PRESENTLY incorrect, or worse still, a deception.

It is for this VERY SAME concept of past, future and present, that you can purchase a PPC based Apple Mac NOW,which remains superior to windows based systems and IN THE FUTURE you can by an Intel based Apple Mac, and it is likely that it will also be superior.

What ALL of you processor OBSESSED nay sayers are ignoring don't seem to be able to grasp is the possiblility that:

1) apart from the processor, it is also the OPERATING SYSTEMS that contribute to system performance - I don't know, is the OS a factor in overall performance???? Huh???

2) apart from the processor AND OS, system design ALSO contributes to overall system performance - possible??? Do you THINK (not rant hysterically - I mean THINK) that system design could contribute to system performance??? See in the WinTel world they REALLY grasp this concept, some box assemblers do a MUCH better job at designing AND putting their systems together than others (eg AlienWare machines compared to local chopshop beige box builders)

To take the past and present and somehow say it is false beacuse the future exists proves that the THINKING behind most of the responses on this site just simply doesn't EXIST either.

I've said it before - I really hope the hysterical lot do jump ship, I reckon there will be quite a few of us that wont really miss dealing with a total lack of LOGIC.

I also know you'll be back, and once again crapping on about how you ALL KNEW this was the best move Steve and Apple ever made. IF you can distort the past, presnet and future for Apple, you can distort it for yourselves too.

Just my $1.27

Luke

Beeblebrox:

I agree with just about all of your points. When I walked into CompUSA last February with my tax refund burning a hole in my pocket I locked gaze on one of the most beautiful peices of technology I had seen. Un fortunatly I only had enough for the 17" model rather than the 20" I wanted. But like I said before, it's the only machine I use now, (except for the occasional Doom 3 or Unreal Tournement session while sitting in the midst of my Audigy powered Creative 7.1 sound system.)

I just don't believe making the best OS available, available to everyone is going to destroy Apple Inc.

How difficult is it to understand that a big part of the success of OS X is the solid integration between it and the hardware. That hardware is more than the CPU. The Mac motherboard is not ever going to be a generic component. The way a Mac functions, from the firmware to the interface is unique.

If Apple was to make OS X available to run on any X86 box they would instantly lose that tight integration and they'd be plagued by the kind of problems that Windows suffers.

Apple is based on the principle of OS and hardware propriety, plain and simple.

From: informed


Jun 07, 05 - 09:50 pm





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).

Informed:

You write as if you know something that no one else knows.

Evidently you are certain that Apple is not going to 64 bit. You also appear to know that your software will not run on future Macs. You ARE, as you say, informed.

Thank you for the insights.

</sarcasm>

-B

I have a feeling if Apple does good to Intel, they could very give Apple the more advanced tech. while Windows gets whatever Intel has to throw out.

Luke, that's a $1.27 worth of s p e c u l a t i o n.

We're ALL OVER Microsoft for their "just wait and see next year what Longhorn will have...", but now the shoe's on the other foot.

Of course software optimization plays into it. But it's not an excuse to make up for Intel's historically shi**y proc architecture. Presently, I look at G5's on Tiger as optimized hardware on optimized software. I DON'T feel that way about Intel.

And yes, I do look at past history sometimes as a guidepost for realistic FUTURE results. Many on earth do. And with that, my own opinion, as well as many others in the IT field, is one that Intel has largely stagnated.

Hey lukeinoid, how many times you say future? sounds like you should work at microsoft.

Beeblebrox:

Being informed means that, yes, I do know that my software will not run on future Macs.

Get informed: http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1826222

It is a given that Apple is going to 64-bit eventually. But is also a given that complete backwards compatibility with x86 is a requirement of Xcode 2.1 and the "universal binaries." That legacy luggage prevents Apple from using any radically new processor design from Intel. This isn't rocket science. This is elementary logic and informed deduction.

Ricardo wrote:

"Of course software optimization plays into it. But it's not an excuse to make up for Intel's historically shi**y proc architecture. Presently, I look at G5's on Tiger as optimized hardware on optimized software. I DON'T feel that way about Intel.

And yes, I do look at past history sometimes as a guidepost for realistic FUTURE results. Many on earth do. And with that, my own opinion, as well as many others in the IT field, is one that Intel has largely stagnated."

I note a couple of things here:

"feel" - you don't feel that way about Intel. Great - but your FEELING may not be related to facts.

As I've said before, Steve Jobs and Apple have had this running for FIVE years. And yes, it probably isn't optimised for OS X yet, but hey, why spend time and MONEY optimising your BACKUP soloution. And to that point, you all are ignoring one fact - the G5 isn't delivering what it promised. Just like Microsoft Longhorn, it's a whole heap of promise for 3GHz and cooler temps.

Also Intel caught onto the RISC vs CISC issue, and if you look at their newer chips, they take advantage of "RISC" like processes. Fact is both CISC and RISC have their inherent advantages and disadvantages, ANY architechture does.

Are ANY of you people humnble enough to admit that Steve, and all the other guys and gals at Apple would have SIGNIFICANTLY more information and insight into what is going to come out of BOTH IBM and Intel in the near future??? Can you accept and admit that??? I am yet to see Steve Jobs do something with the INTENT to screw Apple. Yeah he does annoying little things, but this, as you are all screaming is HUGE, and FIVE YEARS in the making. FACT: They could have done this two years ago before moving to the G5, however at THAT TIME the G5 was, and promised to continue to be superior.

Do you also FEEL so confident that by the time OS X is running on Intel in production machines it WONT be optimised. As I've said before, you ALL crap on about the TOTAL Apple offering, but one thing chnages, and suddenly the WHOLE offering is sour - sorry that is just a load of hysterical bulls%@t!!!

I ALSO look to the past for an indication of future performance, and if you do you will see that IBM FAILED to deliver, they have newer priorities, and for the record, CELL and Games optimized processors do NOT make great GENERAL application processors.

Yeah it is speculation - up to about $3.76 now - but I'd bet that Steve has SEEN protype chips from both Intel and IBM, and as a result, as of NOW and for the FUTURE, Intel is the go.

Why are you over Microsoft not delivering? I thought for all you Apple fanboys that was a good thing???!!! Again, one little thing and you change your point of view to suit your hysterics.

Luke

testudo:

"Hey lukeinoid, how many times you say future? sounds like you should work at microsoft."

Actually it's LukeinOz.

If you guys aren't interested in the future, what's all teh fuss about - your CURRENT Apple Macs will be fine.

Last I noticed, it's all the hysterical, illogical fanboys going on about the future and their percieved lack of it!!!

Also testudo you will find that most people in BUSINESS in general talk about the future, the present is for business reporters and history is for academics! So whilst I could work for microsoft as they are a business, I'd choose not to, as there are other companies that I ACTUALLY admire, and they talk of the FUTURE too.



Luke

informed wrote:

"Beeblebrox:

Being informed means that, yes, I do know that my software will not run on future Macs.

Get informed: http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1826222

It is a given that Apple is going to 64-bit eventually. But is also a given that complete backwards compatibility with x86 is a requirement of Xcode 2.1 and the "universal binaries." That legacy luggage prevents Apple from using any radically new processor design from Intel. This isn't rocket science. This is elementary logic and informed deduction."

Actually that link refers to Rosetta, not Xcode 2.1 - guess you were informed, but weren't able to understand???

Also you would fail a logic test, just because something is possible, doesn't mean it IS.

It is POSSIBLE your software wont work on an Intel based Mac, but that doesn't mean it WONT be. And as I see that you have already mixed up xCode and Rosetta, I could (by your standards) of "elementary logic and informed deduction" conlude that you don't have a clue what you're on about, let alone are "informed". Based on the INFORMATION I have, my conclusion COULD be right, but it may not be.

Of course your reaction to this post may give me more information in order to base my decision, as if you dismiss my logic as flawed, lacking enough information to make that conclusion, you will have to dismiss your own conclusions about Apple and the move to Intel... as you too have limited (and incorrectly interpreted information).

Luke

LukeinOz:

Some of us are not illogical fanboys. Some of us have based our entire careers around Apple. Some of us don't like seeing our livelihood threatened.

Some of us have made considerable investments in this platform. Some of us do more than search the web with our Macs. Some of us actually understand the full scope of this transition and realize that the OS isn't the entire picture. Some of us have happily gone along with previous transitions because they were major advancements. Some of us are informed enough to see that this isn't a major advancement.

LukeinOz:

You don't even know what xCode is.

I mixed up nothing. You really ought to keep quiet when you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

another "childs" reponse...

I don't like what your saying, just shut up and go away!!! I'm happy to be informed, just don't see much of that, just "advice" to tell Apple to "F" off and not buy their product.

How about this point of view and HARSH reality?

In all honesty, if this change means the "10,000" people that have software that will NEVER run on MacTel are lost to Apple - SO WHAT?!?!

When are you people going to wake up and smell the cocoa? This decision was made to ensure the livelyhood of Apple employees, and Apple itself. Apple doesn't have a responsibilty to anyone else that goes ABOVE that.

So you invested your life in Apple development. Shit happens mate.

For a LOT of people this move was necessary and important for their livelyhoods. Why is your EXCEPTIONAL circumstances more important than everyone elses needs?

Oh for for F$@k sake get off your high horse - the whole "some of us, some of us, some of us are informed" crap.

Yeah I may just cruise the web with my Mac, NO I don't develop software, I wouln't know Xcode if I tripped over it - but guess what mate, most mac users are like ME. Even more PC users are like ME. And if you really did care about the Apple platform, you'd realise that the whole "exclusive club" you Mac zealots promote is EXACTLY why I am cheering from the rooftops about this move.

I'm looking forward to some of you "being quiet" and "going away".

Prior to this I was just trying to be positive, have an open mind that Apple knows what they are doing (and also realising we've heard the whole "Apple have blown it" spiel before), and point out the differences between the hysterical responses on here and the information presented. Now I must admit, I am cheering this change on the off chance it will clear some of the hysterics from the Apple fan base.

Maybe you are BETTER informed than even Steve Jobs and Apple staff? You are most certainly more informed than me - you develop software! Good for you. I guess we'll see if your information is right soon.

I for one will be enjoying the Apple experience, surfing the web, sending e-mail, whilst listening to my iPod. All low level, scum of the earth things to do, whilst you, in your upper echelons will be, I don't know, based on what you said, tooling around with Linux. Knowing what Xcode is you're smart enough to be able to tackle Linux, me I'm stupid enough to ENJOY OS X, on PPC, Intel (maybe even AMD).

I guess you're informed and miserable, and this is a classic case of IGNORANCE IS BLISS!!!

Luke

LukeinOz:

If ignorance is bliss, you must be incredibly happy.

Luke, your last post is the epitome of an hysterical fanboy post. "Steve knows best," etc.

Informed has valid reasons to be upset and you idiotically say "So you invested your life in Apple development. Shit happens mate."

Spoken like a true ignorant twerp. Perhaps YOU should go away...

You’re right I am getting hysterical.

Must be contagious!!!

I actually didn't say - Steve knows best mate, I just said I reckon he is better INFORMED than our friend with the same moniker.

Nothing hysterical fanboy about that. You know him running Apple and all. "This isn't rocket science. This is elementary logic and informed deduction." - sorry it was JUST TOO easy!!!

He may be COMPLETELY wrong, as I said, being a low-end user I wouldn't have a clue, and hence yes - I am VERY happy (and having fun) - how about you lads?

I'm also an ignorant twerp, I accept that, you have to be, in order to accept the universal truth that shit happens.

The good thing is, being and ignorant twerp, means I am a happy twerp.

And regarding going away. This is what I still don't get (you know, ignorant, twerp, and also a low-end user and all). YOu are all the ones jumping up and down, screaming "damn you Apple", "I'm NEVER going to be a customer again", "They are now have a shit product", yet you're all still here.

I am saying I am happy to use their product, I will be their customer in the future, way to go Apple etc etc, and you think I should go away.

Who is the fool - the one that is such an ignorant twerp that he uses a crap product, and spends his time discussing it, or those that are so well infomred that they publicly announce their displeasure with something/someone, and then spend their time bitching about it?

Note also the differnce in how we put things, us ignorant folk don't say "GO AWAY" "You don't know what you're talking about". I did say I WISH you'd go away, and with my limited ability THINK you MAY NOT know what you're on about. I did however say get off your high horse - you should, how pompus to TELL someone to go away as opposed to respecting that some people are different, have different views and you just WISH they weren't around anymore.

Yes I did just accuse you of being POMPUS (but hey as you said I know nothing, so I am most likely wrong).

But pompus or not, I'm HAPPY for you to hang around (I just kinda wish you wouldn't)

Luke

PS - always thought the whole Magic Word is "x" as in "x, y, z" is a bit silly, but hey, mine is "free" as in "everyone is free to have an opinion (and change their processors in the PC's they make), you don't have to like it, but hey "shit happens"

ooops!!

"Who is the fool - the one that is such an ignorant twerp that he uses a crap product, and spends his time discussing it, or those that are so well infomred that they publicly announce their displeasure with something/someone, and then spend their time bitching about it?"

Actually nothing wrong with that - It's foolish when you KNOW your bitching wont change the fact. The only way this thing will be reversed is if all you people DO ACTUALLY carry out your (traditionally hollow) threats and DO leave the Apple platform as customers.

That's my challenge to you all that have extolled how POOR this is - use your vastly superior brains and informed positions and send Steve the only message he could take seriously in order to reconsider his position - LEAVE the platform, don't talk about it, don't threaten to (Apple has heard that a MILLION times before) - put on your Nikes and "just do it!!!"

My prediction, as I have repeatedly said before is this: You'll hang around, bitch and moan, and buy an MacTel Apple in a few years, shortly after you'll be POMPOUSLY telling people how superior the platform is (cause it will be - you'll just be pompous and condescending about it) and how they are WinTel (or will that be WinAMD, WinPPC) lemmings that just "haven't seen the light" yet.

Luke

Oh and now this is freaky!!! Sorry I just have to:

MW is "action" As in I wonder if these lungs filled with so much HOT AIR, belong to men (and women) of action?

@erk:

Why not?

They've been used to loading Windows and it ceasing to function after a month…

OK, it's chill pill medication time again for some of us…

First of all: MacPPC performance vs. Wintel performance vs Mactel performance is way too difficult to take in all at once, but let's try and be rational…

There are a number of reasons why MacPPC is faster than Wintel according to Apple's current benchmarks.

The first is obvious: it's the operating system which isn't bogged down by the bloat of 20,000 DLLs, many of which provide legacy functionality that only 20% of the user-base requires or provide extended contemporary functionality that only 20% of the the user-base requires.

The second reason is the architecture: in Apple's case, necessity (the lack of DDR or fast FSB support in either the G4) became the mother of invention when Apple released the G5 simply because it created a novel engineering solution to how to keep two very, very fast chips (for their time) fed with data.

So, let's assume that OS X will continue to be lean with the move to Mactel and then let's ask ourselves: [B]Will Apple continue to design its own mobos for the new generation of kit?[/B]

Personally, I'll put money on yes for high-end pro systems (Power Macintosh & Powerbook) and no for consumer units like the iMac, iBook, and eMac. The only exception will be Mac mini, where I'll give even money that Apple will retain control simply because of the engineering challenges of putting that much hardware into that small a box.

Now, assuming that high-end Mactel systems continue to have the dual-channel approach to feeding their twin processors (as opposed to the multiple cores on those processors) and OS X continues to be a lean, mean computing machine, the likelihood is that Macintosh systems will continue to give Wintel systems a kicking, especially given the introduction of faster 65nm processors with DDR2-enabled frontside buses according Intel's current roadmap.

[B]As for informed[/B]: I'm truly sorry about your plight, but your argument should surely be aimed at the publisher of your plug-ins. If I might make a suggestion, why don't you either establish or join the user's group for your product and then jointly lobby your vendors to deliver competitively priced sidegrade/upgrade packages for registered users who can prove their bona fides. Then you'll be able to tell if its Apple's fault that you're being ripped off, or just naked greed from Plug-In Developer X or Y.

And if I might just paraphrase someone smarter than me…

[I]The past is an excellent place for a holiday, but I wouldn't want to live there…[/I]

Think about it for a while…

I for one can't wait for an OSX version that will run on my self-built intel box. Not gonna happen? I doubt that. And if it takes some hackers to create a 'non Mactel OSX' version and spread it on the P2P networks out there, I'm sure that'll happen.

And then Apple has the choice. See the 'inferior Intel'-market taken away, or start selling an OSX that will run, but less stable, to those users. It may be sacrilege in the eyes of the true fan, who would like to claim that OSX never ever crashes (which is just about 100% correct on Mac hardware), but don't forget that those who use 'inferior' self-built boxes are used to a bit of hardship, because so far they only run Windows (well, a geeky few % run Linux, but I don't see them switching to Mac anyway. a zealotous lot, they are )

When running side by side on the same hardware, I think OSX can be made to run more stable than Windows, so that will still be a selling point.

Of course that may severely limit the ability of Apple to sell hardware, but I can't see a large part of the world switching to more expensive hardware anyway. Just the combo OSX/Apple hardware will not conquer the world. The combo OSX/cheapo hardware would spread like wildfire. Despite what some people seem to think here, M$ does not have many fanboys or a loyal customer base like Apple does. They would gladly drop the M$ monopoly for a good (better, even) alternative, if their wallet would remain unafflicted.

If that ultimately reduces Apple to a software only company, so be it. M$ did quite well on that track. I'm sure that there will always be companies who will fill the niche for those who insist on 'especially for OSX' hardware and don't mind paying the extra buck for that.

If you think you can get the same discounts Apple can on hardware, go right ahead. You may just find they can build and sell that box better and cheaper than you can.