Jun 06
HOT NEWS: Apple powered by Intel in 2006
2005 at 11.19 am posted by Veerle Pieters
Yes, the rumors are true. Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far, said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. The first Intel based Mac should be in stores by June 2006 and the transition should be complete by 2007. As a just in case Mac OS X has been leading a secret double life, for the last five years every release of OS X has been compiled to run on Intel processors.
Apple is calling an emulation layer “Rosetta,” after the Rosetta Stone. Rosetta will allow PowerPC compiled applications to work on an Intel based Mac. The whole thing is completely transparent, and does not require a separate emulation environment.
Steve Jobs was demonstrating it with Quicken, Excel, Photoshop. All of these apps, compiled for PPC, worked fine on the Dell he was using, It was a completely transparent process. Apple will have a developer kit that includes a 3.6 GHx Pentium 4 Mac. Those machines will have to be returned by the end of 2006. They will be priced at $999, and are for developers only.
Most applications will not need much effort to be translated to run on a Intel based chip. Mathematica for example, a complex program with 20 millions lines of code took only two hours. Bruce Chizen CEO of Adobe said that Adobe wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Apple and that you can be absolutely assured that you will be able to run Adobe applications natively on Intel Macs.
After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.” However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.”
To me personally this isn’t bad news after all it is just a chip. The PowerPC is not the reason why I’m using a Mac it is all about how Apple integrates the technology an add their own. This isn’t going to change now that Mac will be powered by Intel. So all those of you that are thinking this is a sell-out please use your brain for a minute. The enjoyment of using a Mac will still be here. It’s clear that the loyalty of IBM lies elsewhere (think console) so I see this as a good thing. Intel isn’t Microsoft and you can bet my life on it that Intel will go out of their way to make the best things for Apple. Now they have an opportunity to work with a leader something that wasn’t possible until today. To me Intel isn’t evil it is just chip maker and a good one with the best roadmap.
And yes I am still glad with my new G5 :-)
Update: You can watch to keynote of Steve Jobs here.
50served
1
hum… I’m not sure that’s a good news :-/ well, we’ll see!
2
I’ll have to find another planet to live on, already scheduled my flight....
3
Does this mean I can turn my x86-pc into a mac, just by installing mac-os for x86? Or will an intel-mac have special mac hardware?
4
I hope you are still happy with that dual 2.7GHz PPC Veerle!
vreemde eend—expect hardware dependencies. Hardware sales keep Apple alive.
5
I’m not sure I’m happy about this. To be honest: I know I’m not happy ! I get the feeling this turns Apple into a follower in stead of a leader. If I hear Intel, I hear Microsoft. And that company is no friend of mine. Of course I know they’re not the same, but still… I feel like they sold out ! And another major transition for Apple to get through.
Ah well, I’ll keep my G5 15 years in stead of just 4 or 5 !
6
Hope they won’t put “Intel inside” ugly-logo on every new Mac!
7
i’m too confused, i want to see what the future reserves…
8
Hopefully they’ll change their mind to allow OS X to run on other manufacturer’s hardware. But, if you will be able to run Windows as a dual boot or something then maybe It’ll be the perfect reason to get a new, well.... whatever name they’ll come up with I guess.
9
Apple sells hardware, so it would be very surprising if the OS could run on every PC…
10
Actually, the restriction of Mac OS X to Apple Intels and the possibility to run Windows on them as well is probably going to help hardware sales. And Apple is a hardware company.
Think about it. I personally use Linux/KDE for my workstation, but need to test in Mac OS X and Windows. Short of full CPU emulation which is slow and annoying, I need more than one computer.
Suddenly, I can now buy one computer that can do the lot. Until now, I’ve always built my own PCs, picking and choosing the components. This change means I’m probably going to buy from a PC vendor for the first time in my life. And the PC vendor is going to be Apple. Apple now has 100% of my hardware budget instead of around 30%.
11
Personal, I don’t like it. PPC computers will be dead in 12 months. I just purchased a PB 1.67 and I’m pissed that next June there will be a new PB with a Intel. A new G5 Powerbook.. ok. At least it’s on the same platform.
You serious think the next versions of Adobe/Macromedia offerings will be dual-chip aware? If Intel has something ups it’s sleeve, like dual-core 64bits chip for the PB.. then ok. That’s something that PPC can’t. What about the 4Gb RAM limitation?
Damn, they didn’t even pick the best of the x86 companies...AMD!!!
In the long-run, this maybe ok. With the x86 chip, my new Powerbook can run FreeBSD!
12
well I just bought a Powerbook,
so I my feelings are not positive.
In fact they sold me 3 weeks ago hardware that’s now completely outdated.
While I was trumpetting the ease of use of OSX, I doubt if I will be giving them any mouth-to-mouth publicity in the future, I do feel deceived.
bye
13
This is a turning point. I’ve been wanting Apple to do this for a long time; it seems that time is now and it’s perfect what with dual-core processors and the Pentium M looking very tasty indeed. OSX is stable and mature, and, due to its BSD foundations, is easy to port. With hindsight it’s easy to see Apple probably had something like planned this all along - and the fact it was announced that they’ve been comiling OSX on x86 processors for a while now (the backup plan) seems to corroborate this.
The question isn’t will standard PCs run OSX, but when. If an XBOX can be converted to run Linux and Windows, then surely it won’t be too hard for some innovative individuals, or even company, to build a system capable of running OSX. Perhaps Apple want this? Apple have certainly proved they can compete (and succeed) with hardware in a very competetive market: MP3 players. If I had the choice of buying or building a new PC (I prefer to do the latter) with either OSX or Windows driving it, I know what I’d choose. As the market for ‘premium’ PCs hots up (as if it’s not hot enough already, what with Alienware, et al), who could refuse the delights of OSX on their new system in favour of Windows? I think MS must be really worried by this… Make no mistake - this is GREAT for the industry. Things just got interesting again.
14
it will be a long time till the intel chips are implemented in all apple products.
the roadmap tells that consumer products are changed till 2006 and proffesional products are changed till 2007
I think it is a good idea to change, cause of different problems with ibm.
@ John Blaze FreeBSD is still running on PowerPC
look at: http://www.freebsd.org/platforms/index.html
15
The key is this:
“That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said.
So what does that mean? Dual boot! - Like Jim said, you can have the one machine and have it run OS X and Windows. Heck, they can even share data via the same (fat32) partitions.
But looking to the future I wonder if they’ll do a killer move: to make windows apps run under OS X. Get Codeweaver+Transgaming to port their Wine(X/Cedega) over to BSD, improve it a bit and their set.
Also, you can expect someone to crack MacOSX so it’ll run on x86’s - just like Jobs did at the keynote realy - and the pandemonium will be complete.
It seems to me a bit of a pandora’s box - there’s going to be a lot coming out of this but it’s still unclear what exactly.
PS. What does suprise me is that Apple didn’t go for the CELL architecture. It’s way more powerful than current PowerPC’s so emulation should have been a snap. You’d think that its usage in the PS3 should be evidence enough that it runs cool enough. I’m guessing it’s the powerconsumption that made them move to Intel, as they see the market being dominated by laptops rather than desktops.
16
now all Jobs has to do is jump into the iTardis to 1999, deliver rosetta to developers, kill the ipod development, take a grand tour round artists to look at their hard/soft needs, figure out schools need cross platform compatibility more than they need discounts, and apple might save its rep. We might be discussing a reliable computer company here instead of a over-hyping lifestyle pusher.
then again Jobs’d have to fight some investors to the death with designer katanas so I guess it’s not going to happen..
17
Any computer you bought in the last 6 months will be ‘obsolete’ in a years time anyway.
Were you happy with your purchase yesterday?
Has the performance changed in some way?
Would you really have waited another year (at least) before you bought the machine you wanted/needed now?
Not to mention they’ll be v1.0 products, always a risky buy…
18
@ AkaXaka (Can I quote myself, or is it just pretentious?):
So what does that mean? Dual boot!
In fact, with Virtual PC (and wine/cedega) you probably won’t even need to.
Basicly means it’s the ultimate web dev machine - it runs all browsers!
19
I’m in a real state of shock. I made this 200k GIF animation to keep my mind occupied.
20
This is good—IBM was not delivering the processor Apple wanted. Plus there is a good possibility that the prices will be lower. It’s really the OS and not the processor that makes a Mac a joy to use. The one question I have is—should I buy G5 now or will the prices drop?
21
Wow! Possibilities. I wonder how long it will be before new software will not support PPC. I’ll bet we see OS X 10.5 on both, but 10.6? I think a lot of Mac users probably ought to get familiar with anti-virus software before getting an Intel based Mac. In the mid-nineties I was looking forward to the OS wars being played out on PPC. CHRP never happened, but we might see the OS wars on Intel chips - Microsoft should be worried (but at least it means less anti-trust aggravation).
22
At short term, I don’t think it will change anything: as you said, Veerle, it’s just a chip and you’re right. But at long term, it may be a different story. It is said that MacOS X will only run on Apple hardware (thanks God!) now but in the future? Or don’t you think that some guys will not be able to make it run on any PC? “Were is the problem? that way a lot of people will be able to switch to Mac...” you’re going to tell me. Maybe… but maybe Microsoft will see that as a too big threat and will do everything possible to “kill” Apple. First step they will do, bye bye Office!! I know, we have Keynote and Pages that are far better than Office tools but I don’t know any PC user that will use Mac without Microsoft Office…
Ok, well, I’m probably too pessimistic but those kind of big changes have not been very good for Apple in the past!
23
@David Robarts: I think a lot of Mac users probably ought to get familiar with anti-virus software before getting an Intel based Mac
Sorry no offence but that’s bullshit! Intel is not the reason why there are viruses around. Mac OS X will still be Mac OS X no matter what chip is in it. So whatever we have going now we still will enjoy then.
@Pat: Office for Mac is a cash cow for Microsoft and as long as that’s the case Office will be around.
I am surprised that so much Mac users are a bunch of cry babies. Any machine you have bought will still be obsolete in a few years. And about price, the day the Mini came to the scene the price setting of olders models became a whole lot different.
I just have bought a new G5 and I’m not crying a river here. We keep all of these machines around for about 2,5 years and when the time comes I’ll update to Intel. This is progress and to me the future looks bright. Every software that I have now will still run on Intel. Just watch the keynote if you don’t take my word for it. In the mid 90ies we had something real to be concerned about, this is nothing compared. So my advice: get over it!
24
@Veerle: “I am surprised that so much Mac users are a bunch of cry babies.” Strong language from a strong woman. Just the way I like ‘em :-D
But you’re right, of course. Who cares nowadays if the engine in a car is developed in-house, bought somewhere else, or maybe co-designed with 4 other manufacturers ? It’s the total driving experience that matters, not one (be it major) component that contributes to that experience. The same with computers, I guess. As long as my engine doesn’t come from Microsoft, I’m one happy guy. Because we all know the Microsoft/General Motors comparison, don’t we ?
25
First of all I want to point out that I am not a Mac user. I have never owned a Mac, although I did want a PowerBook, and at the moment I doubt I ever will - because of this switch.
I am both somewhat pleased and disappointed with Apple. I can understand Steve being disappointed with the absence of 3 Gigahertz PowerPC chips, but I can’t understand why he would word his keynote speech as though that, as well as delivery issues, is why they’re switching to Intel.
It’s the megahertz/gigahertz myth, and I’m surprised that Steve Jobs, of all people on this planet, would indirectly perpetuate this myth further.
Sure, Pentium 4 64-Bit version at 3.6Ghz seems good right? How good does it seem though when you read a benchmark test that shows an AMD Athlon64 outpacing that Pentium, to varying degrees, and realise that the Pentium just got it’s butt kicked by a CPU running more than 1.2Ghz _slower_?
And before anyone mentions Centrino for notebooks - which by the way is _not_ a chip in itself but a blend of Intel tech - go and have a look at AMD’s Turion Processor - which _is_ a 64-bit, low wattage, high performance chip in itself.
Sure, change the processor if the existing one isn’t as advanced as another on the market AND if you’re not going to be suddenly telling most of your customers that they need to repurchase all, or most, of their software.
But why in the world would anyone switch TO Intel?!
Go to any one of hundreds of benchmark and gaming hardware review sites and you’ll read the same thing over and over again from the passed few years right up to today - AMD is consistantly bringing out chips that have more “grunt” and give you more “bang for your buck”.
I was going to get a PowerBook. Now I think I’ll just get an Asus A6K and put Gentoo on it.
Oh, one more thing to throw a monkey wrench into everyone’s day. Intel already have various elements of DRM (Trusted Computing) built into their latest chips, as will probably everyone else excluding VIA and SiS - can’t see their names on the TC home page yet.
It’s turning into Bizzaro World, and not in a funny, “Seinfeldy” sort of way either.
26
@Benjamin: I never believed in any benchmarks even the ones from Apple. If speed is your main raison for getting a computer then you are not seeing the whole picture sorry. Speed is a factor but that’s all, there is a lot more to consider. To me I couldn’t care less if some idiot says my AMD is faster then your Intel. The speed gap is always narrow and most of the benchmarks are biased. So what if DOOM screams on a AMD and somewhat less on a Intel. I’m not here to game!
It is the user experience and beauty of the design that make me want to buy a Mac not a stupid chip. So good luck with your Asus and Linux. I still love my PowerBook 17inch and wouldn’t trade even for two of those Asus ones ;-)
27
@Veerle:
I don’t think you quite understood my point so I’ll try re-iterating it,
AMD Athlon64 CPU’s run slower than Intel Pentium 4 CPU’s but have an overall better performance across the board, whether it be with games, audio and video, office software, or general OS operations.
The Athlon64 CPU is technically better than the Pentium 4 CPU, same as the PowerPC CPU is better than the Pentium 4 CPU. This is plainly visible when you look at what you can do on an Athlon or PowerPC and remember that both can be up to more than 1Ghz slower than the Pentium and yet still do more work.
I’ve built and used Athlons and Pentiums on several occasions, and I’ve seen first hand what a well put together Athlon-orientated PC can do compared to a well put together Pentium-orientated PC. An Athlon will always give you more “bang for your buck” than a Pentium in the x86 world.
Also, don’t take my remark about Asus and Linux as a slide against Mac OS X or the PowerBook.
I find the fusion of the Mac GUI to the BSD OS and Mach core quite neat. :)
I had an oppurtunity recently to use a PowerBook running Mac OS X 10.3 just over a month ago and I loved it - nice clean design, not too much eye-candy, easy to understand interface, and solid core underneath.
What I meant, and I should have said this better, is that what I used on the PowerBook then, compared to what I’m reading and seeing now, is that there are a few bugs in Tiger, and a few restrictions - just things like the 90 minute limit in iDVD for example - that are making me question where Apple is heading.
I wanted a PowerBook because I liked the interface on a rock solid OS, I liked the PowerPC architecture and it’s amount of “grunt” compared to x86 processors, and I liked the stream-lined, pleasant to move and use design of the notebook itself.
My comment about Asus and Linux is me saying that now that things have changed somewhat, I think I’ll take a more “wait and see” attitude towards getting a Mac.
28
(Addendum to last comment - sorry if this is regarded as flooding.)
I really do like the Mac OS X Operating System - so much so I’ve got Baghira skinning my KDE GUI and apps like Panther now :) - but there’s just, I don’t know, something about this whole “deal” that just doesn’t sit right with me at the moment.
In my eyes Apple used to be a shining example of a computer company that was orientated completely around the product they were selling, and how good it could be for the customer. Jobs may be rumoured to be a pain in the ass sometimes, but anyone can come across as being like that when they are searching for perfection.
I thought that’s what Apple was striving for - perfection and the ultimate blend of powerful, yet easy to use and aesthetically pleasing computing.
At the moment it seems that the only people who are striving for perfection in IT - not expecting to achieve it of course, but at least aiming for it - are those who don’t have to answer to stock holders, the people who are in this game because they love it.
It’s like body language, but on a corporate scale. I’ve been in IT for a fair while, and there are little cues and signals that you start to notice.
I think Apple could do the switch without too many problems. They seem to have what I would think as the two major hurdles covered - being able to run Mac OS X on x86 without too many dramas, and not making the customer buy all new software for a while yet. I suspected they could run OS X on x86 when I saw that the Darwin Mach kernel downloadable for x86.
I just don’t know though. This doesn’t feel, right.
It’s like when you get an itch and you scratch it, and then it seems to move just below the skin. This whole deal feels like that. Irritating, and a little bit worrying, especially with all the DRM stuff getting bandied about now.
Hell, I’m not even sure I’ll buy another computer after this Athlon XP considering AMD is in the TC group along with Intel.
29
Personally, I’m still in denial.
Anyway, I learned the news in some funny way.
30
@Benjamin: I understand what you’re saying but still any speculation on a chip from Intel is premature. It hasn’t been said what kind of type it will be. For all we know it could be a complete new design. Saying that AMD is better will only be known when the first Intel Mac is in stores and has been tested.
@Riccard0: That’s cool and I wish I was the one who powers Apple :-)
31
Veerle, you’re reaction @ Benjamins is a little bit foolish, I think (no offence though). You say you want quality and design and the chip has nothing to do with it? It has everythin to do with it! Intel makes garbish. AMD and IBM makes processors that are far more better (better architecture, less cooling issues, noise issues) than anythin what Intel makes. And the X86 is the mainstream cpu of Intel. I really don’t understand their choice. It seems to me that (with all the bugs Tiger, that was released to soon) that Apple is becoming more and more just a common, ordinary IT company with hungry share-holders......
32
Maybe it is “not done” to link to other website, but this article on arstechnica certainly gives a nice perspective on the recent events : http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars
@Benjamin : Do you really think that Apple is forever linked to Intel now? AMD remains an option for the future. Jobs is now in a position he likes, he can choose between the 2 leading cpu makers : Intel and AMD and he will make damn sure they deliver (remember G5 3Ghz?) what HE wants.
33
@kMikaZu: Sorry but that’s the typical dumb short-sighted Mac user remark. Intel isn’t the enemy and their chips aren’t bad, in fact our Dell works quite well but it isn’t a Mac. And who says it will be X86 nobody knows yet. What is known is that it will be an Intel chip that’s all. Apple will make sure it works well in their Macs.
You’re over reacting even with your Tiger remark. Bugs are a fact of life no software is without it. Ok it could be better but it isn’t that bad as you make it sound. I work on it daily and the only thing that has hick-ups is video with iChat.
34
I recently purchased a G5 and the only thing distressing about the Intel switch is that I have a G4 I need to sell.
There was a report in the NYTimes that Jobs asked IBM for price reductions, probably in reponse to IMB’s sluggish development of the G5. IBM snuffed him. If the Intel switch is personal then it is a sad day for Mac users. But the reality is that the Mac platform will always be playing catch up given the current status of things.
People were skeptical Apple would get Next running on Macs. I remember hearing from all the pc bigshots that Apple was dead. Of course, switching to OS X was the best thing Apple could have done. Time will tell with the Intel deal, but the sky is certainly not falling--at least not because of this little bit of news.
35
Well, of short-sighted Mac-users remarks spoken!! It’s not because you don’t have problems, that nobody has problems!!! Ever read the Apple fora? DHCP and wireless networking problems? Authorisation on ISA-proxy servers? Active Directory issues? Network Time issues? SMB connection loss? Do I have to continue? Tiger has come out to early!! It worked in Panther, they bring out a major update and a lot doesn’t work anymore! Typicall Apple-users, they only see the best in their favorite brand. And if someone has complaints, they just are wrong, they make mistakes, or they just have to leave. I have about 13 years of experience with Apple, so I am not a rookie. I hope that, when one you day you serious problems, you’re dealer or what so ever doesn’t say: “Hell, I didn’t have any complaints so far.....
36
@kMikaZu: First don’t put words in my mouth, I never said there weren’t any bugs in fact I said that I have an issue with iChat video. And your silly remark about the Apple fora, well even with Panther there where all kinds of post there. It is a forum for people that are seeking help with trouble after all. You only post there when you have trouble! This shoudn’t be basis to judge an OS release. If you’re a rookie then I am a veteran ;-) I worked on Apple all my life and bugs have always been there. You’re reaction is still one of a Mac user that is pissed because of Apple’s switch to Intel. If things are bad I will tell it too. A perfect example is my previous post about the 23inch Apple screen.
Typicall Apple-users, they only see the best in their favorite brand. And if someone has complaints, they just are wrong, they make mistakes, or they just have to leave.
Like I said you’re putting words in my mouth since I never said any of those things you’re saying.
37
If you change your busienss (or even corporate) strategy like apple announced yesterday, you will have good reasons. As I understood from various sources the main motivation of this transition was the possibility to deliver products that were impossible to deliver with the IBM processors. So probably this move is more about upcoming CE (Consumer Electronics) products than about the Mac platform.
I am pretty sure that the suppliers of Mac OS X software will continue to deliver products that are compatiable with both processors. It’s a piece of cake with Xcode 2.1, so…
Looking forward to the Fall mac events. I am really curious how they are continue to execute the CE strategy. They have some great assets and trajectories that offer lots of opportunities! Looking forward to see more about that.
PS. Veerle your new system looks awesome!
38
@Veerle: You don’t have to take it personally, I speak for all the users that minimize problems. If you read again, you will see that I don’t blame you of ignoring all bugs. You only minimise way to much.
Also, it’s a mistake to only look at the number of complaints. I look at the complaints and I analyze them. It seems to me, jo just want to minimise problems. Why should it be wrong to judge an OS by the reactions @fora? If Tiger was so good, the Apple Discussions Groups would be empty, won’t they? So how can you say that this is not the way of judging an OS? Should we throw away all feedback options then (if you put the line trough)? Fora are a very good indication how healthy your product is. With Panther, a lot of bugs were not so serious as these. Tiger Master was announced two weeks after the final developer release! That’s way to early (never happened before!) and it’s an explanation why those serious mistakes still remained active in the release that I and you bought.
OSX updates have always been more critical and unsure then OS9 updates (remember the battery issues, and so on).
You’re reaction is still one of a Mac user that is pissed because of Apple’s switch to Intel. That’s not truth. I had these complaints and statements right after I started working with Tiger. Don’t be so short sighted on people with critics! You take your conclusions to rapidly!
39
@kMikaZu: again your implying that I said that Tiger is perfect I DIDN’T. Read again I said bugs are a fact of life. Maybe it has been released too soon but it’s not worse then any other system update. The flaws are small and not mission critical. You can use it. People are not losing any data etc.
If Tiger was so good, the Apple Discussions Groups would be empty, won’t they?
Do you hear yourself? Your arguments don’t hold any ground. Trouble fora are never empty.
40
I don’t know if anyone has already mentioned this but this may be an interesting article for you http://tweakers.net/nieuws/37600
Since you work with adobe photoshop I’m probably all wrong but hey, it’s mac (and newstopic :)) related so why not post it. :)
41
@Veerle: People did lose data with Panther, when FileVault had serious bugs. :-p Not in Tiger, that’s a fact. But if they “forgot” that big companies work often work with proxy-servers and SMB, you can’t call that small flaws anymore. It’s a serious part of the system. Why don’t you want to accept or believe that there are indeed surious flaws? The update 1 did help a lot, but the problem with proxy-servers isn’t solved yet. Lucky that Telenet doesn’t use proxy’s anymore, or I wasn’t surfin right now! I’m not implying that you said Tiger isn’t perfect (cfr. your iChat problem). Your minimising everything (I’ve said that twice).
I’m a teammember of a forum myself, so I know that there are always problem and that fora never are emty.. But saying that forums doesn’t indicate if an OS is bad or not, is very wrong. It’s the first indicator!! In fact, it is a very good help for Apple to improve their system!
42
Fascinating discussion about the speculation on how the Intel processor will work with the Macs. I am a Dell-user, myself, and really can’t find anything to complain about the Intel processors, and I think they work quite nicely, really. They have improved quite a bit over the years, and my computer can do some pretty amazing things, in terms of speed, itself.
I really believe that Steve Jobs wouldn’t have done it, if he didn’t think the Intel was a good processor - I agree with Veerle that it is a positive move. I think the company has a proven track record, and that is why Steve Jobs chose to try it out. I think ultimately it is a move towards making the Macs more cross-compatible with the PC, or whatever, without losing the market to the PC - and I think it is a smart marketing move, as well. I’m sure Steve Jobs is a smart enouhg guy to understand the impact of it, and wouldn’t have done it if it weren’t a good move for his company.
I am not any IT expert, myself on computer chips, or have much experience with understanding the technicalities of the other kinds of processors, but I have used both Macs and PCs, and am primarily a PC-user. There are things about the PC that I find more preferable, but other things that Macs can do in the design area, that PC’s just can’t match. One seems to be the display - for some reason the Macs have an amazing display, and I don’t know what makes it so, but the Dell screens, while being flat now, and looking more sleek, still don’t seem to match the image or even color quality on the Mac. There are other intuitive things abuut Macs that I really like, and debated about getting one myself, but having started with the PC’s, it made more sense for me to get the Dell, myself. I really can’t complain - I see nothing objectionable about using the Dell with the Intel Petium 4 processor - I really feel like I have an excellent machine to work with, and considering what computers were like just a few years ago, this is a dramatic improvement.
43
Anyway, though, I am no fan of Microsoft, either, AND it is true - Intels are not the Microsoft operating system!
I don’t know what it is about Windows, but I think that the Macs are far more creatively designed in terms of operating system and intuitive user-friendly stuff, whereas stuffy old Windows just lacks imagination, and is more of the office machine. The only thing I don’t like about my PC, but this is what I am used to using, so can live with it.
I think it would be really cool if they somehow could build an entirely new machine that would incorporate the best features of both… who knows what that might lead to? And I bet that that is one of the future goals, too, as people I think would probably like to have more cross-platform compatibility and standardization.
On another note, I heard recently that Tiger had some security flaw in it, that made it vulnerable to virus attacks. I don’t know if you all heard about that, or not. It came in a posting on one of my list-serves, but since I don’t use it, didn’t pay a lot of attention to the details, but just thought I would mention it.
44
@kMikaZu : The more complex the software gets the more difficult it gets to achieve a perfect OS. And no OS is perfect. Also the more people leak builds onto illegal circuits the more Apple wil close off this beta versions, which is ultimately a bad thing. It’s your intension to make me look like a fantatic which I’m not. You just have to put things in perspective and you’re not doing that. It’s not that the people on the fora represent the 2 million copies of Tiger now in circulation. It’s not that I want idealize Tiger, but it is not that bad as you make it sound…
Anyway I was talking about the switch to Intel here and my opinion about it, not Tiger in particulary. I have the feeling that people associate Intel too much with Microsoft, they kind of see it as one same thing. I think you are overreacting by saying that Apple is becoming like any other IT company. They have their share of problems of course, but most are solvable. If you are saying that Intel is crap but that is really exaggerated, because it’s not like Intel must call back all their chips because of faults, overheating etc. Think about how well spread Intel is. Anyway I don’t think I idealize Apple at all, I just have a sober look on reality. They had their share of screw ups, but they always solve it in the long run. They are not just becoming an ordinary IT company in my opinion just because they chose for the Intel chip over AMD… We just don’t know enough to judge about this decision. We will just have to see what this brings, be patient and (at least I am) hopeful.
45
I am also hopefull, because I really love Apple (I also bought Tiger from the first day, ;-) ). But for me it was a little bit a disenchantment, because of all the serious bugs. And I want quality. I also reacted so strong, because in the news-item about Indesign, you didn’t seem to believe me either that Indesign have some serious flaws. And I thought you just lost your critical view on things. Anyway, “sand over it” (how do you say that in English? :-)
And I don’t want you to look fanatic, but I want you to admit that there were serious problems that could have been avoided, if Apple just waited a little bit longer, or looked better. ;-)
I hope that Intel comes up with a better CPU, then they are now. I admit that a coöp with Intel, has some fantastic perspectives to offer, but I still want to wait and see. My experiences with Intel are not so good.
I also hope that Apple continues to give clear signals and answers about the roadmap; so that all doubts and question will vanish!! In my opinion the keynote was a little bit to general speaking.
One thing I am very happy with: With Intel, no more backorders that goes for more then 2 months!!!
46
@Benjamin/kMikaZu:
Apple isn’t going to Apple for their current line of Pentium 4’s, they’re much more likely to use the Pentium M’s. They are far more power efficient and flexible than Athlons or regular Pentiums.
But really, discussion is moot. We’ll just have to see how things develop.
Anyway, “sand over it”
Anyway, we’ll leave it at that. That’s how you say it in English :)
47
Hey thx, AkaXakA :-)
48
Not to whore, but this article seems rather relevant for this topic, especially this piece:
“Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.”
From: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ (It will be archived as June 8th, but there’s no direct at this time)
49
and all the hardware that will become available for mac users, that will make things much cheaper..., easier to switch… ;-)
and no need to get the expensive HW stuff from apple, unless you can afford it, and already fall in love like most human beings ¿?.
50
My concern is not wether there’s Intel inside but the focus of Apple.
What kind of company is it or is going to become?
Are they still commited to supply people with the best possible desktop computers? I doubt it.
They’re far more a kind of lifestyle gadget company. I dont need any iMacs, iPods, iTunes stuff. Shure, they’re cute.
But do they any good for Apple?
I do not see an overall strategy in Apple right now. Too much diverse their product range. Everything from fancy lifestyle paraphenalia to professional video cutting software.
For a long time now Apple relies on standard PC hardware, so the step for Intel comes to no surprise.
But what’s left after this but software and OS? They should skip this hardware thing, and release Mac OS X for all computers.
This would really show, if their approach would convince mainstream users.