Slashdot Mirror
Will You Stick with Apple, After the Switch?
caseykoons writes "While I understand the /. crowd is likely to be biased, I am curious. Has Apple's decision to switch to Intel Chips lost the company some of its old supporters? I have used Macs since I grew up, was a loyal 'Mac Evangelist' back in the '90's, but the company's decision and the recent connection to Trust Computing have had me wondering if I will stick with the old Apple from now on. What are your thoughts?"
..and it will still be all that it is today. The only people leaving would be the ignorant ones.
As Steve said, the soul of a Mac is the operating system.
And, while I am disappointed that we're leaving a much superior architecture, I'd rather use OS X on x86 then not have OS X at all.
It's not the processor.
I'll be sticking with Apple. Recall that IBM was the object of Apple's animus in the Big Brother ad in 1984. If Apple made nice with IBM, I really don't see the problem with making nice with Intel.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
I plan to actually buy an Apple after the switch happens. I'm more annoyed at the "lock out" chip to prevent OSX from running on anything but Apple's lineup of Intel stuff, but for the most part, I can't wait to go Mac
If bad puns were like deli meat, this would be the wurst
but i'm not going to get an Macintel until it's out atleast 4 years.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
I like their software. Their hardware will still be nice. Not as different, but still nice, even if it is still overpriced. But their OS won't change. It will still be a nice, easy to use OS with Unix underpinnings. That is why I bought my iBook, not because it has a G4 processor.
/usr/games/fortune
I don't plan on trading in my dual G4 anytime soon anyway. I would make sure the new system I do upgrade to has more power obviously, but its the OS Apps, and general hardware I switched for, not the CPU.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
There has been an unbelievable amount of hype around this change. I guess I'm not sure why so many people seem to have some sort of religious attachment to the CPU. The vast majority of folks (even many developers) never interact in any meaningful way with the CPU itself (e.g. assembly) that would really differ in moving from PPC to Intel. There will be emulation for a while and this will be less than optimal but for the most part this shouldn't have much effect on most users and from a functional point of view will barely be a blip on the radar in 2-3 years.
Computer user since December 25, 1982
Mac user since July 5th, 1988
I've gone through System 6, System 7, OS 8.1/8.6, pretty much skipped OS 9, and then from 10.0.4 on up to 10.4.2. That has carried me across 8mhz 68000s, some 68020s, a IIfx (I still pine for that machine), various 030s and 040s, a handful of PPC601 upgrade cards, eventually to native PPC machines (some of those with 486 cards in them!), all the way to my current 533mhz G4 tower and G3 iBook.
So what was the question? Whether or not I'm gonna ditch the Mac because of a processor change?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
In the short term, yes. I've ridden out the previous two transitions and I'll ride this one out too. I'm willing to wait and see how things develop before I make any decisions.
Realistically though, what other option will there be? If the Mac goes fully into the Trusted Computing model, the Windows option will certainly have too. As a graphic designer by career, without any of the major design apps being ported to Linux, there's really no option there. As a musician recreationally, without any of the major sequencers or other software being ported to Linux, it's further not an option.
Further, with a Mac presumably able to multi-boot Mac OS, Windows, and Linux, it makes it a rather attractive option. Good-bye KVM, good-bye two computers under the desk!
The new Apple hardware will be stylish, perform well, run the best combination of usability and power on the market and be compatible with the other 95% of the computing world. You'd have to be an ideological moron to give all this up because of a "connection" with something that's a bit on the nose. But those sorts of people are few and are already running Linux (but they call it GNU/Linux).
When Apple starts affecting my freedom to use my computer the way I want, or otherwise fucking up the user experience, I'll ditch them.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
From my experience much of the Intel hatred in the Mac crowd was caused by Apple themselves with their anti-Intel campaigns (remember the toasted bunny suit?). In my mind these ads were targeted towards the not-so-knowledgeable crowd who thought Apple and Intel were directly competing companies (which they obviously aren't, Intel being a chipmaker and Apple being a computer-maker). Mac-thusiasts who bash Intel are almost certainly just repeating the same messages that Apple fed to them several years ago.
It seems to me that Apple is just doing what is necessary to ensure that they deliver a top-notch product to their customers, which is a fairly rare thing today. As far as I'm concerned, bravo to Apple for being aggressive enough to make such a decision.
Has Apple's decision to switch to Intel Chips lost the company some of its old supporters?
That decision alone won't directly affect very many people's decision. In the end Apple may lose some customers, if the transition is too difficult for the software developers, or if the Intel chips can't perform as well, or if the rate of piracy goes up. But directly, who cares what company makes the chip? A few zealots, maybe, but the vast majority of the world doesn't make this type of distinction.
You're just repeating unsubstantiated rumors. Please, provide us with some evidence that Apple will fully implement TC.
Also, I don't know anyone who runs anything but OS X on their Macs and Apple's Schiller has stated many times that you'll be able to run Windows XP on your machine (but they won't support it) so I don't see how TC makes any difference to me. I don't care about Linux (that's why I run OS X).
When I switched to an Apple laptop, and made my company add Apple Desktops to our mostly Linux and Solaris environment, it's the operating system, not the hardware platform that interested us the most: Unix back-end, source compatibility for all our applications, and support for office applications. Previously, we had people switch from machine to machine depending on which application they need. OS X has not removed the need for Windows, but it has much reduced it.
If it's DRM'ed 9 ways from Sunday then I maybe wouldn't. If it's just a Macintosh with an Intel chip, though, why the hell not? 9 out of 10 blindfolded lab rats can't tell the difference between PPC and x86 without cracking the case. It's not like free-vs.-non-free, (DRM aside, which they could have done with PPC if they really wanted to) it's just one vendor's chip or another. Unless you're an irrational fanboy, it shouldn't matter if it's PPC, Intel, AMD, SPARC, silicon, diamond, neural net, or whatever. It's just a chip in a box you like, running an OS you like, running the apps you like.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
"Well, I guess it is kinda funny, Glen..."
Yes, I have seen Raising Arizona too many times, and, yes, I will probably still purchase & use Macintosh machinery after "The Switch." That is to say, I'll still use them if they're still meeting my needs & desires, which currently involve:
a) compatibility with Pro Tools
b) compatibility with Blizzard's games
c) compatibility with M$ Office
If the post-Switch machines meet these needs, and are as fun to use as my 15" end-of-'03 Powerbook, then I will likely purchase & use 'em. Why the hell not?
A computer is a tool. You use it to get stuff done.
An Apple Mac does its best to help you do your stuff done, and gets out of your way otherwise.
This is why many people love their Macs. As long as that doesn't change, we won't care what's on the inside.
How dumb would it be to abandon a favored OS because it would no longer run on a less economical and nonstandard hardware platform!
Amazing magic tricks
Not so much because of the CPU, but because I like the OS. I have been planning this for some time now.
I'm tired of playing "Pimp My OS" with Linux and I hate working with Windows.
The CPU switch does make me more comfortable with the future of the system though. PPC is like Matrox video cards, every few years they release a new version that is the best thing on the planet, then two months later it's slow compared to everything else.
This last generation of PPC didn't seem to live up to expectations very well, but with x86 the CPU is no longer a problem.
I may simply buy a cheap used G5 once the Intel hype kicks in. Apple seems like it has a future for the first time in many years.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
...I've never owned a Mac. I've been lusting after their laptops for a while now, but the one thing that's kept me back is the inability to run enough games to keep me happy.
Now, with Mac on Intel, I hope to be able to run Windows on mac hardware. That way I can enjoy OS X for my web, email and productivity stuff, but still have access to Windows for all my gaming needs. Sure, Apple won't support it and sure, it'll be a bit of a Hobbyist hack, but I can deal with that just to get a laptop that looks nice and runs both OS X and Windows.
So for me at least, the change to Intel will most likely gain Apple a customer.
-EvilMagnus
I think Bill Gates remarks about the dominance of the iPod mean he is serious, and that things are about to get very interesting. I think Longhorn is going to be a huge problem for Microsoft, and I think that Apple will continue to make consistently amazing products. I can't wait to get an Intel PowerBook.
Ross Winn "not just another ugly face..."
People buy Macs not because of what chip it's running on, but because of the user experience. Sure, the PPC chip was great for bragging rights when it first came out, but that was only one of the things that supposedly made the Mac better (and unfortunately, the promises of the RISC chip didn't live up to the hype).
When the Mac first came out, it got rave reviews for being a nice interface and easy to use. It helped start the desktop publishing revolution with its graphics. But nobody really cared about the chip it ran on. Then came Windows which basically emulated the interface of point and click. That's when the chip became an issue.
Fast forward to now, with the "big switch". So Macs will run on Intel chips. What does that mean? Probably a boost in performance since Intel is actually speeding up their chips in a speed war with AMD (whereas Motorola and IBM didn't really seem to care) and perhaps cheaper prices. But the big thing to note...the Mac will still be a Mac. It will still have a pretty, usuable face on its UNIX underpinnings. It will be easy for newbies to use, it will be hard core for the geeks to use, it'll be a simple interface for everything you want to connect to it as a digital hub. So why leave? Stay with the Mac and see if it gets even faster.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Since trust computing has you reconsidering Apple. Where will you go then? Longhorn is a trust computing "aware" OS. So that really only leaves a Linux / Unix variant. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating either side of the coin. It just seems in the past weeks that both Apple and Microsoft have pledged, albeit in an indirect or discreet manor to support trusted computing as a means of protecting the OS from running on "un-authorized" computers.
As long as I can run Linux on it...
For a few years, I have wanted an apple but needed a system for my consulting business that runs windows natively. I'm now delaying my next notebook purchase until Intel based Apples are available because I hope it will fit my requirements perfectly.
Chris
Historically, the x86 line has always been inferior to everything else on the market -- in many ways, such as power consumption, heat emission, and their ISA (instruction set architecture, not the ISA slots).
However -- since they bought some wonderful chips called the StrongARMs off Digital, and have since produced the Xscale line of chips, it's entirely possible that they've learned a thing or two about chip design.
Intel have only ever done one thing right -- marketing. They have pushed the mind share of the common Joe to think that more megahertz means a better processor. And people have fallen for it.
I'm only a very recent Mac convert - about 3 years now, and overall I've been very impressed with their quiet, cool CPUs.
Changing back to the Intel world is something I'm going to do carefully, but I'm open to it. If the next gen of Intel chips made for Apple are up to it, then yes I'll jump onto the bandwagon.
Why are CPUs so important to me?
Because of overall machine architecture. Crappy architecture breeds crappy hardware design. Crappy hardware design means hardware craps out more often. Crapped out hardware leads to a frustrating user experience.
I'd rather just be using my computers. Yeh, 10 years ago, I was right into my hardware strewn in 5 pieces all over the desk, and having to work hard at hacking shit up to figure out what made it tick. But I'm old and cynical now and just want a computer that works.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
I bought a Powerbook G4 12" in 2003 after trying OS X out for a few months at work. The OS is what made me a Mac fan. The unique PPCness and the pretty designs were kind of cool but don't really matter much (to me). If Dell, HP, or Packard Bell started shipping PCs with OS X then I'd seriously consider them too. Wait, not Packard Bell.
People say it's OS X not the processor that matters.
Well OS X will be such a bloated mess by the time Apple's transition is complete that I won't be interested in it anymore.
OS X is going in all the wrong directions in a cheap attempt to entice windows users. Besides, to have OS X only on Macs Apple will have to deploy the most draconian DRM possible and I can't support that. No way am I paying $3000 for an Apple logo for what is indentical inside to a $400 Dell. sorry.
And if one of the Linux distros can deliver something decent it will probably make my saying goodbye to Apple easier.
I have used Macs since I grew up, was a loyal 'Mac Evangelist' back in the '90's, but the company's decision and the recent connection to Trust Computing have had me wondering if I will stick with the old Apple from now on. What are your thoughts?
My thoughts are that you are crazy. Religion of any kind turns me off, so do people who enjoy being called an "evangelist".
I think I will be in the market for a Mac soon, and if the Intel based solution is good, I will buy it.
It's only computers, geez.
I'm not really a Mac user, although I do own a Mac SE and a Performa 6220 (both machines I received about a year ago). I have always liked NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and I have always lusted over a Mac with Mac OS X. Mac OS X is magnitudes better than Windows and *nix, IMO. The software available for Mac OS X is also wonderful and very easy to use. And the development environment is something to envy for.
However, a major part of the reason why I liked Macs a lot is because Macs aren't your everyday boring Intel x86 PCs. I completely despise the x86 PC platform and I think it is cheap utter crap. There is nothing elegant about x86 architecture, BIOS, legacy ports, and all of that utter crap that should have been replaced a decade ago. Compare that to PowerPC/Motorola 68k architecture, Open Firmware, USB/Firewire, and all of that other nice stuff Apple adopted over the years. Unfortunately, due to market issues (people wanting cheap machines instead of great machines), the MIPS and Alpha platforms are dead, Apple is now switching to x86 (which will kill the PowerPC), and the SPARC is still staying alive. The Power Mac G5 is of workstation quality. You got the best processors (two PowerPC G5s) and the best operating system (Mac OS X). Now in 2007 the Power Mac will lose what makes that Mac a Power Mac. I just hate seeing elegant platforms die.
With that being said, I hope that Apple releases Mac OS X for regular x86 computers. That would be the best thing that would ever happen for the x86 PC platform, since the only choices we have for operating systems are *nix and Windows. The x86 PC platform needs a better operating system, and Mac OS X will fill that void. Unfortunately, that would probably never happen, since that would completely cannibalize Apple's hardware sales and would lead to mass piracy. As for me buying a Mac, I don't think I'll buy an x86 Mac, but I might pick up a Power Mac G5 in a few years once they become cheaper.
Still, I wish that somebody would build new workstation-quality computers that had an elegant 64-bit RISC architecture, kind of like the Power Mac G5. Sure, a cheap $300 Dell is perfect for Joe Average who needs to check his mail, play his multimedia files, type some documents, and surf the Web. However, what about scientists, engineers, researchers, and other people who need a workstation to do their jobs? Everybody is focusing on Joe Average, but nobody is focusing on scientists, engineers, and researchers. Plus, we need more choices in the computer market. In 2007, we'll be completely stuck with the x86...forever. That completely scares me. We need more choices, soon. I don't want an Intel and AMD monopoly, where there is very little innovation. I want to see a mixture of different chips like we have seen back in the 1990s. Remember Alpha, SPARC, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, and PA-RISC? I wish that we had this diversity in chipsets again.
It wouldn't matter if it only ran on Bill Gates underware soaked in electrolytes, I will us a Mac. Scrape the intel inside sticker off and it won't be any different then before.
How many people have asked what CPU does the ipod run on? Most people probably don't care, they just think it looks and works really cool, and that's about it.
What about phones. How many people really care what the OS is on their phone? Just us geeks, but most people don't care. Most people buy a phone because of what it does for them. Caller ID, ringtomes, etc.
I don't think this switch is really going to loose them a userbase unless the new hardware performs pretty crapily.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
While I'm sure the Mac platform will still have some markup in it, the fact that the machines will be on par performance wise with their PC cousins and the liklihood of high speed emulation of the Win32API/DirectX in OSX itself or the ability to just switch over to WIndows - I can say with certainty that I am more anxious about Macs than I have ever been. While my Dual-G5 at work is certainly an excellent machine, I expect that I will actually get more out of the Intel Macs in terms of being able to reuse hardware (like videocards) and swap out SOME parts that fail more cheaply.
My Powerbook 165C and my two SE/30's aren't going ANYWHERE. They're here to stay and will continue to be used.
(I run NetBSD on one of the SE/30's, though)
For me (dedicated Mac user since 3/1985) I have scads of software that I have purchased. To re-purchase this stuff that will be available will be expensive, adding onto the rather high price that I am expecting apple to charge for the intel macs, compared to the pc selling price at that moment. And after I've upgraded to the Intel system box, then the ability to access files will undoubtedly go away on some of my legacy items. I've already dealt with some of these issues, having software that quit working when os 7 came out. This consideration is a real issue for me, because until there is the intel setup available, G5s are the only route to upgrade. I daresay that I'll be buying a G5 soon, and then using my G5, G4 and G3 until the cows come home, or until I can no longer justify having such a "slow" processor as my G5. I think if I avoid gaming, that point will never come. It is a trade off of cost for a new machine AND new software, which typically costs more than the machine, if you do anything useful. And then there is the consideration of cutting edge or not--I remember working on designing a PCI 2.0 circuit card in 1996, a standard that Apple is YET to support (unless they've slipped it into a G5 lately without my knowledge). Apple's PCI bus has been 33 Mhz, although my g3 had one 66 Mhz bus for the video card. And the other issue is that I've had issues with the design of each mac I've owned (original Mac, IIsi, B&W G3, and G4) with faulty design or bad hardware. So this changeover is NOT gonna be an "I'll follow old Stevey Jobs down whatever road he goes" decision. If someone comes out with something better, I'll go for it. But, on the other hand, I sure do like the BSD Unix underpinnings.
The only people who bail because of a processor change will be the same people who burned their records when they found out Milli Vanilli was not the two guys on stage. Did the music suddenly sound any different, or had they been buying the records because of the image of the performers?
OS X really is great. I've said time and time again that they should've released it for PC years ago. Unless it's cracked so I can run it on my current PC, I will probably make my going-away-to-college gift to me a Mac with one of these processors, assuming it can run Windows apps (games) at native speeds.
Besides the computing press, does anybody really CARE what CPU is in the Mac? I sure don't.
When the Mac was announced in 1984, I was at the local computer store staring in awe at this wonderful machine with high-quality sound and smooth paper-like black-on-white graphics. That is the day I "switched" to Mac. Although I work with FreeBSD and Linux these days, I've never NOT been a Mac user. I was also a HUGE fan of the NeXT OS and Objective-C. I was thrilled when all these worlds collided in Mac OS X.
The Mac has switched OSes, processors, case colors, and CEOs before. I really couldn't care less about the type of CPU. Will it make my computer faster, quieter, or cooler? Then I'm all for it. I have no religious attachment to the frickin' CPU.
Most of my programming these days is Lisp and Ruby. I'm about 5 layers away from the CPU. In fact, besides the name "G4", I can't tell you anything about the CPU in my powerbook. I'm not even sure what the clock speed is! It matters to me about as much as the brand of cooling fan.
I'm not going to stick with Apple! I'll switch to... er... to... er... I'll buy an x86 machine that will run all x86 OSes except for OS X, instead of an x86 machine that will run all x86 OSes. Just to spite them.
So if your looking to jump off the Apple boat because you don't like TC, what are you going to post to Slashdot on? A Windows Box?
So lets look at the options here:
A) I'm skipping out on a lifetime of mac loyalty and I'm going to run a PC
B) I'm skipping out on a lifetime of mac loyalty and I'm going to run *NIX even though it's UI is terrible.
C) I give up, I'm going to use an etch a sketch and an abacus.
D) Ok, I guess I'll stick with a mac.
How about:
Will you stick with Windows after the switch?
I might consider running OS X if VMware offers a version for it and someone hacks up a way to run it on my Opteron machine.
I think there will be a crapload more people going to Apple after the switch than going away.
Apple makes a damn fine laptop. Though I paid an arm and leg for her (Angela), she has taken a beating like no other machine I have ever owned. I dropped her while getting out of a taxi in Chicago, and she even slid off of a table and onto a tile floor. That one required a little surgery but she is still ticking. OSX is solid and has a great future in front of it no matter which proc it is running on. A proc is a proc and we have plenty of power these days. Apple truly benefits the user with it's hardware and software.
Well, even if the platform shift turns out to not be as good as we'd like, what's the alternative? I think that many, if not most, Mac users have chosen the OS X platform for specific reasons which weren't addressed adequately by competing platforms.
Before switching to OS X, I was a longtime Linux user, running it for 11 years as the primary OS on my home system (1994-2004). I finally tired of the lack of consistent user interface behavior and tight integration between the applications I used, which is one of the things I like best about OS X apps. Also, I wanted to get into video editing. Nothing on Linux satisfies this to the degree I want, and Windows has other major problems that preclude me from choosing to use that on my personal hardware. (Such as security vulnerabilities and the need to reinstall the OS every few months to deal with registry bloat or corruption.)
So if I abandonded OS X, then where would I go?
OSX + all my mac apps + Crossover Office/Wine/Darwine + all the Windows apps that I need to run from time to time without having to emulate a processor = godsend
However Steve Jobs != God no matter what HE may think
This is an extremely weird question. Why should I switch away from the Mac now that they finally become faster?
And besides, what non-Intel-compatible PC should I switch to? It's not like there was large amount of options availbable. SPARC?
Same with me. The Mac was the last bastion of hope for those who wanted to avoid the x86 platform without having to pay thousands of dollars for a Sun workstation. The Mac was a blend of elegant hardware (PowerPC and OpenFirmware) and elegant software (Mac OS X). There was nothing crappy about a Mac with OS X. It was something to lust after.
And in 2007, that elegance will be gone. Choice will be gone. There will be an x86 monopoly on computers (except for the SPARC, and who knows how long that will stay). The only choice we'll have left to make is whether to buy crappy hardware and run Linux/Windows on it, or to buy crappy hardware that comes bundled with Mac OS X.
The x86 is one of the worst processor architectures ever designed. It has a crappy instruction set and is filled with hacks. However, due to Joe Sixpack users who believe that higher megahertz == higher performace, and because of stupid companies who fell for that Itanic pile of BS and dropped their elegant architectures, the x86 somehow killed the MIPS, Alpha, Motorola 68k, PowerPC, and PA-RISC archiectures. The x86 isn't popular due to technical superiority. The x86 is only widespread because of some excellent marketroids running the company, and because Joe Average can't walk into the computer store and buy himself a MIPS or PowerPC machine.
I'll stay with the Mac after the transition. Hopefully it will make things better. If not, I doubt it will make things worse. As another poster said, I could care less about the hardware (I like it, but it's not a dealbreaker). I want OS X (and to a lesser extent, iLife). That's what will keep me with the Mac.
I do like the switch in some ways. It means there will be no reason to release graphics cards and other hardware for Macs 6-12 months later (if at all). Since the underlying chips are the same, it's only the drivers that would stop you. That mean more hardware, more competition, and therefor better prifces.
It should also help with ports of programs (like games) from Windows. You loose the hardware excuse, there is no platform endieness issues, etc. As long as you write something portable (OpenGL, for example) porting shouldn't be that hard. And for those who don't, I fully expect someone like TransGaming to make something to let me run them on my new hypothetical Mac anyways.
As for DRM, that doesn't really worry me. I certanly trust Apple far FAR more than I trust MS in that department. And if worse comes to worse, I can always go back to Linux.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Seriously though, the only reason I don't already have a mac is cost, and I will be switching after the switch.
SAILING MISHAP
OSX on ARM? Funny. You really don't know what your talking about do you? ARM is nice for their ipods, but not their powermacs (I just assume the ipod uses arm) Unless you spend all your time coding in asm (and I hope you wouldn't, modern c/c++ compilers can do better asm then humans anyway) then you shouldn't care about which architecture your using. PPC may sound better in docs, and may be a cleaner arch compared to old x86, but I'm sorry, compare the G5 to your amd64 (yes I know theyre not using amd, but intel's been slack with their 64bit, and the amd chip is still an x86_64 chip so all is well) in terms of power consumption, heat and performance. Or the G4 vs Pentium M for the same reasons. Sure, PPC may be a cooler arch, but unless you plan on living in a dreamworld, x86 beats out ppc.
Sure you can run Linux or *bsd on your intel machine, but you can on a ppc machine too. That's not the point of having an apple computer. The x86 darwin port is not the same as the OSX x86 port.
In fact, I just moved from a 17" Powerbook (1 GHz) to a new Power Mac G5 (dual 2GHz). Even if Apple died tomorrow my stuff will continue to work over its lifetime. This way I don't have to worry about the CPU migration until it is all over and we start seeing the second generation of Mactel hardware.
;-) I think that in the long run Apple will pick up even more customers than they lose. Apple is releasing a lot of cool stuff. Things that appeal to people. Innovative stuff, even. Apple isn't afraid of trying something new and/or different. Many times it works, sometimes it flops in the marketplace (G4 Cube). At least they are out there taking chances.
:)
I think what will happen is that Apple will lose some people. Some of which will be quite vocal about it.
Given that Apple has no long term debt, has built up a 7.5 billion dollar reserve, I think Apple is going to be around for quite some time. I'm glad to see them making this transition from a position of strength. I figure after surviving a continual death predictions since 1984 Apple is just one lucky company.
"All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
When I bought myself a PowerMac last summer, I did not do it because it had a PowerPC chip under the hood. I bought it for the OS and iLife, it had excellent performance, and to finally use my iPod to its full potential.
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
But I'll stick after the Intel transition. The reason I moved to Mac, when you get right down to it, is that I have always found Mac OS to be a pleasant and relatively secure environment. It's consistent and and easy to find things.
When I use Windows -- and I'm typing this on an XP machine -- I'm always struck by how each application looks and works so differently. Security issues aside, I'm just not as comfortable in Windows.
Before anyone takes this as an anti-Microsoft rant, I am also a bit taken aback by the lack of uniformity in certain Linux desktops. I know a lot of users like being able to customize virtually every aspect of their interface, but I just wanna get stuff done.
I'm attached to a slew of Mac software: Omniweb, Safari, the various iLife and iWork applications, Transmit, and others. Have an investment in them, too.
I wish Apple had chosen AMD as its new partner, but I'm sure they'll come up with some zoomy new MacTel boxes. One thing I *know* will be better is Apple's laptops. I'll almost certainly buy an Intel PowerBook as soon as they hit the streets. If it's possible, I'll buy a large drive and maintain Windows and Linux partitions. Very handy.
On the other hand, I understand why old-timer Macheads are uncomfortable with folks we used to think of as the "bad guys." Maybe that's why I've taken an interest in Ubuntu Linux and have slowly begun re-ripping my (legally acquired) music library to open formats. There's no harm in keeping a good Plan B close at hand, right?
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I've purchased a Ti-Powerbook, dual G5 and a mini within the last 3 years; I can't wait until I can "justify" buying another. I've been so pleased with these things. I believe that the MacTel versions will have the same quality in design, hardware, engineering and software. I'll be a Mac user until there are no more working units. Then I will begin repairing them so I can keep using them.
Oh, unless Longhorn rocks.
Why would I switch away form Apple? The answer lies in why I switched to Macs in the first place. Terrific integration between well designed hardware and an OS which is robust, performant, familiar (I'm a BSD user since BSD 2.8), available (mostly) in source, pretty, and most importantly, just works.
Is a substantial amount of this going to change when the CPU changes? Not likely. I've been running Darwin on a PC for some time now, just to get a feel for it and all seems well in all regards (OK, it's not yet pretty).
Will I switch? Only if Apple messes up big time. All indications are that I'll be replacing whatever hardware will need replacing with whatever Apple happens to be offering at the time I decide I need to replace.
-michael
Yes. Its not about the rumors, the worst case scenarios or the CPU, Its about the interface. It isn't there for Linux yet and it will never be there for M$.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
- what is this chip thing you keep talking about? I turn the computer on, and hey, it just works...heck if I know what's inside the little bugger.
Man, I can't wait to get my hands on a 17" PB with an intel processor that will go twice or thrice as fast as my current PB. I'll be selling this one right away, which shouldn't be a problem, and getting one of those because man are they going to be fast... I use my Mac mostly for java development and the usual web surfing, mail viewing, Instant messaging... also for VoIP, organizing my photos, making the occasional DVD, ripping CD's for my iPod, recording and playing music with GarageBand... none of that stuff is going to change at all. The switch to intel, to me, only means a faster powerbook.
Go hug some trees.
Intel Inside? Hemi Hiden Here?
y , then sign me up. It no longer matters - not sure it ever did - that it's an Intel processor or AMD. RISC, AltiVec, whatever. To some degree they are marketing slng.
Who cares?
I grew up playing with jumper switches and waited with anticipation for new issues of Computer Shopper and the like to come out so I could find the best price on drive cables and other crap I don't care about any more.
Point is, PowerPC architecture or x86, if it gives the best price-to-speed-to-wattage-to-size-to-dependabilit
The caveat is research or institutional services like render farms and SETI crunchers. But I am more likely to make the purchasing decision on the next computer for out family room before anyone at NASA asks me what they should put in the server room.
So to answer the original poster's question: No, it doesn't matter that they are going to Intel. I like the Mac user experience so I'm staying put.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
i switched back when 10.3 came out because osx was so inticing. after running windows since 95 was around and putting up with the ever increasing spyware and malware popping up (easy enough to combat with regular cleanings and scannings, but why put up with that in the first place?)
the aluminum powerbooks were the icing on the cake... firewire, built in wireless, excellent battery life, wide screen displays making them perfect for web development work where i would need to run photoshop along side apache and php.
the CPU change won't make a difference in either of the above reasons, so i'll be staying.
the 64 bit cpus in the g5s are nice, but it looks like intel will have that as well in the coming months, so i think that will be fine as well.
yeah yeah, blah blah blah, you're an expert and i'm not.
what you're overlooking is that i want to use PPC and ARM as a hardware vendor. not a software one.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Staying with? More like switching to ;)
//C+
My last Apple system was my beloved Apple
Unfortunately, when it died, I moved on.
Now I'll have a machine I can run Mac OS X, Windows, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and a few other operating systems on. It's a developers dream for me!
(Yes, I actually develop or have developed for all of those platforms except Mac OS).
Of course the civilian population reacts differently than Slashdot readers...
hell, yes. I've been planning on another PPC-based Mac for a while for my wife. And then I'll buy an Intel-based Mac afterwards. The measure of an Apple fanatic's thirst for product is not if he or she will buy after, but before the switch to Intel.
What in the HOLY FUCK are you even talking about?
When you are making up stupid Slashdot posts like the above, how are you benefiting more from the PowerPC architecture than you would a x86 or a ShitSparc?
When you play games, are they just more fun on a PowerPC?
Are sed, awk and python less buggy?
Does your chances to get laid increase in any amount?
Do you spell better when typing your term papers?
Seriously, what in the holy hell does the architecture have to do with how you use a computer other than how fast the damned thing is?
When it comes down to it, as a Mac user, all I give fuck about is 1) does it run Mac OS X. Period. I don't care if it's filled with horse shit, provided it's in a odor proof bag and it's fast.
I welcome the switch away from the PowerPC to Intel. I welcome the speed, the quicker product refreshes, the ability for Apple to actually meet demand and the slight hope that they might even be a bit cheaper.
And I'm glad that you sir, and the rest of the idiots who have done nothing but bich about this, are in a small, sad, lonely minority.
I guess 68K -> Intel -> PowerPC -> Intel isn't so bad. Besides, it will be nice to get CPU's from a company that actually wants to sell chips to PC makers instead of embedded system makers.
Ok, so if you jump from the best ship around, where do you go?
Are you going to move to Windows?! HAHAHAHA!?!
You must be kidding.
As for the Linux option, I don't consider Linux Desktop ready to compete with Apple, yet.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I've had it with the hodge-podge accumulation of hacks of a Wintel-based computers and the excrecable Windows craptastical OS.
I. Want. Something. That. Just. Works.
So I'm making the switch to Mac.
I don't give a flying fart for what's inside the box, just so long as it works. I want to plug stuff in and have it work. I want to install software and have it work. I want to do my work, without having to work on making stuff work.
Windows has never made that possible. Wintel hardware has never made that possible. Linux certainly hasn't made that possible.
So I'm hoping OSX does the trick. It certainly can't be any worse.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
When you play games, are they just more fun on a PowerPC?
.. and it so happens that the Mac is a good Unix-based platform for developing those apps..
I don't play games, I write code for the PowerPC architecture.
PPC is used in plenty of places other than the Mac, you know
And I'm glad that you sir, and the rest of the idiots who have done nothing but bich about this, are in a small, sad, lonely minority.
I'm glad you know everything there is to know about computers. Calling me an idiot, however, proves you have utterly dire social skills.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I chose an IBM Thinkpad over an Apple Powerbook because of how much bang I could get for my buck. If Apple had already been on Pentium-M, for a similar price, I'd have been happy to purchase from them instead. Not paying the Windows tax & dual-booting OS X with my primary OS (Linux) would have been great.
Either it didn't matter or you weren't around when Apple switched from Motorola to IBM... The CPU won't matter so much as the OS and applications. I've got: wireless iBook and ThinkPad, dual G5, Mini -- all using the no-brainer Bonjour to share Internet connection, printers and files. Apple has made working in a PC-centric world bearable... and I don't imagine that will change anytime soon... Microsoft buys companies or puts them out of business... no innovation there. Apple innovates, which is why I will continue to buy and use their products, partially to support innovation which I benefit from.
It's going to depend, isn't it? On whether the PPC emulation for all my old software is really up to snuff, on whether they keep FireWire and OpenFirmware for the production machines (I know they ditched OF for the dev machines, so we'll see), on whether they still use good components, and on whether Macs will still get the girls. We'll see.
I just recently switched to Apple when they came out with the Mac Mini. I love their hardware, and I would have switched years ago except that I need the ability to run Linux on x86. The Mac Mini is cheap enough that I bought it as a second computer, and now I run a PC with Linux alongside my Mac.
I am looking forward to the day I can dual-boot Linux and OS X on my Mac. (I know I can do that now with Linux compiled for PPC, but I need x86 Linux. All the non-free software for Linux is compiled for x86 only.) So yes, I will stick with Apple. In fact I wish Apple had made this switch years ago. If Apple had used x86 back then, I would have bought a Mac when OS X first came out.
My main concern with the switch was the DRM issue, but those who have touched on it here seem to think that Apple will handle the issue in a way that preserves the security and integrity of the system. Maybe I shouldn't, but I trust you all on that.
Having recently purchased a little iBook with little need to do more that surf and mince words, I think I'll hold out until the IntelMacs have been around long enough to get the bugs out.
Just the sort of thinking that kept my PowerMac G3 in service way too flippin' long.
My first computer was an Apple //e clone (a Lazer 128). I've used Apples ever since. I now develop software for OS X, and it's by far my favourite platform to develop for. Though the PPC architecture is a much cleaner design, the fact of the matter is that it's the software which matters to me. As far as I'm concerned, Apple could switch hardware to ARM, dsPIC, or SPARC, and I wouldn't care, so long as they can still made the software run at a decent speed. So, to answer your question, yes, I'll be sticking with Apple.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
As I am a Mac user who owns a PC explicitly for the purpose of gaming, I am quite happy with the switch. Soon I'll be able to ditch my PC, and have a dual-booting Mac instead. I'll keep a Windows partition around as a gaming platform.
Shucks, I'll have to reboot to play games, until VirtualPC or another suitable product works well enough on Intel Macs.
Gabriel Ricard
It was called the Laser 128, and it was an Apple IIc clone. Here's some info on it.
The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
That said, I am making do with my PowerBook and my 1.6 GHz single processor G5 and will be for a while to come. When the last of the G5s and PowerBooks with PowerPC chips roll off the line, I'll be replacing my current machines with the highest-end models with PPC chips. When I am ready to replace those, I'll consider whether Mac OS X is still the best choice for me.
I have been a Mac user since 1986 and have also used a number of *nix platforms, BeOS, NeXT/OpenStep and various other OSes whose names I do not recall. At each step of the way, when it was time to replace my personal hardware, I chose a Mac because it was the best option for me. I may yet choose Mac again after the processor switch. Then again, I may not. What I WILL choose is the machine/OS that:
- is most stable;
- is easiest for me to use/configure;
- requires me to spend the least amount of money (and time) replacing peripherals and/or software; and, most importantly,
- makes me most productive.
Simply put, I may be the sysadmin of my home network, but I don't want to spend a lot (over 5 min/day average) of time BEING the sysadmin, if you know what I mean.Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Switch to what? McSofty 3rd rate development! Never! Apple's graceful migrations of the past should sound out to any one who wold think that such a change could lessen the product line. Apple is simply brilliant. You cant fake it or deny it.
I've been waiting for Apple to do this for years-although I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't rather Apple go with AMD. Now if we can just get Job's head out of his ass on the one-button-mouse issue I'll be happy!
I run a media production studio in Melbourne and we have a healthy mix of hardware. We Have a couple of generic Windows Boxes for day-to-day work, a debian based server, two G5 workstations and a powerbook. The reason I have always used Apple is the Hardware/Software integration and the (albeit recent: 4-years or so) quality software. Most of our visualization for film and TV work is done on the G5's without a hitch, but thats down to tight SW/HW integration and nothing more. Apple don't tend to give a toss what their customers want or like most of the time, but if you've used most big name hardware this is nothing new. Sony is a wonderful example of this too. We have far less day to day hassles with the G5's than we do with the WinXP boxes, but maybe thats just us, or that we chose bad with the hardware in the Win boxes. Either way, the intel switch will likely make little difference to us.
switch to intel processors angers some mac loyalists.
mac market share is smaller
writing mac-specific virii is even less appealing
even fewer virii show up.
Sounds good to me.
Mike Jones
computer user since 1985.
mac user since 2004
A better question is where would you go? Most Mac users absolutely cringe at the thought of using a Windows box. I have to use one at work from time to time and I'm ready to punch the damn thing after five minutes of all the pop-ups.
Linux is much better. Most Mac people can't figure out how to install everything, plus you're missing most of the Adobe and Macromedia products as well as Final Cut Pro, Shake and MS Office.
Yeah people will stick around for sure. They have no other choice.
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix
I left the Mac after 7.5 for (GNU/)Linux (because I was moving into software developement as a career and LOVED the free development tools). I came back after a few of my Mac-using friends told me that Jaguar was finally a truly "Mac-worthy" OS. Went down to the local Apple retailer and tried it for myself. I bought a custom-configured iBook a week later, and bought a desktop Mac three months after that. I'm saving my money now for both an Intel-based 'Book and an Intel-based 'Mac (although I might be persuaded to buy a dual-core G4 'Book if Apple makes one before the Intel switch).
Will you stick to PC's, after the switch?
Not so much for the OS, which I think is highly overrated, but for the hardware. The hardware is also highly overrated, but it looks far nicer than and costs roughly the same as the equivalents from Sony, Dell, Toshiba, etc.
You can get still a Sun UltraSPARC for US$1395. The elegance will be present unless you're programming in assembly. The processor will be completely abstracted from you and the only difference will be that the computers are faster, especially the laptops. Just pretend it's a better chip.
From Ars Technica:
See, there's often a difference between what a company sells and what consumers actually get when they purchase the product. Apple Computer, Inc. has "sold" slightly exotic, "technically superior," performance-oriented hardware for years, regardless of where the company's products have actually stood vis-à-vis the PC on the performance ladder. Or, to put it differently, the "RISC" PowerPC architecture has been a core part of the Apple brand and the overall "mythology" of the Mac platform since the 68K transition, even if that architecture rarely delivered on company's promises with benchmark numbers. So what Apple fans are mourning right now isn't the loss of some actual technical superiority of the Mac hardware, but rather the loss of the perception of that hardware's "technical superiority." Even more importantly, Mac enthusiasts are also mourning the loss of that perception's role in the ongoing maintenance of the myth of Apple and of the Apple brand in the form in which these two have coexisted in the PowerPC era.
Look beyond the mythos and marketing, man...
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
As long as the overall experience of owning Mac remains the same I couldn't care less what hardware it runs on. If OTOH the hardware change also comes with changes to how the software operates and how I use my computer then OSX may not be in my future. I enjoy using OSX for two basic reasons, first it simply does what I want it to do and, second it places little restrictions on how I work with my data. If the shift to Intel also means that I can't rip my DVD's or CD's and use them according to my fair use rights then I would have to think twice about switching. Apple has mostly been hands off when it comes to how you use your data (yes there is DRM on music from iTunes).
I am sad however that I missed out on the Enterprise 450 because I didn't hear what they said it was in time. It went for ..........$85 arrrrrgh
Then switched to Win/Intel. Then switched back just before OS X. Survived the OS X transition. So I've gone through 4 major transitions so far, I think I can survive another without incident.
(68k->PPC is one, PPCMac->WinTel is another, WinTel->OS9 is three, OS9->OS X is the fourth.)
Oh, and I kept around my old Mac(s) out of nostalgia, even during the WinTel days.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Yes, I will still stick with them. I don't think the transition will not be as easy as Apple would like us to think. But I'm betting it is still a lot better than the cesspool that windows is ( or will be in Longhorn ) and still a lot useable than linux will ever be for the desktop. For a lot of things I want to do on a computer a mac in its current (and most probably post-switch) form is still the most convenient and pleasant environment to do it.
Well I think for the time being that I will stick with the systems that I have for now, I may end up getting a new mac if I feel its worth it.
The switch really seems like the best of all worlds. It is no longer a platform war. Dual booting a Mactel...
As a long time mac user and occasional PC-Gamer, I'd buy a license for Windows and maybe pick up a couple of games at Costco...
It just seems like everybody is making out like bandits. PC and Mac software publishers, Microsoft...
The real losers will be the old PC manufacturers who can't build a dual-bootable, "Mac-compatible"(he,he) product.
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 6 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
I think I don't care what you do. I don't understand why you care what I do.
If Macs are the best for you, use them. If they're not, don't. What does my opinion have to do with your value judgements?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I own a Mac because of Mac OS X, not because of the processors.
As for the switch, I think it will be awesome because:
-greater operating system choice on x86 Apple hardware
-greater video card choice (no more custom ROMs)
-PC virtualization using VirtualPC will really speed up
I used to run Nextstep on a PC and it worked great. Everything I installed came as a quad-fat binary and worked seamlessly. Don't be so pessimistic people.
> on the CPU directly.
My own first exposure to x86 assembly was CS311; I forget the actual title, it was "Microprocessor Architectures" or something like that. Now, start off with the the general cruddiness of the x86... the general lower reliability and quality, little-endian, segmented memory addressing, the 1MB limit and the hoops you have to jump through to access any more, and the very existence of real mode. Remember, this is the architecture that was purposely designed, from the outset, to be a worthless POS that wouldn't be able to seriously compete with the higher-end offerings of the company Apple is abandoning.
But the real clincher was when it cam time to do the actual assembly programming exercises. The way the professor had us progress was through a series of increasingly difficult (For a 300-level class, that is) exercises, all in M68K (I forget which actual model in the series.) assembler. Then he had us solve, from beginning to end, the exact same set of problems, but for x86 (Again, I don't recall the actual model.)
Until then, I too was kind of ambivalent about the whole PPC vs. x86 thing. X86's were in PCs, and PPC's were in Macs and workstations. But that class, and seeing, first hand, what a colossal POS x86, assembly and all, is; is what firmly cemented me in the PPC/Macintosh camp, and instilled a deep and abiding loathing for x86 and everything that goes with it.
So yeah, some of us actually HAVE been exposed to, and DO care, about these sorts of things.
Now, I'm not quite sure I'm willing to join the lunatic fringe and buy a Sun or SGI off of eBay to use on my desktop, once Apple switches to wintel. But I certainly don't see myself paying the Apple price premium, once they downgrade. If all I have realisticly available to me is crappy-ass broken-by-design, unreliable, wintel trash; I may as well have CHEAP, crappy-ass, broken-by-design, unreliable, wintel trash.
The point immediately above is abrogated though, if Apple slashes their prices down to the levels of their x86-peddleing compatriots when they make the downgrade.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
I'm sure plenty of people will be offended by this, but I don't like the Mac UI. I never have liked it, and yes I've used it enough to be sure that it's not just because I'm "more used to Windows." I simply find it backwards and stupid for the way I like to use a computer.
Anyway, I had been considering buying one and slapping Linux on it because I'm interested in the PPC architecture. If they're ditching PPC, I have no reason to buy one.
Well, not from them anyway. I guess I could still pick up a cheap old one on ebay or something, but what's the point, really?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
The repetition of this idea is not accidental. This is the beginning of the "Not a Real PC" talking points and there are many more to come. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Having said all that: the instant someone hacks the MacOS 10.N to work on the one X86 box I still have, I will be using it. If someone decides to offer a PPC workstation for a reasonable price I'd consider that over a MacTel workstation. But who knows, 2007 is long time away, particularly in the tech world. Apple could switch back to PPC, they could switch to AMD, or IBM could be offering a faster platform than Apple or Intel.
Things I know I won't be using: Longhorn, Intel Processors, Intel's upcoming DRM "east fork" fiasco, ANY DRM'd device which does not like my 30 inch cinema displays. Any Apple product which has onerous DRM tendencies... well actually ANY product from ANYONE which has onerous DRM tendencies.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Yea, go ahead an leave apple. Now that they're using intel based chips - you should switch sides and use a PC like the rest of us. Then you will be using .... intel .... based ....chips .... still.
or else!
I've always had to own at least one additional windows box to do quite a lot of programming on windows. Well, it's all about JNI-Bindings in my case...
So -- A fast VirtualPC would be like a miracle, and I suspect VMWare guys will get into the ring. I really love Apple for this step, because I really enjoy Mac OS X. For me this means I can get a decent Apple-PowerBook with excellent performance and top notch Windows-compatibility!
I expect some more players getting into the game:
Now, if only eclipse got faster on OS X!
What are you going to do, switch to Windows? You'll be stuck with "Trusted Computing" and intel chips there, too. And a much more user-unfriendly UI as well.
I agree I even will buy more Apple gear with the Intel platform since I have 1MAC/ 1 Linux and 3 WIN boxes now I can migrate then over to Aptel. Oh and my 3 year old will be able to take advantage of the additional Edutainment software that will be ported hopefully. THX
Wine for OS X x86. You know it will happen.
Dual booting between OS X and Winders isn't a bad thought, either.
and I hope you wouldn't, modern c/c++ compilers can do better asm then humans anyway
No they can't, not even close.
I'm going to buy the last generation of Power Mac that's available. This means that I'll have a top-of-the-line G5 system that should run all the applications I'm using right now, and will remain up to date for several years. By which time I'll be ready to upgrade to new software and a new machine without worry that some of the software I use won't be available natively for the intel mac.
The emulation sounds like a good idea, but I doubt that it would be effective for some resource intensive applications like 3D rendering, high resolution image editing and video editing.
I'm also not about to spend another three grand for a new version of Maya just so I can run on an intel mac.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
buffer overflows, crashing the stack ...
Wine will be there, right?
With PowerPC, it was at least a different set of machine code.
Hopefully, Apple's install procedure will guide the user through creating not just a fully password protected admin account, but a regular unprivileged user account as well, and use some social engineering to push the user to log in and surf as the unpriviliged user.
I'd prefer they also come up with a way to run all the browsers that go out on the web as a third, completely unprivileged user, but I suppose Microsoft's patent on runas might cause enough headaches, and that they won't be able to legally show the precedence of sudo by the time the first Mac OSx86 bachines come out.
I suppose, if I buy any more computers after Apple quits selling PowerPC, I'll probably buy ARM. I'm hoping IBM will have workstation and home server grade (price) Power by then.
They're faster, dude!
Plus, I'm hoping for the day I can download a windows app and run it w/o actually running windows.
On the other hand, in general I find that when looking at compiler generated assembly I find things that I would have done differently (that is, better). But the downside is writing assembly that works is a pain in the butt. And this is where the compiler kicks a human's ass. I have found compiler bugs where the compiler spits out the wrong assembly, but 99.99% of the time it produces assembly that corresponds to your source code. And since C is at an ever so slightly higher level of abstraction from assembly you are guaranteed to write better code in C.
Only fools write first in assembly any more. Assembly should be reserved for things that absolutely can not be done in C, like interrupt routine wrappers and extremely speed critical inner loops. Otherwise you are just making an unmaintainable mess for no reason.
So, if by "good" you mean the tightest, fastest, most optimized code possible, then you are generally right. A really good human can generally outdo a compiler. But even then not 100% of the time. Now, if by "good" you mean code that is maintainable and bug free then no, a human writing assembly cannot even begin to compete with a compiler writing assembly from human generated C.
-David
There. Now go play some cool javascript games!
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
What it comes down to is yes, x86 is a weird bad architecture - but it's faster than the competition. It has a crappy instruction set filled with hacks, but it's faster than the competition. PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS, PA-Risc, Sparc... are all more elegant but x86 is still faster. Other CPUs are "done right" in a technical sense, but when it comes to real products in real machines that can be bought for the money people want to pay right now to get a job done...
x86 is still faster than the competition, because for all its defects in technical 'purity' Intel and AMD have been able to squeeze more performance out of those chips than have the competition - End of story. That's what counts to consumers, and that's what counts to Apple.
damn straight. August next year I'm hoping for a dual core yothan based Powerbook that will dual boot OS X or Windows XP.
As a VJ this is pretty much the perfect machine for me to take to gigs. Gives me access to the best software from both camps but still Apple's reliability for live performance and access to Final Cut, Motion, DVD Studio pro. It's a no brainer for me.
The playing field will be levelled. After the initial adjustment to OS 9 (c. 2000) I found myself wondering how I'd become so accustomed to Windows 95/98/2k.
While it is easy to get attached to the hardware, especially for instance when one processor architecture is diametrically opposed to the other (probably talking out my ass), as Jobs says, the OS is the heart of the Mac.
So that's all I give a shit about. If Firefox, iMovie, InDesign, or whatever runs faster, that's enough for me. And if I can continue to get the ergonomics of Mac OS with the usability of Linux, all the better.
Why would it make a difference? If you are a loyal Ford/Benz/Honda/etc. owner, and you found out the company was switching the type of engine used, would you look elsewhere?
You will ask yourself:
1) Will it be as reliable as the old type of engine?
2) Will it get at least as good fuel efficiency as the old type of engine?
You don't buy a car based on the type of engine it uses. You buy a car based on what it consumes (type and quantity of fuel), and what it produces (locomotion).
Computers are purchased the same way. The question is more about how smoothly the transition will be made, than it is about Intel processors. New model year cars generally have more hiccups than the 2nd or 3rd year. I can only imagine this will be the same way. Doesn't stop people from buying new model cars though.
Unless "DRM nightmare" means "any DRM" to you.
Any DRM that's more than a token is a nightmare. Weak DRM, something that's just strong enough to remind you it's there, that's acceptable. Strong DRM, something that's capable of keeping a dedicated attacker from unlocking the content, can not be implemented without crippling ordinary use of the computer... because there's just too many ordinary activities that depend on the capabilities that would be used to bypass the DRM. Windows users have already run into this... even people at Microsoft have blogged about how IRM (Intellectual Rights Management, another term for DRM) has forced them to give up software they'd been using to mod the look and feel of Windows.
If it involves a hardware component that can't be bypassed when you need it, that's a problem, because the only reason for requiring that kind of step is to introduce strong DRM.
My guess: some iTunes-level DRM that most users will be able to live with.
iTunes DRM is only something "most users can live with" because it's hardly more than a hint. It's not just easily bypassed, Apple practically tells you to bypass it by burning unprotected Audio CDs as backups. DRM that goes down to the hardware level will not be something "most users can live with".
I don't want to be forced into making a choice between an OS that doesn't suck and strong DRM, and I hope you're right that Apple won't take that step... but I'm by no means as confident as you.
The question that makes sense is not "will you stop using MacOS X instead of buying a Mactel box?" The question is "Will you continue to pay the Apple tax on new hardware if you can get MacOS X to run on generic hardware?"
No, of course not. It would bring great shame to my low slashdot ID to do so.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
yes of course I will stick with Apple. My powerbook is over 2 yrs old, so I may even be getting ANOTHER powerbook BEFORE the Intel initiative gets off the ground. My reasons are: I like the Mac OS, I dislike Windows in general, I try to stay away from MS products in general, and I find that the Mac OS is less troublesome and has more support than Linux. I must confess that I do use a Windows box for web development, but I have to do this in order to test platforms etc, anyway. I may find myself picking up a Windows tower to tide me over for the Mac towers, but they're so cheap, I don't mind waiting for the good stuff before making my investment in a good Mac tower.
Powerbook G4/1.5GHz 12", Toshiba Satellite 1135-S1554
When Mazda discontinued the RX-7, their rotary engine-powered sports car, people on the Mazda forums complained and people who otherwise would have been loyal to Mazda probably bought another car instead. (this was before the introduction of the RX-8)
When Porsche switched the 911 from an air-cooled flat 6 to water cooling, some Porsche fans insisted it wasn't even a real 911 any more...
I'm not a smorgasbord.
Please, provide us with some evidence that Apple will fully implement TC.
I don't expect them to, but Jobs stated reason for the switch are ludicrous so I do expect that there's going to be another "one more thing" shoe to drop. I don't know what that's going to be, and I can't rule out the possibility that there's some truth to one of the various DRM fantasies that have been trotted out.
It would contradict things Jobs has said in the past, but after him backing down on "No ugly monitors on nice Macs" and the Intel switch itself a 180 on DRM isn't inconceivable any more.
And just as soon as Apple subsumes Palm they'll have my whole personal-computing niche sewn up.
I'm not sure that Palm has anything left to save at this point. The Lifedrive is a lunatic device, and now they're talking about Linux? What's left of Palm that would be worth subsuming?
I'll stick with Apple unless that advance their use of DRM any further than the iTunes Store. Then, I'm gone.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Maybe you're running a PowerMac G5, I don't know. x86 may be the crappiest architecture in the world, but when I compare my Powerbook G4 1.5 GHz against the average Centrino running Linux, guess who wins out in performance? You got it - the Centrino running Linux. I'm talking mencoder, GIMP, java-based software, Firefox even.
I think what kills x86 performance is less the architecture than Windows. And certainly if you tell me that the G4 is all you can give me at the end of another two years, I might be switching away from Apple because of it.
I don't want to read
I do like the models you chose. Niche market vehicles, sort of like the Mac. I think you have correctly hit one aspect of the "transition" problem apple is going to face. Apple will face different transition problems than Microsoft would (assuming MS even had the ability to pull off such a switch).
Fotunately for Apple, the people that fall into the category you defined, are going to like Windows even less. They may give Linux a try, but unless they want to give up their leather seats they won't like that either.
My guess is that the crowd falling into that camp will buy the last PowerPC product on the market and hold it for a while. Probably take a wait and see approach with the newer Intel based systems, and then finally switch when the old hardware just don't cut it.
I suspect businesses using Mac software might take this approach too. IT departments tend to be more conservative about big transitions. They will delay the migration as long as they can, extending the non-Rosetta life of their existing PowerPC applications.
So long loonies.
Enjoy your death spiral! Keep drinking the KoolAid waiting for "cheap and fast Intel Macs"
Seeing the Mac wackos makes me sick to my stomach now days. It's like dropping acid and coming upon a mirror...
do/did I really look like this???
I know it won't make much difference for me, and probably not for my clients, either. A Mac is a computer that happens to run the Mac OS. And as long as the computer it runs on is priced competitively and performs equivalently to Windows systems in the same market segment, there's no real reason not to buy it (assuming, of course, that you want the Mac OS).
Sure, I really like Apple's industrial engineering, and the build quality of their kit compared to the typical Wintel box is way better, but I fully expect that Apple will keep on doing their own thing with the hardware - it's just that instead of buying PPC chips from IBM and Freescale (and designing their own chipsets), they'll be buying Pentiums and support chipsets from Intel. I expect that the rest of the board design and engineering will continue to be done by Apple, partly because they already have those skills in-house, and partly because this allows them to keep differentiating themselves from "regular" PC vendors.
But as long as Apple systems offer what I want, I'll keep using them. Regardless of whether they use Intel processors or whether they have DRM support in the chipset.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
We have all read headlines that have read "Apple in bed with Intel", and similar things, but how many people have actually heard whether or not they will be switching to x86 from a valid source? I would find it more surprising that Apple would be switching to x86 then Intel would be developing a non-x86 processor myself.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
And I will probably buy a Rev B Powerbook, too.
Fellowship 9/11
I seem to remember the technically insuperior VHS killing the consumer BETA back in the 70s. Sometimes people want the mass market choice, look at Windows.
I'm a big fan of OS X. It doesnt matter what CPU its running on to me. If they can port it to intel and make it faster, I say why not.
VHS was superior.
It had longer tapes. This is what people were after at the time. This was a substantial difference at a time when betamax tapes were limited to just one hour.
I can't understand how so many people are fixated on particular details about their computers. Intel or AMD, Apple or PC, this or that.
With Apple switching to Intel, many Apple fans are outraged that Apple is adopting a PC back end, but for what reason? Certainly if anyone is going to make Intel processors work AND look good, it will be Apple. Apple just doesn't USE hardware, like Dell or other PC makers, they try to innovate and contribute to overall design. Apple will partner with Intel to create innovative cooling solutions and well designed cases, this will allow Intel to customize processors that can be optimized for performance, which they generally may find difficult to do in the DIY PC market. The bottom line is, even if Intel takes the P4 and slaps it into a Mac, Apple will make it work better.
Largely what OS X runs on is of inconsequence to the quality of this OS. OS X will still be a stable, rich, and high performance OS, regardless of which CPU it is using. For all intents and purposes, Apple will continue to ship well conceived and innovative boxes running an excellent OS even if there is the Intel Inside logo on the front of the box
Put it this way, if your an Apple fan, and don't like Intel being in your new Mac, then what are you going to switch to? I would prefer the quality of OS X and the quality of Apple computers over a PC, even if 97% of a Mac is now essentially a PC.
The bottom line is lets reserve judgement on the Mactel platform until it is released. If anyone is going to make the Pentium line really shine, it will be Apple. I am sure that Apple didn't enter this arrangement lightly, let us give them the benefit of doubt that they know what they are doing and will offer us some exceptional new choices in the near future.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
...yellowTab's Zeta?
I am happy with Apple for my OS and my computer. Apple says most of my power PC application will run smoothly on x86 threw rosetta (and will probably will run faster then it does on my 667 mhz power book) And right now most developers are making their new apps cross processor compatible. So by the time I need to upgrade any new apps I want will work nativly for x86. Also there is more to the Computer then just the CPU there is more to the Apple archecture there is the integration between all the parts and the OS. If I am not happy with Apple switching to intel what are my other options, just get a normal PC at around the same cost. Or get an apple if I choose to I could install Windows on. Apple intel seems like the best deal to me.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
i think that this MacIntel switch is going to devastate Microsloth and we'll see the old archrivals at opposite ends of the totem pole once again. let's face it longhorn is an abortion, like the much researched and miniscule user based OS 2 Warp. Sure, they are packing it in after 20 years of use, but man, 20 years of obscurity to the general public. . . . . . . . .
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
The claim is that a c/c++ compiler can do better assembly than a human. The only definitions of "better" that I would assume are faster and smaller. You might make a case for maintainability, which I don't care to argue. I've seen a lot more sloppy C code than assembly, but maybe that's just because there is so much more.
And I dispute your claim that a human can't write better assembly 100% of the time. I say they can write as good or better. After all, who wrote the compiler? Don't go giving extra-human abilities to a compiler.
This all assumes a skilled assembly coder, of course.
Apple has the best consumer OS on the market period. They have better device support and developer support than linux. They are more innovative and better software than Microsoft. What's under the hood doesn't make much difference. The software makes the Mac. I have only heard (mostly doomsayer) speculation about what Apple is going do with Trusted Computing. Apple has been pretty moderate when it comes to DRM. Personally, I am not worried on that front. However, if content providers insist on heavy restrictions than I won't buy the content-simple enough.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I will look at my needs, just as I do every time I buy a computer. I will look at the computer world. If there is something that is significantly cheaper than the Mac which is just as easy to use, set up, and maintain, I'll buy that. (It would have to be significantly cheaper because I do still have quite a bit of software that will run plenty fast with rosetta.)
I suspect that I will find that there is nothing that is as easy to use, maintain, and set up, and I will buy another Mac. Although as always there could be a breakthrough in Linux usability over the next two years.
Speaking personally, I'd have to say that the new Macs will be even better for me, because I have needed to use Virtual PC/VMWare for a couple years now to do testing with. (I have to test some of our stuff on ten different flavors of Windows.) I eventually bought an x86 box for home, just so I could run VMWare FAST. I use it once a month for a day or so. (When I ran VPC on the Mac it was often as much as two days.) Now I won't need to have a separate machine to do that. That makes the new Macs even more of a bargain, for me.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Just for the hell of it I bought my very own 64 bit RISC workstation on EBay, a Sun Ultra 5 (360 MHz UltraSPARC IIi, 512 MB). With Debian Linux it's entirely serviceable, with interactive response like a fast Pentium II box.
It works fine for all the usual applications. It even has PCI slots, one of which has a cheapie 3rd party USB card in it. Which works just fine. This isn't a good box for playing DVDs, but for what I paid for it, I'm not complaining.
I like the fact that it is immune to both Windows and x86-based attacks.
...laura
Our business runs on Macintosh. Mostly, this is because the creative applications we use are coded for mac and we don't like the windows alternatives so much, but there is a big sysadmin component to this too. As a personal mac user, I'm not nuts about the trusted computing nonsense. I feel I am buying a box, not a license code. I don't want my machine constantly providing feedback on content to the manufacturer or any other provider relating to the machine. But as a business owner, this does not affect me. Yet.
I bought a Powerbook about a week or two after the announcement. I was devastated. I still can't believe Apple did it. I'd expect this raw unprideful practicality from any other company but not Apple. Between the ignoring macs while whoring the iPod and this latest switch I really think Apple has gone to the dogs. Sure they'll make money, and it's socially acceptable for a company not to give a shit about anything else, but i had hoped for something more elegant and civilised out of them, while still making a significant amount of money. x86 is a prime example of how the market can stifle innovation and force the masses to use backward inelegant stuff. I was not convinced by Apple marketing that PowerPC is "better" than x86, there was no need. It is obvious if you read any article about RISC. And yes i know Intel has invested so much engineering in implementing many of the innovations of RISC CPU's in their own x86 stuff. If only all that engineering had gone into improving a RISC cpu...we could be alot further by now. And even if it was only a small gain, I can't bear to imagine the contortions the instructions must be going through inside an x86 CPU. It is disgusting how little idealism most of you show.
And now since you guys don't care about idealism, i shall give pratical reasons why this is bad. I have mentioned stuff like this before but it is usually ignored....
There seems to be alot of trauma concerning the lack of a 3Ghz G5. IBM was falling behind apparently. Let us not forget our friends who had a 4Ghz Pentium4 roadmapped for Q4 2004. This was not delayed, it was entirely cancelled. Intel and IBM have made very similar progress as regards clockspeed. Speaking of roapmaps, guess who had 10Ghz Pentium4's on their roapmap? It is ridiculous to switch based on the strength on Intel's fantabulous roadmap, which would've told Steve Jobs of two years ago that he was going to be getting 10Ghz Pentium4's.
Apple reffering to the switch as the joining of the two industries' innovators is absolutely ridiculous. Intel, the innovator, designed an entire CPU architecture around marketing a BIG number. To hell with performance per watt and IPC! We want a BIG number!! "oh but we is getting quadrillion core Pentium M's teh fast!!!" Yes but that still doesn't change what Intel is. The way they market and bully their customers into using Intel products is just criminal.
Rejoyce Apple users. For you shall have probably better performance that you would have got from PowerPC. But don't pretend that this is somehow a glorious progression, it is not. It is a victory for the market over elegence. A victory for the ugly girl covered in makeup over the unadorned beauty. A victory suited to pragmatic old men who have lost the spirit of idyllic youth. A victory for you.
This guy are sick.
There is one problem that I see looming. I'm a long term Mac user and have done a lot of development on the platform for 68K MacOS = 7, PowerPC MacOS through 9, and MacOS X, everything from drivers to GUI applications, HyperCard, C, C++, AppleScript...
Over the course of 20 years with the platform I have a lot of old code, little apps, archives, tools, and old software. I've got programs ranging from a version of Quicken from a few years back that I never bothered to upgrade, to a lot of documents that require old applications: Claris Draw, Canvas, Word 5 and earlier, Nisus, archived files that need DDExpand to open, or Compact Pro, or really old versions of Stuffit. Even old desk accessories. Think C projects. Apple Dylan stuff. Ready, Set, Go! files. Archives from a half-dozen different e-mail programs. Old applications like a Turing Machine simulator. Really old stuff.
And, a lot of it, stuff that never became PowerPC-native, much less for the Intel ISA.
Over the years as I've had time, I've tried to get ancient files into either plain text or something more compatible with modern applications, but there is a lot of my old writing, drawing, and programming material I haven't gotten around to yet.
While very CPU-specific tools have always broken, Apple up until this transition has had a remarkable record of backward compatibility. Unfortunately it sounds like they are going to drop support for Classic altogether. It is easy to understand why; it would need a lot of hacking to handle all the endian transforms.
I'm all-too-aware now that the clock is ticking on this stuff. It makes me wish I had not even bothered to maintain all this stuff in digital form over the years, but just printed out a few hundred pounds of paper instead. Unfortunately, as they say, you can't grep a tree. I'll probably have to buy at least one more PowerPC-based Mac. But I find it appalling that the compatibility story for my old PC files, including DOS applications, is now better than Apple's compatibility story.
As far as financial impact to me: almost none. But the discontinuity in my whole history on the platform -- almost the whole salvageable history of anything I've ever done on computers, given that writing and programming I did for the TRS-80, Apple II, and C64 is irrevocably gone -- is disturbing, and really is making me think harder about the problems associated with digital data in general.
After all, who wrote the compiler?
You don't need to be a genius asm programmer to write a compiler.
This all assumes a skilled assembly coder, of course.
So why are you bothering to argue then? This is the dumbest assumption of all time, and people keep on making it!
N/T
And what will you jump ship to, oh faithful Mac user? Windows, 'cause they're less evil (and didn't start the whole "trust" thing to begin with)? How about Linux? If Linux, what will you run it on, x86, PPC, or something even more obscure? Non-Mac PPC is a small enough niche as is, but perhaps it will suit you. If x86, then why are you giving up your OS and complaining about the architecture change in the first place?
-Faithful Mac user who sees the good and feels the bad in the switch, but is still sticking around.
If you leave the Mac platform because you think the Intel deal totally ruined the Mac, where are you going to go?
If you use a Mac, you're not using it because of it's superior processing power--we all know that despite the hype, it's not true. We use the Mac because of the OS. Plain and simple. Everything else is secondary.
I think the Intel switch will kill the speed debate with PCs and we can get on with our lives.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Is Apple only a retailer of Motorola (68K), Freescale, IBM or (in the future) Intel-CPUs? ;-)
I don't think so. They're producing and selling Premium Software and Hardware, not only processors.
It's the software (OS X, applications) that I see when I'm working on my Mac, the sleek design and quality of it. It doesn't matter who's inside
I was thinking about switching to a Mac for some time, but since i need Windows for some stuff i cant just dump x86.
So if Windows works on the x86 Macs, then i'll switch to a x86 Mac.
First time Mac buyers may decide against the platform if they are looking for a new box in the next 6 months. With such a heavy change coming there is in reason to invest in a G4 or G5, and this could cause them to buy another winBox.
That was in the days when you paid more for the hardware, but compared to the then available windows alternative, you got far greater usability and greater stability. But gradually, as Apple's market share decreased, Windows got more usable, and Mac software availability also decreased. It used to be that you could always find mac versions, then you could always find one good application, then gradually you couldn't even find one, unless it was mainstream office or graphics. Then I gradually moved to dual boot XP and Linux, and gradually found myself stopping using XP ever. There was no need. But it never really occurred to me to go back. I couldn't see paying double the price for less functionality.
Looking back from outside, its a bit like having left a cult, you ask yourself lots of whys. Why no alternative desktop? Why one button mice? Why are the peripherals so expensive? Why does the thing ship with too little memory? Why are the graphics cards still Radion 9200? Why not multiple desktops if I happen to want them? Why can I not just get the hardware I want? Why do I have to keep buying X over and over again every year?
Probably the final thing that turned me off decisively was the Apple evangelists. It is truly cult like - but the object of this cult is just another corporation with vanishing market share. You see, it isn't the OS and ease of use, as it used to be 10 years ago. From Classic to X, its changed out of all recognition, and any ease of use advantages it had, have gone. Its not the hardware, which is elegantly impractical and expensive in the same way that Vuitton luggage is. Its a fantasy that by buying or using this stuff, you will be in a special state of being. And I keep wanting to say, there is no consumer good, buying which is going to put you into a special state. Its just like a fridge or a vacuum cleaner - it makes no difference. It doesn't tell the rest of us who you are. You will be the same. Word on the Mac is no different from Word on Windows. Photoshop on the Mac is no different from Photoshop on XP.
So, moving to Intel is not going to make any difference to me. I'm not going back as long as the company is selling the Apple Experience of the sort the enthusiasts are so enthusiastic about. Now, if they ever get into the business of selling me an OS, and leaving me alone to run it, with mutlple desktops, on the hardware of my choice, and whatever graphics card I want, that might be different. But to do that, they'll have to take a whole different approach to a whole different customer base - and this one won't pay for a new OS every year. The standard here is MS. Its free service packs, folks, not $100 for every minor upgrade on top of that expensive throw away hardware.
Its a point that the Apple fanatics will never understand, because they are in the cult. But the marketing strategy that says, milk your cult for all you can get out of it, that is the biggest barrier to raising market share and appealing to the rest of us. In the end, we are just bored with it all. It looks more and more like Amiga, and the evangelists are more and more shouting in the wind. I wish it weren't so.
i started using macs in 1995 because of the user experience and the excellent hardware-software integration. every couple of years go back and look at the new windows systems and find that the advantage for time-wasted-making-it-work is still apple's.
i don't expect the intel change to alter this situation. it's not like apple is adopting the windows registry.
>>The x86 PC platform needs a better operating system, and Mac OS X will fill that void. Unfortunately, that would probably never happen, since that would completely cannibalize Apple's hardware sales and would lead to mass piracy.
---
Nah. I think that even more people would by an APPLE-made MAC-once they see how elegant the machines are.
There are, after all, cars, and then there are BMWs-the fact that they both have similar engines doesnt hurt BMW sales.
Plus, licensing out OS X to a bajillion X86 machines would make Apple rise from 5% of the OS market to 25%- or more- in nothing flat.
If Apple starts doing what the RIAA and MPAA demand instead of meeting them half (or so) way like they currently do, I will bail for FreeBSD, Linux, etc. until they do the same. If everyone does it, I will stop using computers period.
I have NO respect for BABIES that make millions+/yr and whine about how their business (RIAA, Insurance compaines, North West Airlines, etc) has no money. They can give a bit back to the company and employees instead of layoffs...
I own my own business and practice what I preach...
(This could go on forever, but I will stop now...)
Women and Alcohol are good seperatly, but mix 'em and they turn you into a dumbass
I may pad my options by buying the latest greatest PowerPC PowerMac just before they stop selling them, get loads of brownie points for her having the screaming machine in the house, and then graciously accept that machine when she decides to upgrade later.
That should read: "I may pad my options by buying my wife the latest greatest PowerPC PowerMac" ... -
This is like wondering if you would stick with Apple if they move from Si to Cu interconnects. Who gives a flying fig?
Since when has your Mac experience ever been affected by the colour of the CPU pinouts?
Of course, I'll still by buying a G4 PowerBook 'cause I want to get one of the last PPC-based PBs ever, but that's more of a nostaliga thing than anything else.
In a few months I plan on getting one of the 17" Powerbooks too but not for nostaliga. One reason is the real estate, 17 inches is better than 15. Also for more real estate I'd like to get one of Apple's 23" displays. Another reason is that if at all possible I refuse to get another Windows OS unless and until MS gets rid of Activation. I can still get Win2000 without it, and I will then I'll run it in VPC. Yes I know running it in a VM will make it crawl but I won't be running major apps in it. It'll be good to use a stable OS again.
Now with the switch to Intel I'm hoping that this will drive G4 Powerbooks down in price.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A mac is a mac is a mac. Doesn't matter what chip is running it. After all we have survived two chips already, the Motorola and the IBM.
Well I must congratulate you for posting to this topic, a thing I didn't dare.
Zealotry has no limit it seems, Apple fanatics became Intel fanatics overnight.
The post you reply is the exact reason why I and many people didn't post to topic.
... the applications I need and want to use, that is (and I am _not_ referring to Microsoft and Adobe apps here).
Also, I will be looking for ways to keep away from the DRM/"Trusted Computing"/(insert your own euphemism here) trap as far and as long as possible.
So in terms of software (including the OS), Open Source will most probably be my way to go.
On the hardware side, I am still fond of the PowerPC platform and my existing equipment (Macintosh PPC, most of it) will certainly serve me well for another couple of years.
In the meantime, I will watch if and how much Apple is going to "Think different" in terms of DRM/"Trusted Computing"/etc., compared to Dell, Gateway, and, last but not least, Microsoft.
Virtual PC has been fun, and game emulators are neat too. There are alot more types of emulation programs on the mac because the PPC arch does a much better job of it.
That's a basic truth.
I'm going to keep buying Mac for one simple reason: it works much better than Windows.
They could put a dwarf with two hampsters running on wheels in there, as long as it works AT LEAST as well as it does now, I'm going to keep buying it.
Windows is not an option for me. It's that simple. Linux may be at one point, but not right now. I've used Red Hat once or twice for school, but I can't say I liked it as much as I like OS X. That's not to say that OS X is an all-around better OS, but I just happen to like it more. Maybe that'll change, maybe it won't, whatever. In the meantime, I'm sticking with Mac until they close their doors, which won't be happening soon. I'm reading more and more about the virtues of the platform-maybe that's because I'm on it and before I was on Windows, or maybe we're coming into the next phase of a cycle.
And something I've been wondering: why would you want to install Windows on a Mac? Simply because it's on different hardware doesn't mean it's going to work better. Maybe some driver issues may be solved, but in the end you will still have to worry about viruses and most-if not all-of the other headaches Windows causes. If Windows can be run natively on a Mac (and they have stated repeatedly that they "will do nothing to stop someone from installing Windows"), then it's basically the difference between running Windows on an HP or a Dell, or an Alienware, or a ThinkPad, etc.
I too have read that PPC chips cost much less than current Intel offerings, but it has also been reported that Apple was trying to negotiate a price drop with IBM, and they didn't get it. So maybe Intel gave them one. Maybe Intel gave it to them. Who knows?
And finally, what's this Trusted Computing? DRM? I read that Intel has no plans to include their DRM in whatever they put in Macs.
"Quick! Run to your chocolate huts!" -Meatwad, Aqua Teen Hunger Force