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?"
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
In fact, I would venture to say that Apple will definitely not fully implement trusted computing. From what I hear from Microsoft, the roadblocks to getting Microsoft DRM v2 (WMRM9/10) onto OS X has been Apple, because of their moral opposition to strong DRM.
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.
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.
Not since Apple has updated their literature, anyway. Wasn't so long ago that they saw fit to trash x86's architecure. A mac was a mac because the architecture was superior.
Personally I don't care. I switched for OS X, the increasing crappiness of MacOS 8/9 in the face of Windows 2K-XP was the reason I left in the first place. They are starting to do most everything right now, as far as I'm concerned.
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
So what was the question? Whether or not I'm gonna ditch the Mac because of a processor change?
:)
No, the question was: "Are you going to jump to some paranoid conclusion that Apple is going the way of locked-down, 'Trusted Computing,' the the most evil thing on earth, and stop using Apple computers- even without having any data whatsoever on whether or not Apple will be going that direction?"
And to that I answer: hell no. I mean, what kind of tool makes that decision now? Some sort of freaky INTJ? If Apple announces that in their new Intel Macs that you will have to have a fancy, expensive certificate to write and run new code on their OS and CPUs, to be signed- ala trusted computing style- then maybe I'll dump Apple. But I really doubt that sort of shit is going to happen, at least not now. But people love to jump to weirdo conclusions here.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
I'm not so sure that the switch will result in a cheaper Mac. MAYBE $100 or $200 cheaper on average, but PPC chips can't be that much more expensive.
But, of course, they aren't. A lot of the price difference also comes from the fact that Apple just makes their computers using more expensive designs. For example, look at the industrial design any Apple computer, and compare it to any of the PCs that give the platform a reputation for being so cheap, and you'll notice a lot of differences in the way they are constructed. Practically everything about the Macs smacks of expensive.
Plus, keep in mind that when you buy a Mac, you're heavily subsidizing the cost of developing MacOS and all its apps. I don't believe for a moment that they could possibly break even selling that thing for $130 a pop, given Apple's miniscule market share.
The one's I'm calling ignorant are the ones that think the whole OS is going to change because of the chip inside it.
...er...application. We have yet to find something that'll choke it and not run on this box.
I'm an ADC Select developer, and have one of the P4 'G5' boxes on my desk...I see no signifigant speed differences one way or another on native apps. Photoshop and the Altivec-intence apps are a LITTLE sluggish, but nothing that a native build won't fix.
Rosetta is a real nice little
Now keep in mind, this is all just the quickie/development/transition box. I'd expect that the production boxes will have a better processor in them and should make for a seemless user experience.
For whatever reason people are boycotting a Intel, I'd say it's a bit foolish to pre-judge what will/wont be available for another 8-10mos.
My