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?"

Comments

It's all about OSX..

[Vlad_Drak]

..and it will still be all that it is today. The only people leaving would be the ignorant ones.

Re:It's all about OSX..

[TimWeigel]

Yes - all about the OS. Really, it's been beaten to death in the Mac press, but here're my 2 cents: Given that Apple will doubtless keep exercising control over the internal hardware (I don't see just any ol' commodity expansion crap being supported on the Intel Macs), and given that Apple will continue with their spiffy industrial design, and given that they'll keep on trucking with OS X, well, the processor isn't a big deal.

Apple sells a computing experience - distinctive hardware, distinctive software (OS X, iWhathaveyou, etc.), and sundry other devices (iPod, anyone?) - and the processor isn't as important as the hardcore PPC geeks would make it out to be. Processors pack enough grunt these days to make AltiVec more or less superfluous (Depending on your needs, of course. I don't need AltiVec, and I suspect that most people don't either.), so that distinction is somewhat pointless. AMD's spiffy consumer-level 64-bit processors render the G5 a bit less unique (though I prefer G5 to Athlon 64, name-wise). Given that the PPC "cool factor" is starting to wane, it doesn't really matter to the average user.

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.

My OS X machines give me fewer headaches than my Windows machines overall, and I don't think a mere change in processor will change that.

Re:It's all about OSX..

[Bastian]

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.

Re:It's all about OSX..

[HTH NE1]

There have been 5-6 processor changes in the history of Apple.

Apple: 6502, 65c02, 65c816

Macintosh: 68000, 68020, 68030, 68040

PowerMac: 601, 604, G3, G4, G5

That's two major changes in the past (three if you count the Mac OS X compatibility break between the 604 and G3). Should I have counted the processors used in the Newton and iPod? Or NeXT?

Mactel: Pentium 4

And there ends the run of the 6's/G's that harkened back to the original Apple I price of $666.66, unless Jobs gets Intel to relabel the processors for Apple for the production model.

And shouldn't such a major processor change also entail a model name change?

Re:It's all about OSX..

[CptTripps]

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.

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 ...er...application. We have yet to find something that'll choke it and not run on this box.

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.

What makes a Mac a Mac?

[SteveX]

It's not the processor.

Re:What makes a Mac a Mac?

[timdorr]

It's the rampant zealotry!

Re:What makes a Mac a Mac?

[alan_dershowitz]

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.

Yes.

[Spock the Baptist]

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.

Software...

[adamjaskie]

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.

Re:Software...

[daviddennis]

Adobe and even Apple charged for the upgraded versions that transitioned to native MacOS X. You paid for the version of Photoshop that upgraded, and you paid for the version of Final Cut Pro that upgraded.

But you did get a lot of cool features. I don't remember too many complaints, more a mad thundering rush of credit cards escaping wallets and being taken out for a spin.

D

Why does this make a difference?

[rnxrx]

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.

Barkeep! More Kool Aid!

[BandwidthHog]

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?

Re:Barkeep! More Kool Aid!

[RevAaron]

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. :)

Let me see...

[darkov]

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.

Apple caused it

[Zebbie]

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.

not directly

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

What "recent connection to Trusted Computing?"

[mTor]

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).

Re:What "recent connection to Trusted Computing?"

[sevinkey]

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.

Won't matter to many

[Sir Holo]

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.

I'll be switching to Apple

[FullCircle]

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.

I Don't Know

[linguae]

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.

Re:I Don't Know

[Blakey Rat]

I can pretty much guarantee that Apple will create the most legacy-free x86 you've ever seen... they were the first ones to switch to USB for everything, they were the first ones to drop the floppy, and they were the first ones to offer wireless internet and CD-burners as standard equipment. Apple likes being current, and they have no problem dropping obsolete components.

A hit from the crackpipe?

[frenchs]

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.

Yep

[MBCook]

I switched in February.

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.

Re:No freakin' way.

[FLAGGR]

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.

Reverse switch with a half-twist

[gabe]

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.

Re:Some of us actually HAVE written asslemby...

[wfeick]

I've written assembly as well, but haven't needed to in years. And I'm not talking about a school project, I'm talking about real world code. Lots of it, over many, many years of my career.

Why on earth do you care about how clean the assembly language is for a particular chip? Do you care about how clean the microcode is in the computer in your car? Do you care about what goes on inside your TV or VCR? The vast majority of people buy a computer for the applications they can run on it, and never do any programming at all. Of the minority that do program, the vast majority are never exposed to anything but high level languages.

If you're writing the code generator for a compiler, I can see as you might care. But even there, there are larger issues. Apple is switching to Intel chips because Intel is achieving more performance for a given power/heat budget than the PPCs. Intel has economy of scale on its side as well. The end result is better for the user of the computer.

Sure, I agree that Intel's instruction set is not that pleasant to deal with, but seriously dude, get some perspective.

Re:No freakin' way.

[__david__]

and I hope you wouldn't, modern c/c++ compilers can do better asm then humans anyway

No they can't, not even close.

Well, it depends what you mean by "better". Can a compiler get a inner loop optimized as well as a human can by hand? Well, I had this exact argument with a guy at work who wrote a memory test for an embedded system in assembly because "it needed to be fast". So I said, "why did you waste your time writing in assembly?" I wrote a C version and the compiler ended up optimizing it better than the human had (16% faster!).

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