My friend picked up a DP 2.0, rev b for only $1899 when the new DP 2.0 rev c was released. For that price he got PCI-X slots, which for some peeps is very useful, and 8 memory slots, which any graphic peeps can definately use in the long run.
I looked for the posts you described, ok not realy. Anyways, I only paid $2399 for my Mac end of last year; Developer discount.:) The screen was only $2899. My last Mac was $3k, and my Powerbooks were $3200 each. All worth every single penny and still all in use today. I get about 4 years of solid use out of my Macs, where as I only get about a year or two with my PCs on average.
If I had bought the consumer PC you desctibed, the only thing I would of been feeling righ now is sloooooooooooooooooooow. Besides, I've never bought a name brand PC clone like Dell. I've always assembeld my PCs, and the quality of component I choose always run higher then $500. And yes I shop around. But if I wanted cheap and sloooow, then I would buy a Dell, or just crapier components. And I would never buy a high-end Dell, they're overpriced.
Anyways, the workstion PCs that are similar configurations to my desktop Macs cost more. And then there's WindowsXP, I'm just not a fan. It makes me cringe everytime I turn on my PC(s) which I use for rendering.
I derserved that. This is what I get for posting late after having very little sleep from the previous nights, but no excuses. I apologize for being an asshole in my post.
Yeah things have changed, and obviously you don't know what has changed.
PCI-X is a completely different beast than PCI-E. Let me clear up your confusion;
-PCI-E is "specificially" for graphcis. It is "not" a PCI-X upgrade, nor a replacement.
-PCI-X is best suited for for cards like real-time video encoding, raytracing, or RAID just to name a few. The only thing better than PCI-X for what it does, is PCI-X 2.0, and as far as I know, that is not currently availble.
Now let me address your ignorance when it comes to RAM. I have 5 Gigs in my current system and when AfterEffects finally supports 64-bit mem, or a majority of my pro-apps finally support it, I'm maxing out my RAM to 16GB. For us peeps that "need" more then 2 or 3 gigs of RAM, 8 memory slots is well worth the cost. Stating that 12 is only for a sever only shows your ignorance. WOW, RAM is getting cheaper, really. WOW, I guess I hadn't noticed.:rolleyes:
NO FUCKING SHIT about Multi-Core not being Multi Proccessing!!! Did you actually read my post, or just browse over it and then pull your reply out of your epic chasm of ignorance?
READ MY POST AGAIN!!! Here, I pasted in what I wrote; "Multi Processor support."
Now where the fuck did you see multi-core? Did I write too many words, because it wasn't in my post...
Never mind, someone that doens't know the difference between PCI-X and PCI-E, wouldn't know the different between multi-core and 2 seperate procs, nor have a need for more then one proc.
There will always be a clear division between consumer, workstations and servers. Someday you'll understand this, but the line will never be quite blurred, since some tech is simply not needed by the average consumer, and would only add unwanted cost. Apple knows that not every pro needs PCI-X and extra RAM slots, this is why their base systems only have 4 slots and do not include PCI-X. (And just so you know, 4 memory slots costs noticeably more then 3 slots on a mobo.) Don't be suprised when Apple starts shipping its higher end systems with Xeons and not P4s. And why would they do this, because they're workstaitons.
I don't want "speculations" on your part. Show me real evidence that a full version of OSX costs $300, even though Apples sells it for $129.
As stated, when you pay $129, you can install it on any supported Mac, with or without an OS. This is not the case for an upgrade, which requires a previous OS be present for installation. Apple does offer an OSX upgrade. My friend has a Panther version, and I was sent a Tiger Upgrade DVD, along with a full version through my Select ADC membership. Not sure where to buy these though, unless they're selling them through school campuses.
I've never paid more then $129 for a single user "full" version. I just bought the Family pack of Tiger and it only cost me $199 for the "full" version.
I'm curious about where you got that $300 price? I've never paid even remotlely that much for a "full" version of an Apple OS.
And by a full version, I can boot off my Tiger disc as an example, and install Tiger on a wiped drive. No previous version required. An upgrade requires that a previous version must be installed.
If you do a bit of research, you'll know that Apple's "workstations" are relatively inexpensive when compared to their PC counterparts. Now knowing that, a P4 is "not" a workstation, so Apple will not charge $2K for one, since it is a consumer proc, nor use is in their $2k boxes.
Here are a couple of key areas that seperate a workstation from a consumer computer PC: PCI-X (This is not PCI-E, Express.) More memory slots (Most consumber boards only have 2 or 3, a G5 has 8 as an example.) Multi Processor support.
On average, you'll spend about $500 just for the motherboard to get similar specs, and this is on the PC side.
For a bit of comparative shopping, these peeps also sell workstations: http://www.boxxtek.com/
For the most part, pricing will remain the same, Apple will just fill the slots with similiar priced components. Workstations cost more, no buts about it.
Sorry to hear about the loss, buy why not just get a real PDA?
The Dell AXim as an example, has a 640x480 screen, built in WiFi, a touch screen, and more importantly it is a "real" PDA. You can browse the web right out of the box. There are keyboard attachments available for it and even a ton of emulators.
I'm sorry, but I can't understand why anyone would buy a PSP just for web browsing, or PDA functions, and you're not alone. With a PSP's limited input, it's really no better then a gloriffied cell phone for web navigation and PDA fucntions. I'm a purrist, the PSP I guess, and I feel a PSP is only good for certain genre of games IMO.
I like AMD also, and it's what I buy for all my PCs, so I was kind of thrown into a loop when Apple chose Intel, since I primarly work on Macintoshes.
Here's a couple of points that I gathered about why Apple chose Intel over AMD:
-Although a slug at first, the Pentium M has turned out to be an excellent notebook proc, even besting the desktops in some benchmarks. And Apple sees the future desktop in our notebooks, so as of right now, Intel is the best choice if you look at it from that perspective.
-Intel is king at meeting supply demands. Apple wouldn't need to fear Intel not being able fill their quota, which would be a nice change.
----
But something you should consider, is that Apple could still use AMD in the future. They go back and forth between Nvidia and ATI. I don't know if that's a good example though. And AMD also runs Windows.:P
First off, I've always liked PC hardware and I run them along side my Macs, it's the stagnant-mediocre OS that they use, that makes me cringe. My motto is that a PC is only as good as its OS. But fortunately for me, PCs are mostly a hobby and I only need them for a cheap rendering solution and geometry conversion now days. Everything else I can do more productively on a Mac, since the OS is vastly better. Apple isn't the company that is "rotting" now days, and is definitely full of life. They're not the company that will need to be embalmed in a few years, if no changes are made; *Cough* MS! And as a friend of mine has mentioned, who's worked with MS various times; They are populated by smart peeps that will shoot down any idea if it is even remotely a threat to their position or a supposed risk to the company, so hence MS no longer innovates. They're a victim of their own success.
Look at this way, Apple is only going to push MS to do better things. On the PC side, MS really has no competion, so why should they care about improving their products? One reason, is that most peeps feel they don't have a choice, so will ignorantly stick with Windows, thinking that it is the best option.
And clarfy on what you mean by no room for upgrades? Besides the video card, Macintoshes use virtually all of the same components. They use the same RAM, same HDs, same USB/Firewire dvices, etc... Even the video cards are 99% the same. The manufacture that makes Apple's workstation boards, also make PC counterparts. iBooks use boards made by ASUS, so how are things going to be different? Besides the obvious CPU change of course, Apple will continue to use of quality components in their systems. Components that you could've also bought at any time to assemble a PC workstation. But what's different about Macs, "true Software/Hardware Inteegration." Something that absolutely no PC has.
Software/Hardware integration is a luxary Apple can afford, since it makes the OS and tailors its components for it.. Sorry, but you're not going to get that if you buy a consumer board like MSI, or GIgabyte, or even a high-end workstation board as an example. You'll most likely have drivers from different manufactures, which will all weave there way into WIndows registry like a parasite. The point I'm making as all ready stated, is that PCs level of software/hardware integration is simply not there, and will never be as long as their are too many choices to be made. Only MS has the power to do this, but it would mean boining all the OEM makers like Dell and limiting our choices, but then again maybe they've arelady done thish with the XB360?! Nah, that's just another Media Center, its not really a PC.
So how has Apple lost its edge? Oh, it hasn't! I look forward to a Dual-Core Pentium M Powerbook next year to replace my aging TI-Book. And then a (2 or 4)x(dual or Quad-Core Pentium) to replace my DP 2.5 in a few years.
Buying a Mac now would not be a bad descision at all, there's still a 4-6 years of life left on the PowerPC. Apple made it "check box" easy to develop for either architectures, so there's no worries of not having new support over the next few years of transition. The PPC support will definately outlive the life of any Mac bought now. I don't know about you, but 4+ years on any Mac is pushing it for me. 1-2 years is what I get out of my PCs.
I recomend a Mini if you've never owned a Mac before, and was intersted in treading in Apple's water. Stepping in now guaratees a ton of software compatibility.
Regardless, OSX is already a half a decade "ahead" of Windows, so switching now will only put you way ahead of the tech curve.
Switchin to OSX, or somehow aquiring this leaked Intel copy, and actually having the exact configurguration that it needs, will only show you how lazy Microsoft is now days, and how mediocre their bloated-sub-par apps and OS are. They stopped trying in the ninties, and why shold they when they have huge "Cash Cows" raking in billions upon billions, upon billions.
Just know that IBM boned Apple and that the Cell is not really suited for desktops and workstations. It would actually be a step down in some ways from the G5.
And once you learn about how IBM (c)(w)ouldn't meet Apple's needs with the G5, you'll understand that moving to a Cell, even if it were a step up, would be side stepping and make absolutely no sense. IBM is currently playing with its new friends, Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo is also there, but they're an older friend.
Macrumors states that Apple looked into the Cell, but it's not intended for PCs.
The Cell is better suited for a PCI-X support solution, kind of like the ARTVPS render cards, not as a main processor. Although this chip is a beast, it's weaker in some areas then the 970FX Apple is currently using. As an example, its watered down vector unit, doesn't hold a candle to Altivec, which is used by the G5.
"Finally, before signing off, I should clarify my earlier remarks to the effect that I don't think that Apple will use this CPU. I originally based this assessment on the fact that I knew that the SPUs would not use VMX/Altivec. However, the PPC core does have a VMX unit. Nonetheless, I expect this VMX to be very simple, and roughly comparable to the Altivec unit o the first G4. Everything on this processor is stripped down to the bare minimum, so don't expect a ton of VMX performance out of it, and definitely not anything comparable to the G5. Furthermore, any Altivec code written for the new G4 or G5 would have to be completely reoptimized due to inorder nature of the PPC core's issue.
So the short answer is, Apple's use of this chip is within the realm of concievability, but it's extremely unlikely in the short- and medium-term. Apple is just too heavily invested in Altivec, and this processor is going to be a relative weakling in that department. Sure, it'll pack a major SIMD punch, but that will not be a double-precision Alitvec-type punch"
Like the first reply to your post, more then half the peeps I know use Macs.
BTW, iPods share was 92% overall last time I saw a statistic. Not sure what the percentage is on PCs, but its certainly much greater then 16% and easily trumps that number.
+1 insightull my arse. How about +1 tunnel visioned?
Yep, it would be so easy to port and break all my apps. Add the unwanted cost of a "forced" upgrades. Create major performance hits everywhere, because of all the re-optimization that would be required, and also deal with all the bugs that would be present until things were finally smoothed out "years" later.
It's not going to happen. Apple is working with Intel on something else. It would mean that the last 5 years of OSX's software develepment was null, and would be suicide for Apple personal computers.
If Jobs wanted to f*.. all of his user base and Apple, this would certainly be the way to do it. But C-Net is only making it publicly known how big of fools they are.
Apple would kill their entire user base if they went down this route. If Apple were ever serious about this, they wouldve done it when first migrating to OSX. That would've been the perfect time, since OSX needed completely new application support and Motorola had hit a wall with the PPC. But come 5 years later, Apple now has more developers and users then ever before.
OSX also relies heavily on Altivec which is PPC only, so just take this article for what it is, BULLSHIT.
Just imagine if Job's were as stupid as the peeps at C-Net. Like you I would not upgrade and would dump Apple all together. It would mean a huge loss tor me financially considering how much I've invested in OSX software. But fortunately Jobs is not stupid, so Apple and Intel have something else up their sleeves. I think that Intel is either working with Apple on a new PDA, or with an Airport with H.264 streaming, something that would allow a Mini to act as a hub for HD content.. These are just thoughts. But definately not desktop CPU replacement. This would mean certain death for Apple in the personal computer areana.
Slashdot Mirror
My friend picked up a DP 2.0, rev b for only $1899 when the new DP 2.0 rev c was released. For that price he got PCI-X slots, which for some peeps is very useful, and 8 memory slots, which any graphic peeps can definately use in the long run.
I looked for the posts you described, ok not realy. Anyways, I only paid $2399 for my Mac end of last year; Developer discount. :) The screen was only $2899. My last Mac was $3k, and my Powerbooks were $3200 each. All worth every single penny and still all in use today. I get about 4 years of solid use out of my Macs, where as I only get about a year or two with my PCs on average.
If I had bought the consumer PC you desctibed, the only thing I would of been feeling righ now is sloooooooooooooooooooow. Besides, I've never bought a name brand PC clone like Dell. I've always assembeld my PCs, and the quality of component I choose always run higher then $500. And yes I shop around. But if I wanted cheap and sloooow, then I would buy a Dell, or just crapier components. And I would never buy a high-end Dell, they're overpriced.
Anyways, the workstion PCs that are similar configurations to my desktop Macs cost more. And then there's WindowsXP, I'm just not a fan. It makes me cringe everytime I turn on my PC(s) which I use for rendering.
Rambles...
I derserved that. This is what I get for posting late after having very little sleep from the previous nights, but no excuses. I apologize for being an asshole in my post.
That works. :)
Because it doesn't just play MP3s.
Yeah things have changed, and obviously you don't know what has changed.
:rolleyes:
PCI-X is a completely different beast than PCI-E. Let me clear up your confusion;
-PCI-E is "specificially" for graphcis. It is "not" a PCI-X upgrade, nor a replacement.
-PCI-X is best suited for for cards like real-time video encoding, raytracing, or RAID just to name a few. The only thing better than PCI-X for what it does, is PCI-X 2.0, and as far as I know, that is not currently availble.
Now let me address your ignorance when it comes to RAM. I have 5 Gigs in my current system and when AfterEffects finally supports 64-bit mem, or a majority of my pro-apps finally support it, I'm maxing out my RAM to 16GB. For us peeps that "need" more then 2 or 3 gigs of RAM, 8 memory slots is well worth the cost. Stating that 12 is only for a sever only shows your ignorance. WOW, RAM is getting cheaper, really. WOW, I guess I hadn't noticed.
NO FUCKING SHIT about Multi-Core not being Multi Proccessing!!! Did you actually read my post, or just browse over it and then pull your reply out of your epic chasm of ignorance?
READ MY POST AGAIN!!! Here, I pasted in what I wrote; "Multi Processor support."
Now where the fuck did you see multi-core? Did I write too many words, because it wasn't in my post...
Never mind, someone that doens't know the difference between PCI-X and PCI-E, wouldn't know the different between multi-core and 2 seperate procs, nor have a need for more then one proc.
There will always be a clear division between consumer, workstations and servers. Someday you'll understand this, but the line will never be quite blurred, since some tech is simply not needed by the average consumer, and would only add unwanted cost. Apple knows that not every pro needs PCI-X and extra RAM slots, this is why their base systems only have 4 slots and do not include PCI-X. (And just so you know, 4 memory slots costs noticeably more then 3 slots on a mobo.) Don't be suprised when Apple starts shipping its higher end systems with Xeons and not P4s. And why would they do this, because they're workstaitons.
I don't want "speculations" on your part. Show me real evidence that a full version of OSX costs $300, even though Apples sells it for $129.
As stated, when you pay $129, you can install it on any supported Mac, with or without an OS. This is not the case for an upgrade, which requires a previous OS be present for installation. Apple does offer an OSX upgrade. My friend has a Panther version, and I was sent a Tiger Upgrade DVD, along with a full version through my Select ADC membership. Not sure where to buy these though, unless they're selling them through school campuses.
I've never paid more then $129 for a single user "full" version. I just bought the Family pack of Tiger and it only cost me $199 for the "full" version.
I'm curious about where you got that $300 price? I've never paid even remotlely that much for a "full" version of an Apple OS.
And by a full version, I can boot off my Tiger disc as an example, and install Tiger on a wiped drive. No previous version required. An upgrade requires that a previous version must be installed.
LOL. Good stuff. I remember that quote. :) And the fact that you called him a techno-whore is priceless.
If you do a bit of research, you'll know that Apple's "workstations" are relatively inexpensive when compared to their PC counterparts. Now knowing that, a P4 is "not" a workstation, so Apple will not charge $2K for one, since it is a consumer proc, nor use is in their $2k boxes.
Here are a couple of key areas that seperate a workstation from a consumer computer PC:
PCI-X (This is not PCI-E, Express.)
More memory slots (Most consumber boards only have 2 or 3, a G5 has 8 as an example.)
Multi Processor support.
On average, you'll spend about $500 just for the motherboard to get similar specs, and this is on the PC side.
For a bit of comparative shopping, these peeps also sell workstations:
http://www.boxxtek.com/
For the most part, pricing will remain the same, Apple will just fill the slots with similiar priced components. Workstations cost more, no buts about it.
Sorry to hear about the loss, buy why not just get a real PDA?
e tails.aspx/axim_x50v?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
The Dell AXim as an example, has a 640x480 screen, built in WiFi, a touch screen, and more importantly it is a "real" PDA. You can browse the web right out of the box. There are keyboard attachments available for it and even a ton of emulators.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productd
I'm sorry, but I can't understand why anyone would buy a PSP just for web browsing, or PDA functions, and you're not alone. With a PSP's limited input, it's really no better then a gloriffied cell phone for web navigation and PDA fucntions. I'm a purrist, the PSP I guess, and I feel a PSP is only good for certain genre of games IMO.
Maybe, if you can find the leaked developer's addition of Tiger it might work. Other then that, a Cube would essentially become another PC.
I like AMD also, and it's what I buy for all my PCs, so I was kind of thrown into a loop when Apple chose Intel, since I primarly work on Macintoshes.
:P
Here's a couple of points that I gathered about why Apple chose Intel over AMD:
-Although a slug at first, the Pentium M has turned out to be an excellent notebook proc, even besting the desktops in some benchmarks. And Apple sees the future desktop in our notebooks, so as of right now, Intel is the best choice if you look at it from that perspective.
-Intel is king at meeting supply demands. Apple wouldn't need to fear Intel not being able fill their quota, which would be a nice change.
----
But something you should consider, is that Apple could still use AMD in the future. They go back and forth between Nvidia and ATI. I don't know if that's a good example though. And AMD also runs Windows.
Anyways, just my thoughts.
First off, I've always liked PC hardware and I run them along side my Macs, it's the stagnant-mediocre OS that they use, that makes me cringe. My motto is that a PC is only as good as its OS. But fortunately for me, PCs are mostly a hobby and I only need them for a cheap rendering solution and geometry conversion now days. Everything else I can do more productively on a Mac, since the OS is vastly better. Apple isn't the company that is "rotting" now days, and is definitely full of life. They're not the company that will need to be embalmed in a few years, if no changes are made; *Cough* MS! And as a friend of mine has mentioned, who's worked with MS various times; They are populated by smart peeps that will shoot down any idea if it is even remotely a threat to their position or a supposed risk to the company, so hence MS no longer innovates. They're a victim of their own success.
Look at this way, Apple is only going to push MS to do better things. On the PC side, MS really has no competion, so why should they care about improving their products? One reason, is that most peeps feel they don't have a choice, so will ignorantly stick with Windows, thinking that it is the best option.
And clarfy on what you mean by no room for upgrades? Besides the video card, Macintoshes use virtually all of the same components. They use the same RAM, same HDs, same USB/Firewire dvices, etc... Even the video cards are 99% the same. The manufacture that makes Apple's workstation boards, also make PC counterparts. iBooks use boards made by ASUS, so how are things going to be different? Besides the obvious CPU change of course, Apple will continue to use of quality components in their systems. Components that you could've also bought at any time to assemble a PC workstation. But what's different about Macs, "true Software/Hardware Inteegration." Something that absolutely no PC has.
Software/Hardware integration is a luxary Apple can afford, since it makes the OS and tailors its components for it.. Sorry, but you're not going to get that if you buy a consumer board like MSI, or GIgabyte, or even a high-end workstation board as an example. You'll most likely have drivers from different manufactures, which will all weave there way into WIndows registry like a parasite. The point I'm making as all ready stated, is that PCs level of software/hardware integration is simply not there, and will never be as long as their are too many choices to be made. Only MS has the power to do this, but it would mean boining all the OEM makers like Dell and limiting our choices, but then again maybe they've arelady done thish with the XB360?! Nah, that's just another Media Center, its not really a PC.
So how has Apple lost its edge? Oh, it hasn't! I look forward to a Dual-Core Pentium M Powerbook next year to replace my aging TI-Book. And then a (2 or 4)x(dual or Quad-Core Pentium) to replace my DP 2.5 in a few years.
Bleh.
Buying a Mac now would not be a bad descision at all, there's still a 4-6 years of life left on the PowerPC. Apple made it "check box" easy to develop for either architectures, so there's no worries of not having new support over the next few years of transition. The PPC support will definately outlive the life of any Mac bought now. I don't know about you, but 4+ years on any Mac is pushing it for me. 1-2 years is what I get out of my PCs.
I recomend a Mini if you've never owned a Mac before, and was intersted in treading in Apple's water. Stepping in now guaratees a ton of software compatibility.
Regardless, OSX is already a half a decade "ahead" of Windows, so switching now will only put you way ahead of the tech curve.
Switchin to OSX, or somehow aquiring this leaked Intel copy, and actually having the exact configurguration that it needs, will only show you how lazy Microsoft is now days, and how mediocre their bloated-sub-par apps and OS are. They stopped trying in the ninties, and why shold they when they have huge "Cash Cows" raking in billions upon billions, upon billions.
bleh..
Watch the Keynote, it explains quite a bit:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
Just know that IBM boned Apple and that the Cell is not really suited for desktops and workstations. It would actually be a step down in some ways from the G5.
And once you learn about how IBM (c)(w)ouldn't meet Apple's needs with the G5, you'll understand that moving to a Cell, even if it were a step up, would be side stepping and make absolutely no sense. IBM is currently playing with its new friends, Microsoft and Sony. Nintendo is also there, but they're an older friend.
Yes, you've managed to prove nothing. Please try again.
Macrumors states that Apple looked into the Cell, but it's not intended for PCs.
. ars
The Cell is better suited for a PCI-X support solution, kind of like the ARTVPS render cards, not as a main processor. Although this chip is a beast, it's weaker in some areas then the 970FX Apple is currently using. As an example, its watered down vector unit, doesn't hold a candle to Altivec, which is used by the G5.
Here's a tid-bit from Asrtchnica:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/cell-2
"Finally, before signing off, I should clarify my earlier remarks to the effect that I don't think that Apple will use this CPU. I originally based this assessment on the fact that I knew that the SPUs would not use VMX/Altivec. However, the PPC core does have a VMX unit. Nonetheless, I expect this VMX to be very simple, and roughly comparable to the Altivec unit o the first G4. Everything on this processor is stripped down to the bare minimum, so don't expect a ton of VMX performance out of it, and definitely not anything comparable to the G5. Furthermore, any Altivec code written for the new G4 or G5 would have to be completely reoptimized due to inorder nature of the PPC core's issue.
So the short answer is, Apple's use of this chip is within the realm of concievability, but it's extremely unlikely in the short- and medium-term. Apple is just too heavily invested in Altivec, and this processor is going to be a relative weakling in that department. Sure, it'll pack a major SIMD punch, but that will not be a double-precision Alitvec-type punch"
I bit of wishful thinking on your part. Now that you've had your fun, it's time to come back to reality. :)
If OSX were vulnerable like a non-secure Windows PC, this would've already happened.
Like the first reply to your post, more then half the peeps I know use Macs. BTW, iPods share was 92% overall last time I saw a statistic. Not sure what the percentage is on PCs, but its certainly much greater then 16% and easily trumps that number. +1 insightull my arse. How about +1 tunnel visioned?
Yep, it would be so easy to port and break all my apps. Add the unwanted cost of a "forced" upgrades. Create major performance hits everywhere, because of all the re-optimization that would be required, and also deal with all the bugs that would be present until things were finally smoothed out "years" later.
It's not going to happen. Apple is working with Intel on something else. It would mean that the last 5 years of OSX's software develepment was null, and would be suicide for Apple personal computers.
If Jobs wanted to f*.. all of his user base and Apple, this would certainly be the way to do it. But C-Net is only making it publicly known how big of fools they are.
Apple would kill their entire user base if they went down this route. If Apple were ever serious about this, they wouldve done it when first migrating to OSX. That would've been the perfect time, since OSX needed completely new application support and Motorola had hit a wall with the PPC. But come 5 years later, Apple now has more developers and users then ever before.
OSX also relies heavily on Altivec which is PPC only, so just take this article for what it is, BULLSHIT.
Just imagine if Job's were as stupid as the peeps at C-Net. Like you I would not upgrade and would dump Apple all together. It would mean a huge loss tor me financially considering how much I've invested in OSX software. But fortunately Jobs is not stupid, so Apple and Intel have something else up their sleeves. I think that Intel is either working with Apple on a new PDA, or with an Airport with H.264 streaming, something that would allow a Mini to act as a hub for HD content.. These are just thoughts. But definately not desktop CPU replacement. This would mean certain death for Apple in the personal computer areana.
Could someone please hand me a stick to scrape this article off my shoes. :p
LOL. You bought into that BS. I'll let you in on something, it was just another rumor. ;)