Forums | MacLife

Ok now it's Tuesday, I want to see if Marklar will be making Marklar for Apple. If Apple does this, I'll eat my Marklar.

Last edited by reece_james (2005-06-06 9:34 am)

And my question is why is everyone so worried? In the long run this probably will be the best thing that ever happened to apple, next to introducing the mouse to the computer world.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Well.. we all are a bit of reactionaries. We've been fairly happy with our own chip, not what the rest of the world uses, and we've been indoctrinated to hate wintel, not just windows. Hopefully this will kill windows. I hate windows. Windows should have been dead years ago.

Mayhap, but I probably would of gone with AMD myself, but again... I don't run Apple...

What I like is this part of the report..

Also on Monday, Jobs said the next version of OS X, called Leopard, will be released in late 2006 or early 2007. That is the same time frame as Microsoft's next Windows update, dubbed Longhorn, he noted. Microsoft has said Longhorn will be released by late 2006.

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

i guess it really doesnt make much difference whether osx runs on ppc or intel, we still cant build our own mac....

Well it is going to be an interesting few months. Looks like Apples going for a showdown with Longhorn. The only way that they can do that is by evening the playing field. Good from a hardware perspective as far as Mobo and CPU architecture goes, bad as far as loosing PPC.

Malware isn't normally connected to a type of hardware, it's normally to a hole in software. The change in chip won't affect this per say, unless the market share increases dramatically as a result.

Sassy wrote:

reece_james wrote:

Malware isn't normally connected to a type of hardware, it's normally to a hole in software. The change in chip won't affect this per say, unless the market share increases dramatically as a result.

If I understand you (I am not a geek. I am a meek) do you mean it's only windoz software that allows hacks and viruses and all sorts of craziness?

Correct, to an extent.  The Mac OS has multiple loops, and issues, but not to the extent that the Windows OS has.  A ball of swiss cheese the size of a football field may be a good comparison to the holes, bugs, and issues that you might see on a Windows OS upon first install. Without all the patches... etc.

Sassy wrote:

If you do, and I think that is what you mean, then doesn't it follow that because Macs aren't as vulnerable because of OSX, that more commercial and casual users may want to switch -- that is if the cost of the equipment goes down?

In theory yes.  We will see though.

Sassy wrote:

Or, will it make no difference because OSX is more difficult to hack and screw up so it isn't worthwhile to do it ["unless the market share increases dramatically as a result.")?

The hardware has nothing to do with the OS per say. It has very little if any to do with how the OS itself. Except for hardware specs to work with the OS... but overall the OS is completely separate to hardware.

Sassy wrote:

The leader is not a genius, but he is a shrewd businessman! Dvorak said that the changeover would hurt Mac users the most, for a short time because developers would be slow to change code, but in the long run, Apple 'could' be a stronger competitor for MS.

All I can say that it will only hurt Mac users in the short run for those who are Anti-Intel. I personally would rather of seen them go with AMD, or Sun's microprocessor but again... can't have everything. But it won't stop me from buying the Intel-Mac systems...  I think this may be a good jump for the Mac... although personally I could of seen other directions for them to go into, but again Intel has been slowing down in their production because they have caused a massive amount of processors in the field as it is. 

My question though is would Apple loose it's speed advantage, or will the software be able to utilize the processor to
keep it?

Sassy wrote:

If software is the only difference, why are Macs so expensive?

The hardware mainly, but if you think of it, a PC to do the same thing as a Mac without extra cards, and functionality, will cost about the same...

Sassy wrote:

Dvorak also said Jobs wants users to think Macs are like Lexes, sleek and good looking, worth the difference. I bought a Mac because for me it is easier to use and I could upgrade it myself. (As I said, I'm a meek.) Part was software, part was hardware.

Personally, when I decided to switch, I had a really hard time finding a place to buy a Mac. I wasn't online and had no prospect to be. Easier now, of course, but Apple's marketshare hasn't become better. In fact, it's decreased. I am still puzzled as to why more people don't switch. I've never been disappointed with my Macs, except for price and Apple's arrogance about Tech Service (They suck!) which I think comes straight down the pike from Jobs.

Then why get a Mac in a first place?

Sassy wrote:

Got any answers for me?

Got a few answers.

Chickenhawk wrote:

I have hated intel for years, to me, they are almost as bad as microsoft. If apple does switch to the x86, so many of the other advantages to using a mac will be gone. If most users are using mac os, hackers will learn to infiltrate and write viruses/ spyware for the mac. So many programs that do stuff like 3d rendering and rely on the altivec will lose that extra help and their users (many professionals) will suffer. Also we'd have to look at that ugly intel inside sticker every time we turned on our 'macs'.

i said this on another forum, but intel is not evil. let's use an analogy we all can understand: star wars.

the imperial tie fighters are not evil; they are simply piloted by evil operators. the same goes for intel/windows; the machine is not evil, just the operating system. apple is like the rebels, only now they have tie fighters too. jedis and rebels in tie fighters vs. clones and drones in tie fighters... i think the knights will win... because the force is strong with us!

jgreene777 wrote:

the imperial tie fighters are not evil; they are simply piloted by evil operators. the same goes for intel/windows; the machine is not evil, just the operating system. apple is like the rebels, only now they have tie fighters too. jedis and rebels in tie fighters vs. clones and drones in tie fighters... i think the knights will win... because the force is strong with us!

Lol, very succinct and in common geek language. Great summary!

I think your right. Mulling it over in my head, I'm of the belief that as long as it remains a Mac only OS, which Apple is still doing, it should be fine.

reece_james wrote:

jgreene777 wrote:

the imperial tie fighters are not evil; they are simply piloted by evil operators. the same goes for intel/windows; the machine is not evil, just the operating system. apple is like the rebels, only now they have tie fighters too. jedis and rebels in tie fighters vs. clones and drones in tie fighters... i think the knights will win... because the force is strong with us!

Lol, very succinct and in common geek language. Great summary!

I think your right. Mulling it over in my head, I'm of the belief that as long as it remains a Mac only OS, which Apple is still doing, it should be fine.

if you've ever used a linux variant on intel hardware, the "experience" is much like using a Mac. though the interface can be very different and nowhere near as elegant, the "feeling" of using an almost rogue system, something other than the "norm", is still there. that's one reason i'm coping with the intel shift at apple. i think the feeling that we are rebels will still be there and as long as apple still controls the manufacture of hardware, i think the overall experience will still be a quality one.

btw, did anyone else get a couple of class-action notices in the mail recently? I'm SUCH a big apple fan that I don't participate in lawsuits against them... they have always done everything to make me happy, even when a product fails, and that is more than i can say for any other computer maker. i can't bring myself to cost them more money when they've already lost the suit...

akb825 wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

Has anyone noticed through the 2005 WWDC video that a 3.6Ghz P4 G5 for $999 for developers? Granted they have to give it back but if that is any indication of what the computers will cost, I think we will be very, very happy...

I think they purposefully depreciated the price, though, so developers will be more likely to pick one up. Similar consumer machines almost definitely cost a lot more.

Mayhap, but I have a feeling we will be looking at prices around the same range in the long run... Intel montherboads and chipsets are far cheaper than PPC.

reece_james wrote:

I can't see them being any cheaper, but what I could see is better hardware than on the PC side. Think about it, if Apple can cool a G5, imagine how well they could cool a P4! They could get some serious speed out of chips before the other manufactures.

Yeah I know, that is what I'm expecting, but in doing so we would see cooler machines in the first place. The dual 1.25 G4 is hot as hell as it stands now... running 24/7 I am going to have to swap out a few things to cool this bugger down.  The PPC chips as they say, per kw doesn't perform much more poorly than the P4 chip in the future.  Which is probably why they went with a liquid cooling system for the Macs in the first place...

I'm more curious about why is apple willing to go with Intel to some extent.  I know what Steve said, but the issue I'm looking at is this.  Apple has always boasted that they haven't had to double, triple or quad boost their processor speed to get a "true" 3.6Ghz processor.  Or that is what it use to be...

Now we are going to go with Intel, I did notice in the demo the computer was significantly faster, but what I'd like to know is what are we looking at in the long run for speeds.  Yeah we get 3.6Ghz now... and? Do we get to toy around with the new PC video cards as well? Do we get to download the Intel versions of the Linux/Unix builds now?

Beyond giving Apple a 3.+ Ghz processor system is it really a 3.+ Ghz system now? I remember how Apple boasted the PPC chip was faster than the Intel chip at one time?  So what's going to happen now? Will Apple say that we were lying and that Intel really did have a 3Ghz chip and that we just wanted more Macs to sell?

There are plenty of questions that will need to be answered.... although personally I'm waiting to buy one of these before upgrading.  I didn't buy a G3, and it looks like I won't be buying a G5