Forums | MacLife

/Mac/UNIX/Newbie/ATS.app wrote:

So does Apple have any competitors anymore?  First IBM, then Microsoft, then Intel but then we partner with them.  I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  Jobs must be getting rid of his "us vs. them" mentallity that so many people in the 60's had about big business.

Actually he hasn't gotten rid of it at all if you listened to the WWDC you'd see it's very, very well in place with something else... his ego

What I want to see is a benchmark of the developer Intel 3.6 Ghz. (Is it dual?) That would really settle and see if there was much improvement. If we change architectures and it does almost nothing, despite the Ghz rating being inflated, it's not the best thing in the world.

EDIT: Also, I can't see video cards changing much, they are most probably bound to the Mac ROM dilemma. (Despite being the same HW, eg ATI 9800 Pro)

Last edited by reece_james (2005-06-07 11:04 pm)

So the developer machine is a single then. Still, would be nice to get a benchmark.

Chapsboy wrote:

The good news is - I won't need an electric heater in my room in the winter. The bad news is - I will need a much higher firewall, and a bigger AC.

Something is amiss here....

Hardware can't contract a virus. A virus is OS related. (I'm not going to get into BIOS/Firmware viruses)
Also, the P4s run cooler, part of the reason for the switch.
Finally, the power consumption is lower, yet another of Job's reasons.

Yeah, i bet my tower is a hog as well. I know that if I leave it on in the  afternoon i don't need the heater at night.

Even my Pismo is power hungry, seen the rating on the batteries?!

Well apparently Apple wants the Pentium M. Wether this is across the line or just in small form factor machines I don't know, but this may be interesting in the long run.

I'd be thinking Mini, iMac, Laptops etc.

xcell wrote:

I assume by now you've heard that Apple is switching over to Intel next year, and that the PowerPC development will stop after that.  As a result, demand for PowerMacs is expected to drop and the speeds will likely never exceed 3GHZ.  I am going to start running Linux side-by-side with MacOS because I expect I will eventually switch over to it in the 1-2 year time frame.  One of the main reasons Apple is switching to Intel is because the Intel chips have DRM (digital rights management) built in to the hardware.  This will make it theoretically impossible for hackers to bypass it.  So, no more "fair use" or anything like that.  You will only be able to do with your movies, music, etc. what the distribution companies (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) want you to be able to do.  You will not have total control over your computer -- they will.  Really sucks

Don't bet on it...

this is like the third time i've seen the same post. If apple takes advantage of the drm, it will be like the itms, not covering the os entirely keeping away our freedoms.

Last edited by Chickenhawk (2005-06-19 8:23 pm)

However I has not able to use the cd from my new pb to install tiger on my imac.

Are they specific to the certain machine, or the line? My cd that came with my imac g4 allowed me to install panther on my graphite imac.(Don't tell steve)

I don't understand why the whole AMD vs Intel thing is such a big mistery. If you are a company that has continually suffered from a production supply shortage and high development costs, why wouldn't you go with the largest production capable supplier with a biggest R&D budget.  Job's said very clearly that the devloper boxes were not close to what the production boxes would be. So while the demo box has a PIV 3.6 in it, in reality we have no real idea what Apple will use in production boxes 12 months from now. AMD only eeks out a performance advantage with their most recent crop of processors and it's done a fair job of waking the slumbering giant in the processor world. Going with Intel is not only going with the cheapest per chip vendor, it's also going with the vendor that can lower Apples R&D for each system. I expect far cheaper Mac's. Apple's case study of the Mac mini was no doubt a contributing factor to the change.

Last edited by Say_What (2005-06-21 6:03 pm)

While I look forward to any future Mac with intel or other manufacturer's chips, I think this situation reflects what happens when Apple has very little clout in the market place.  For years I have watched people argue that as long as Apple is profitable it doesn't matter that the company has small market share.  But we have seen from two chip manufacturers that they don't want to put in the effort to R&D new chips effectively enough for such a small partner and small return. 

Remember the switch from Motorola to IBM?  Many people were saying how things would be different b/c IBM really cares about advancing chips, etc., vs. Motorola, who could care less about PPC development.  Any criticism of IBM was zealously put down by the staunch Apple/ IBM apologists.  Now we see that IBM doesn't want to bother with Apple when they have such big orders from the game companies. 

What is going to happen when Intel decides that Apple is not worth it?  Who will they go to?  AMD?  And then where to after that?   Soon all the chip companies will realize Apple's game and refuse to offer even competitive terms.  Of course there is the argument that with Intel, "things will be different this time," but I've heard this said about IBM when we switched to them.

So while market share is not everything, and healthy profits are indeed a good thing for a company, I believe that Apple (and their apologists) should concentrate more on market share.  None of you complain about iPod's market share, and many of you who say market share doesn't matter (for Apple's comps) frequently love to boast about iPod's share -- and we can all see the benefits of being the market leader.