Closed Thread Icon

Topic awaiting preservation: Mac and Intel (Page 1 of 1) Pages that link to <a href="https://ozoneasylum.com/backlink?for=26236" title="Pages that link to Topic awaiting preservation: Mac and Intel (Page 1 of 1)" rel="nofollow" >Topic awaiting preservation: Mac and Intel <span class="small">(Page 1 of 1)</span>\

 
kromaZ
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Adanac
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-13-2005 23:49

A few years ago I created this image thinking,
that at some point in time my beloved Mac might go through some form of transformation. Some sort of collaboration with the "other side". Seems there is to be a major shift in Apple's direction.

The more I read in this months issue of MacWorld though, it actually seems to make sense....scary.

Here's a tidbit http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html


Still having mixed feelings about this though.


Kromaz

reisio
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: Florida
Insane since: Mar 2005

posted posted 07-14-2005 00:20

Really, Microsoft does not run Intel. This is a good move, because PPC is old.

It might also interest you to know that what Mac is today is basically what NeXT was ten years ago - and NeXT ten years ago ran on Intel.

Doesn't really concern me, though. Free OSes for me any day.

Alexer
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Juneau, Alaska
Insane since: Jun 2004

posted posted 07-14-2005 00:36

I'm kind of curious. What does this mean for people who already own good Mac systems? Will software development cease for PPC computers?

kromaZ
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Adanac
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-14-2005 01:26

Alexer, from what I understand PPC software can run transparently on Intel Systems, using a new technology dubbed Rosetta.

http://macintouch.com/macintel.html


cheers
kromaz

Spirit Hawk
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Atlanta, GA USA
Insane since: Aug 2001

posted posted 07-14-2005 02:19

Alexer,

Right now, Apple's way of dealing with the software part of this transition is to have developers compile their software to run on both Mac architectures. This will result in one "file" that will run on both chips. Apple is calling this a "Universal Binary". There are already some developers that have compiled universal binaries for their applications. So, software will be available for a little while that will run on both chips. I don't know how long this will last, but at least it will help, along with Rosetta. Rosetta will run a lot of existing PPC Mac apps on an Intel Mac.

Hope that helps you some.

(Edited by Spirit Hawk on 07-14-2005 02:26)

Suho1004
Maniac (V) Mad Librarian

From: Seoul, Korea
Insane since: Apr 2002

posted posted 07-14-2005 02:51

I'm surprised this issue is only being discussed now here at the Asylum. This is kind of old news, at least in Internet terms.

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I was an Apple user. Then our family slowly switched over to PC, and I've been a PC user ever since. I think about switching back from time to time. It's good to see that Apple is making moves to stay in the game.

Just rambling...

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

Iron Wallaby
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: USA
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 07-14-2005 03:55
quote:

reisio said:

This is a good move, because PPC is old.



Untrue. I've researched it, and it really is a vastly superior architecture to x86, which is about as outdated as it gets for modern hardware. You can read all about it if you like; many of the gory details can be found in books. (I had to take a class on this topic, and then researched the two architectures on my own just to check, heh.)

However, Intel is a freaking behemoth. They can get away with making a huge profit on these unweildly, outdated devices because they are a big company, and innovate well (even though the x86 instruction set is CISC, for example, the P4 dynamically translates the instructions into 2 or 3 RISC instructions, and then executes those on it's very deeply piplined, hyperthreaded, branch-predicting monster).

Basically, this means nothing bad for Apple, since their machines ARE NOT PC's, and will not ever become like Dells or Compaqs are to Windows. Apple is still a hardware company and will remain so for the forseable future. Not to mention that, if Apple plays their cards right, they can make a huge killing on CPU sales and on production rates, making Macs much cheaper. Happy! Not to mention it works well for Intel too (larger market share, even if only a few more percent in a market they dominate), and doesn't hurt IBM much at all (who, in fact, is probably happy to see Apple -- a very demanding company -- go).

Basically, this was a wise move in the short term and medium term. In the long term, x86 will die anyway, since it's already being pushed pretty hard against it's limits. And then Apple will just jump ship to something better.

Might like to read this too -- http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1175
And this -- http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4954&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

---
Website

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 07-14-2005 03:57)

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 07-14-2005 04:30)

kromaZ
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Adanac
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-14-2005 03:59
quote:
I'm surprised this issue is only being discussed now here at the Asylum. This is kind of old news, at least in Internet terms.



It was somewhat of a shocker to me as I knew nothing about this, untill I received my copy of MacWorld in the mail today.
Been a little out of touch lately.

I think it is all good, and Apple is probably heading in the right direction.

Still, I am one of those die hard "Classic Power Mac users" and it will probably be a looong time before
I get my mits on the new gear.

cheers,
kromaz

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 07-14-2005 04:44

I was annoyed when it was first announced but once I came to the realization that I'll probably never waste money on another Apple machine again, I guess it doesn't matter.

Blaise
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: London
Insane since: Jun 2003

posted posted 07-14-2005 11:15

I always understood (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the problem with the Mac chips wasn't the chips themselves but the manufacturers.

IBM and Motorolla didn't exactly have much call to work hard on putting out a 3Ghz processor to compete with the Intel and AMD speeds, just for Mac, when they've got their own servers and mobile phones etc to be bulding.

kromaZ
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Adanac
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-14-2005 18:25

That does seem to be one of the main issues according to Iron Wallaby's second link above.

And of course there is always the ego thing that seems to get in the way with Steve, sometimes,
but for most visionaries and creative types, this is a neccessary part of their makeup and once fuelled properly, dreams can become reality.


cheers,
kromaz

Alexer
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Juneau, Alaska
Insane since: Jun 2004

posted posted 07-14-2005 22:02

Now that my fears have been allayed, thanks to kromaZ and Spirit Hawk, I'm all for this. As long as I get the software support that I need without being forced to switch systems, and good systems keep on coming out when I need them, I'm happy.

People can whine about Steve Jobs' ego all they want. If Apple is making money, Apple must be doing something right.

Rinswind 2th
Maniac (V) Inmate

From: Den Haag: The Royal Residence
Insane since: Jul 2000

posted posted 07-15-2005 00:17

-MacOS is based somewhat on FreeBSD, yes?
-In a near future Intel chips are going to replace PPC chips, ok?

So basicly we only need some good hackers with a lot of spare time and we are running MacOS on an ordinary PC whithout all this emulator and converting crap.
Now this is something to look out for.

------------------------------
Support Justice for Pat Richard

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 07-15-2005 00:18

I'm curious how you guys feel this will play out for Apple & the computers industry in general. I'm in the process of starting a small business with a friend and we spent considerable time talking about this today.

I'm of the opinion that this new deal is really going to hurt a company that has already strained many relationships with a number of major players in the hardware and software industries. IMO Apple has spent too many years listening to guys like Dave Every who genuinely believe the consumers value style over cost. In the end everything is about numbers and the numbers are very against Apple.

The numbers won't add up for Intel. Every's article, originally posted by Iron Wallaby, says Apple will automatically become one of Intel's largest customers and within five years could develop into their biggest. That's very shortsighted when you consider Apple is a company that has flirted with bankruptcy a few times now. It's also very shortsighted when you realize that those numbers include the iPod, while a good product also a fad product. They can only make so many meaningful updates to the iPod and sooner rather then later sales will decline. What else does Apple have in the works? When the iPod begins to fade away Apple will be the same thing they were with IBM & Motorola - a small player among giants.

The numbers don't add up for software manufacturers. It doesn't really pay for large software firms to continue supporting the platform. Software firms were forced to redesign their software between OS 9 and X. Now they're being asked to do so again in switching to Intel. Apple has already begun pushing into the markets of third-party software companies and we've seen major players like Adobe cutting back their software for Apple. Now, who would be worse off if Adobe & Microsoft stopped providing software for Apple, Adobe & Microsoft or Apple? YellowDog Linux has already announced that they won't be supporting Intel machines. That might not be a big deal to you but the biggest complaint people have about Apple machines are its lack of quality software.

The numbers are nightmarish for small business owners. Why would I spend the money to outfit my company with Apple products when Apple is known for its lack of backwards compatibility? I'm sure Rosetta is a fine technology but if things aren't 100% compatible, which they won't be, I can't be bothered with it - and I'm sure many business owners feel the same way. I simply won't spend thousands of dollars on hardware & software only to have to find annoying workarounds when things don't port over properly.

The numbers might be worst for ordinary users. I understand companies care more about profits then customers but frankly I'm tired of Apple's crap. At 22, I've personally owned 5 computers - 3 Apples & 2 Wintels. When I buy a Wintel not only do I pay less but I don't need to go out and buy all new software. When I buy Apple, I spend a fortune and then have to purchase all new software because Apple changes things so drastically from release to release. It's just not worth it anymore. If OS X was remotely better then Windows it wouldn't be so annoying, but the reality is that it isn't. My applications crash just as much in OS X as they do in XP.

Now that I pay all of my own bills I'm really looking into the future. I can't bring myself to fill an office with Apple computers when at the next Expo there's a good likelihood Steve Jobs will announce that I all of my software is obsolete and I need to purchase a new system from him to stay competitive. Your thoughts?

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 07-15-2005 00:31

Oh, and for those who are curious where we decided to go, we're using RedHat Linux for our server & desktops. If you're curious why we've decided to pay for Linux when you can legally get copies of it for free, the answer is support. Neither of us want to be tied to this company forever, so we're looking to make it as autonomous as possible and that means having the office manager call up RedHat for computer problems.

If you're curious what we're doing, we're providing software for small business but specifically medical offices and labs. My dad owns both a medical distribution company and a medical lab, so we already have a distributor who's willing to carry our product, customers waiting for demos and a medical lab to use as a demo.

In the future we'd like to expand into customized software & networking solutions but that discussion can wait until we've formally opened our doors =)

kromaZ
Bipolar (III) Inmate

From: Adanac
Insane since: Oct 2000

posted posted 07-15-2005 05:05

I'm not into a discussion as to what "types" of computers or OS's are better than others, it's all subjective and based on your own experiences and needs.

What I see happening here with this move by Apple to me is exciting, and I for one am looking forward to the innovative products they will develop.

Apple has, and always will be the one to lead the way for innovation and reliable machines and OS's.

I have owned a few different machines, and paid way too much to own the fastest Mac on the planet in 1997, (I could have purchased 4 Wintel boxes for the same price) but believe me when I say this machine and OS has never let me down and continues to hum, never had a virus, never a crash that I could not recover from easily, and runs all the 2D and 3D apps that I could ever possibly use in a lifetime flawlessly. And all that on a 200 MHz PowerPC, with only half the ram slots filled of the 1 Gig max. capacity, and 2 of the 6 PCI slots occupied.

Simple stuff eh?

In a nutshell it has been rock solid, with no replacement parts yet, and I am sure the future of Apple will continue to be solid. Thought we were talking Unix here?


cheers,
Kromaz

(Edited by kromaZ on 07-15-2005 05:33)

Iron Wallaby
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: USA
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 07-15-2005 06:24
quote:

Jestah said:

IMO Apple has spenttoo many years listening to guys like Dave Every who genuinely believethe consumers value style over cost.


Well, Jestah, computers aren't just about productivity -- style does make a big difference. More below.

quote:
That's very shortsighted when you consider Apple isa company that has flirted with bankruptcy a few times now.


Also note that A) Apple was under different management then, B) They didn't care about style then, C) The iPod didn't exist. Each of these are very important points.

A) Steve Jobs, for all his faults, has charisma. Lots of it. He knows what people like. He's the CEO of two of the most innovative and influential companies in the world -- Apple and Pixar. Don't see the influence? Apple has innovated and made mainstream: ubiquitous GUI, attractive interfaces, proportional fonts, USB, demise of the floppy drive and rise and popularity of CD's, Firewire, legal music downloads. Pixar is the original and still biggest and best of the computer animation companies. Both companies market shares and profits are skyrocketing, and have been for years.

Proof is in the pudding: Apple stock has gone up like mad in the last two years, and Pixar's has been growing for, like, forever.

Since Steve took back the reins of Apple, it's been success after success. Apple is once again a major player.

B) Style does make a difference. Why does everyone on Linux like to mimic the Aqua interface? Take a peek at gnome-look.org and you'll see what I mean. Why does everyone I see around my college campus use the iPod? Yes, it's a great player, but it has style. It's sleek, sexy, and has an image that people want.

C) The iPod has dominated it's market. It's the only thing in music players anymore. It's just a fabulous bit of technology and marketing. And it's winning over people to the Macintosh on a day-by-day basis.

quote:
Software firms were forced to redesign their software between OS 9 andX. Now they're being asked to do so again in switching to Intel.


Yes, but Apple is taking strides to ease the transition. Sure, I greatly doubt it'll be perfect; but it sure won't be horrible.

quote:
Applehas already begun pushing into the markets of third-party softwarecompanies and we've seen major players like Adobe cutting back theirsoftware for Apple.


Yet, Adobe's biggest market is to the graphic design field... which is entirely based on Macintosh systems... and Adobe has given press releases that they are pleased to offer the full lineup for Adobe products on Intel systems... so where the heck did you hear that?

[quote[YellowDog Linux has already announced that they won't besupporting Intel machines.[/quote]
And why is this a problem? YDL is RHEL for PPC machines. On Intel hardware, people can just use RedHat. What a fast way to squish your company into oblivion. No surprise here.

quote:
That might not be a big deal to you but thebiggest complaint people have about Apple machines are its lack ofquality software.


Funny, everyone I talk to who even uses a Mac finds it to have some of the best software available. If you want links I'll give you some.

quote:
The numbers are nightmarish for small business owners. Why would Ispend the money to outfit my company with Apple products when Apple isknown for its lack of backwards compatibility? I'm sure Rosetta is afine technology but if things aren't 100% compatible, which they won'tbe, I can't be bothered with it - and I'm sure many business ownersfeel the same way. I simply won't spend thousands of dollars onhardware &amp; software only to have to find annoying workarounds whenthings don't port over properly.


This I agree with completely. Why should you spend all that money? It's absurd! But guess what -- Apple isn't targeting the small business owners. They're targeting your grandmother, the random person who needs to surf the web, the power users, the hackers (not crackers, but hackers in the good sense), and the design crowd. Of which you're not a part.

quote:
At 22, I've personally owned 5 computers - 3 Apples &amp; 2Wintels. When I buy a Wintel not only do I pay less but I don't need togo out and buy all new software.


And yet, Mac people who go out and buy a Windows machine would have to buy all new software too.

quote:
If OS X was remotely better then Windows it wouldn't be so annoying,but the reality is that it isn't.


Tell all my college friends that. In both my college (RPI) and others, people have to reimage (that is, completely wipe their hard drive clean) at least once a year because Windows gets so screwed up. I don't have a Mac, but I also have friends who do, and they've never needed to reinstall in the years they've had it (except maybe -- MAYBE -- when installing a new version of the OS). I myself have had to reinstall Windows 4 times in the last two years because of unrecoverable failure. And you know what? Sure, I don't have a Mac, but Windows just isn't worth the effort. (I run Linux almost always now -- I boot into Windows for games and Photoshop, but have no other reason to do so).

Those are my thoughts. You are looking at it from a biased, Microsoft-propoganda viewpoint. I say this because it's the same argument I hear over and over and over again. Face it -- Windows is expensive and it sucks. Macs are expensive too, and they don't suck. Linux is free, and sucks mildly, but it's great for the price (especially for a poor college student like myself).

Please note that most people are not small business owners. Most people don't need 50-thousand little software tools each costing $50... they just need web, email, RSS, maybe a terminal and some FSF coding tools, and maybe Photoshop or some video editing tools.

We have a mix of Windows, Linux, and Macs at work -- I do system administration of a small network (about 150-200 machines). Let me say that my experiences with Linux are fairly positive -- things are tricky but once you get them working they stay working. With Solaris it's the same. With Macs, the time to set things up is nearly null -- everything just works. I've set up Mac workstations and a 15-node Macintosh cluster, in fractions of the time it takes to get up a Linux cluster.

And you know what? We only have 2 Windows workstations on the network. Why? Because they are a monster to maintain. Now, if we had need of thousands of them, we could buy the very expensive software and management would be a breeze. But we don't. And neither do most. We use Linux and Solaris and Macintosh because they're inexpensive and easy to get working.

I got a new Linux machine set up in an hour -- it's still working fine. New Macs are a little less than that. New Windows machines -- of which I've set up two -- take at least 5 hours to install, patch, security update, and install software. Not to mention they don't integrate into a UNIX network at all. And UNIX is ubiquitous.

---
Website

Jestah
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: Long Island, NY
Insane since: Jun 2000

posted posted 07-15-2005 16:41

kromaZ - I agree, I'm not one to get into pissing matches over something like an operating system. Everyone has their favorites for one reason or another. Its not that I dislike Apple products. Quite the contrary. Maybe there was a time when Mac OS was significantly more stable then Windows and more attractive then Windows/Linux but I think that time has come and passed.

Iron Wallaby - You make fine, valid points. I just happen to disagree with you.

I'm sure Steve Jobs is a fine, charasmatic CEO who gets the most from his employees I just happen to think Apple is moving in the wrong direction. I wasn't able to find any 2005 sales numbers but Morgan Stanley believe it *could* reach 5%. I wouldn't consider a company who's been around for decades that occupys 5% of a market to have skyrocketing success. It's a slight increase from the niche market that they've always occupied.

I agree that style isn't ignored but it simply isn't one of the important things in buying a computer. The only other explanation that I can think of is that Apple has crummy style and Dell is the stylish computer on the market. For most consumers price is priority #1. It's why more people in the States drive Fords and Chevy's as opposed to Ferrari and Porche. Priority #2 is probably the operating system. Like it or not Windows is the OS more people want to use. That probably has more to do with brand recognizability then anything else, but its still the case. The iPod sells well because its inexpensive and isn't limited by being the alternative choice. Unfortunately for Apple,the iPod is a fad just like the Walkman.

I'll finish the rest of your post later, I need to leave the office for a little while.

Iron Wallaby
Paranoid (IV) Inmate

From: USA
Insane since: May 2004

posted posted 07-15-2005 17:27
quote:

Jestah said:

Iron Wallaby - You make fine, valid points. I just happen to disagree with you.


Of course, and that's fine -- I don't argue for arguing's sake. If you hear my opinion and disagree, great.

quote:
Likeit or not Windows is the OS more people want to use. That probably hasmore to do with brand recognizability then anything else, but its stillthe case.


I disagree, and would like to argue this point just a little. Nobody actually likes Windows, or wants to use it (at first, anyway -- after a while they get used to the system, and like it's familiarity -- crashes and all). They use it because it's preinstalled when they get a Dell or a Compaq. Dell is the recognizable brand, since it's got commercials everywhere. But Windows comes along with it, and people use Windows because they've never seen or heard of anything else.

Also, I think, for many, it's peer pressure. Get a Dell because your friend got a Dell and it works for them, so it'll probably work for you too. You'll notice that Mac users, like artists, are often who they are because they were the "outsiders", the non-popular people who wanted to go and do their own thing, without caring what anyone else thought. Which is why Mac users, like artists, will always strike everyone else as being just a bit creepy and out of touch with reality.

This, I see, is the main difference between Windows and everything else. People use Windows. People, whether rationally or not, love MacOS, Linux, BSD, what-have-you. That's why you don't see any Windows-zealots.

---
Website

(Edited by Iron Wallaby on 07-15-2005 17:28)

bitdamaged
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist

From: 100101010011 <-- right about here
Insane since: Mar 2000

posted posted 07-15-2005 17:50

Heh these here religious arguments always get my goat

Anyway here's a relevant article

Apple Computer Inc. saw sales jump 75 percent in its latest quarter - and net income more than quadruple - as sizzling sales of iPod music players led the company to what CEO Steve Jobs called its best quarterly performance.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

« BackwardsOnwards »

Show Forum Drop Down Menu