Considering we didn't get a price drop when the lastest Powermacs came out, I'm hoping in light of this we get a little incentive to possibly buy an IBM based Mac.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacRumors WWDC 2005 Live Keynote Coverage
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
It's a good thing
I think that overall it's a good thing.
Marketing: Apple has always been perceived by non-users as slower, because 2GB PPC "sounds" slower than 3.7GB Intel even though they're roughly the same. Now Apple will be able to focus on the two things it does best: fantastically user-friendly software, and superior industrial design.
Heat/portability: The G5 chip runs hot - that's all there is to it. It's cool enough for the iMac G5, but just wouldn't work for a faster laptop or a G5 Mac Mini. Without shifting to another type of chip, perhaps Apple was stuck in a technological rut.
It's just a CPU: Jobs is right. All the fervent posts in here against a move to Intel as some sort of heresy are full of baloney. Apple used the Motorola chip until '94, then Power PC, and now it needs to look elsewhere. I suspect that there wouldn't have been half as much of an ideological outcry if, for example, Jobs had been up on the stage with someone from Athlon or one of the other major chip manufacturers.
Now, if Jobs had been on the stage shaking hands with BILL GATES and announcing a combination of the OSX and Windows OS'es, that would have been cause for lamentations!
I think that overall it's a good thing.
Marketing: Apple has always been perceived by non-users as slower, because 2GB PPC "sounds" slower than 3.7GB Intel even though they're roughly the same. Now Apple will be able to focus on the two things it does best: fantastically user-friendly software, and superior industrial design.
Heat/portability: The G5 chip runs hot - that's all there is to it. It's cool enough for the iMac G5, but just wouldn't work for a faster laptop or a G5 Mac Mini. Without shifting to another type of chip, perhaps Apple was stuck in a technological rut.
It's just a CPU: Jobs is right. All the fervent posts in here against a move to Intel as some sort of heresy are full of baloney. Apple used the Motorola chip until '94, then Power PC, and now it needs to look elsewhere. I suspect that there wouldn't have been half as much of an ideological outcry if, for example, Jobs had been up on the stage with someone from Athlon or one of the other major chip manufacturers.
Now, if Jobs had been on the stage shaking hands with BILL GATES and announcing a combination of the OSX and Windows OS'es, that would have been cause for lamentations!
efoto said:
According to the summary on MacWorld Steve said 'years to come' on support for both PowerPC and Intel. We'll see how many revs of Mac OS X that equals but I'm optimistic.
yellow said:
Well actually we will still have high-priced video cards, regardless if we can purchase PC ones or not. Current high-end PC cards are not cheap either, and seeing as how Apple are sending things over to the video processor, I would assume that one cannot get by with lesser than mid-to-upper level video cards.
From newegg.com:
Radeon X850 is still $484 USD, so perhaps cheaper than the 6800Ultra you are required to have for high-end stuff, but still not cheap like the MX series nVidia produces.
Being given the choice between nV and ATI would be great though, I LOVE ATI....they roxors my soxors
broken_keyboard said:
It's a tough call because you have to give your developers time to prepare, but of course you tip off potential buyers to wait a year. Hardware sales will plummet.
However, I think this was a move that needed to be made, and perhaps what Apple is thinking is that they can leverage the success of iPod/iTunes to get their other hardware and OS X through a necessarily tough transitional year or two. That being said, even iPod sales are stagnating.
It will be interesting to see how Apple stock performs in the next three years.
nhkader said:
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood you. But I recall seeing on this thread (or another) that they used a 3.6GHz P4 as a demo unit.
The only available 3.6Ghz models are Prescott based. Pentium-M's hit a wall around 2.1-2.2Ghz; if you consider that they are essentially the same as low-clocked 754 A64's (went from 1.8-2.2Ghz) in performance.
However, unlike the A64's, the Pentium M's suffers from a small FSB (in comparison to the P4); hence the multimedia performance suffers GREATLY. Look for P-M benches in content creation like Pshop and you will notice the difference.
Trekkie said:
"Years to come" = "3GHz by June" or whatever that was....by ''years to come'' I assume he means we will change the processor yet again before you have to worry about us dropping support.
I don't care anymore...I guess my first Mac is my last *true* Mac. Its all the same for me, a great product and as long as they continue to produce a superior and more secure product than M$ w/ Windows, I'll still pay a premium for it...albeit a smaller premium now after this news.
Awimoway said:
How about price cuts to current Apple hardware say 10 to 30 % and a free ipod shuffle with every PC (ooops sorry G4/G5)
Who watched Steve on CNBC? He say anything of note?
I am not of the opinion that the sky is falling either, but as a recent switcher (in Sept) I spent a fair amount of money on hardware and software, and I will be upset if performance of my apps takes a hit on the the Macintels during the transition.
But like some of the other sane people in this thread, I am for this in the long run.
I am not of the opinion that the sky is falling either, but as a recent switcher (in Sept) I spent a fair amount of money on hardware and software, and I will be upset if performance of my apps takes a hit on the the Macintels during the transition.
But like some of the other sane people in this thread, I am for this in the long run.
Plymouthbreezer said:
Sorry, it can be hard to sort the sarcastic "I'm gonna kill myself" posts from the real ones.
Phatpat said:
The P4 is just for development purposes. The shipping desktops will likely feature new 64-bit single and dual core processors based on the pentium-M.
slu said:
Just that Intel roadmap in 2 years would suit where Apple wanted to be more than IBM's. Sounds like WiMAX reading between the lines...
He did look very alarmed when the Intel CEO decided to hug him though on stage. He leapt backwards... (must say I love globalisation - CNBC Europe was showing it too!
)I hope this means that I can build my own Apple PC and make a business out of it ?
but what happens if IBM build better chips in says 5 years time ????
but what happens if IBM build better chips in says 5 years time ????
unbiased reporting?
Here's a very obvious bias:
"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a risky move that could further shrink its minuscule slice of the PC market, Apple Computer Inc. announced plans Monday to switch its Macintosh computers to the same Intel Corp. chips used in systems that run Microsoft Windows."
Would they say that BMW's market share is "minuscule"?
Here's a very obvious bias:
"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- In a risky move that could further shrink its minuscule slice of the PC market, Apple Computer Inc. announced plans Monday to switch its Macintosh computers to the same Intel Corp. chips used in systems that run Microsoft Windows."
Would they say that BMW's market share is "minuscule"?
javiercr said:macrumos was struggling bit during the keynote, may be it should run on xeons?
As far as I know.. it IS running on xeons. Unless you were being sarcastic.
I say we RIOT! Lets go burn down the Apple stores. Burn those suckers down! GO GO GO! Infultrate the HQ, take Jobs hostage, tell him to switch back to reverse the call on using Intel processors. Then once he agrees, get out of their, rebuild the burnt down Apple stores, and all will be well.
Seriously though, I think this move to Intel processors is a disgrace. I feel as if the Mac is uniting with the PC. Everything that was good and we, the Mac users were against is now turning on us. Jobs, a man I admired so dearly I feel is betraying his principles to some degree. Less than a week ago, I sold my PC to replace it with a Powerbook. Now, with two Macs and no PC I almost feel as if I put myself on Jobs side and then he turns around and shoots me for joining his side. *Betrayal* is the first word that comes to mind.
I might as well go sing "It's the end of the world as we know it (And I feel unfine)" the rest of the day. Hey, I've already got it playing in iTunes, so why not?
I just overall have mixed feelings on the situation. Hopefully things will lighten up and I will see the positive out of this transistion in the near future. I think Jobs needs to spread some more insight on this shifting of grounds. I still think Steve is a remarkable guy, just don't, at this time, agree with what he is doing. Hopefully, once some more light has been shed on this thing, that will change.
(Actually, its very possible he already did such in which I ask at the Keynote. I suppose I will see once the video is tacked on Apple's site.)
Seriously though, I think this move to Intel processors is a disgrace. I feel as if the Mac is uniting with the PC. Everything that was good and we, the Mac users were against is now turning on us. Jobs, a man I admired so dearly I feel is betraying his principles to some degree. Less than a week ago, I sold my PC to replace it with a Powerbook. Now, with two Macs and no PC I almost feel as if I put myself on Jobs side and then he turns around and shoots me for joining his side. *Betrayal* is the first word that comes to mind.
I might as well go sing "It's the end of the world as we know it (And I feel unfine)" the rest of the day. Hey, I've already got it playing in iTunes, so why not?
I just overall have mixed feelings on the situation. Hopefully things will lighten up and I will see the positive out of this transistion in the near future. I think Jobs needs to spread some more insight on this shifting of grounds. I still think Steve is a remarkable guy, just don't, at this time, agree with what he is doing. Hopefully, once some more light has been shed on this thing, that will change.
(Actually, its very possible he already did such in which I ask at the Keynote. I suppose I will see once the video is tacked on Apple's site.)
I actually see a bit of good in the switch to Intel chips. First and foremost is a drop in prices. The cost barrier is the second largest barrier people have in switching to Apple (the first being the brainwashing process of Windows culture). Second, a greater adoption of a 64-bit architecture. I'm guessing Apple will be using only 64-bit chips in the new machines, allowing full 64-bit penetration into all lines. Hell, Intel's already manufacturing 64-bit celerons. I have a feeling that this will be a good thing for Apple in the long run. And seeing as they're probably trying to build two-way compatability between PPC and Intel chips, not just one way as they have working, the current machines will handle everything pretty damn well. Clearly this will result in some market stagnation until the intel macs are released, but this will probably cause apple to cut costs on all their current machines. Hello cheap PowerMac dual G5.
rolfdenver said:
Nevertheless, I do infact agree with what rolfdenver is saying, minus the marketing part.
I especially agree with-- "Heat/portability: The G5 chip runs hot - that's all there is to it. It's cool enough for the iMac G5, but just wouldn't work for a faster laptop or a G5 Mac Mini. Without shifting to another type of chip, perhaps Apple was stuck in a technological rut."
E1Presidente said:
If were're talking G4 or "Intel-inside" Powerbooks for under $1,000 (IE. $999), I will be happy.
E1Presidente said:
That is the question= are we going to get Pentium class chips or Celeron class chips.
It's hard to get excited about celerons
- Status