Did he just say unmodified binary visions?
There's only one binary visions. :angry:
There's only one binary visions. :angry:
Apple switches to Intel
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
Ah so nice, the dead horse is buried, Intel was better now Job said it himself...
Based on the comment Jobs made about the efficiency per watt, my money is on Yonah (next generation Pentium M which will be moving to the desktop soon) as the new Apple Intel CPU choice...
The Yonah has dual cores, runs at 2.26 GHz and according to the roadmap is coming out Q1 2006.
History of the Pentium M from wiki:
Based on the comment Jobs made about the efficiency per watt, my money is on Yonah (next generation Pentium M which will be moving to the desktop soon) as the new Apple Intel CPU choice...
Its based on the same technology that underlies the Pentium Pro (the first RISC-based Pentium), Pentium III, and Pentium M.
The Yonah has dual cores, runs at 2.26 GHz and according to the roadmap is coming out Q1 2006.
History of the Pentium M from wiki:
In case you were wondering, you can run Windows, *nix, etc on them but not vice versa with other PC (probably chipset limited I would think):
Funny, no one seems to think they'll go the 64bit route. Personally, I'm putting my money on the 64bit technology, especially w/ the dual cores coming out. Unix flavored OS has been catering to 64 for a bit now and Winblows is also now coming online. AMD's been on this and now Intel is getting on the wagon too. Infact, my current build is an A64 based single core machine, waiting for XP64 and the eventual price drop on the dual cores. True there's a lack of software to take advantage of the chip now. But...
Edit: Lastly, WOO HOO, PCs win. So all you stubborn Mac users,
Edit II: Do any of you eggheads have a hookup for an A64 3700+ San Diego core chip?
Edit: Lastly, WOO HOO, PCs win. So all you stubborn Mac users,
Edit II: Do any of you eggheads have a hookup for an A64 3700+ San Diego core chip?
i guess the only omportant question left to ask is : "should i buy a g4 powerbook now, or wait for one of these new-fangled half-caste macs?
Neither, get a much faster 2GHZ Pentium M notebook right now...
Apple notebooks are behind the times hardware wise and will be for awhile. It will be just as bad when they have to emulate on the various applications until they are recomplied for the new Intel platform...
Apple notebooks are behind the times hardware wise and will be for awhile. It will be just as bad when they have to emulate on the various applications until they are recomplied for the new Intel platform...
Did you see the ipod battery class action settlement?Damn True said:
http://www.appleipodsettlement.com/
And, on cue, syadasti comes in with the Mac bashing... Hey, syadasti, are you getting paid for this? You sure spend a lot of your time doing it
Relax, this could be a much more interesting thread than, "Gee, Macs are moving to Intel, maybe they won't suck now."
Relax, this could be a much more interesting thread than, "Gee, Macs are moving to Intel, maybe they won't suck now."
Dude. I probably wrote a binary instruction set for a calculator before you were born. I was designing boolean circuits using transistors and diodes before Microsoft released their first Windows OS. So please.sanjuro said:
My first post was serious, but I couldn't help myself after Pau11y said it. It is pretty cool when the president of Apple says Intel is better and squashes all the chatter of the mac zealots about PowerPC being so great :love:binary visions said:And, on cue, syadasti comes in with the Mac bashing... Hey, syadasti, are you getting paid for this? You sure spend a lot of your time doing it
Relax, this could be a much more interesting thread than, "Gee, Macs are moving to Intel, maybe they won't suck now."
Its also fun to poke holes in Apple cause when I was younger I believed that Apple BS and bought some their high concept, low-supported crap - gotta make sure people get their dose of reality before they buy those hyper marketed average quality goods.
Its like people paying King level prices for FSA level parts and them still thinking they got King quality :nuts:
Well, then why are we arguing? Seriously, you said they make plenty of processors besides Pentium and Celeron, but you have not listed one yet. I think everyone who knows computers understands Intel is a huge company with many products, but I thought this thread is about computers processors, not motherboards, Ipod chips, or anything else.Echo said:
Let me ask you this question without any saracasm: what other processors does Intel make for the desktop/server platform? Are designing one specifically for the Mac?
P.S. I did get an A in my computer architecture and machine language class. Which is all the computer instructions I have used in the last 10 years.
A very good friend of mine is a pretty high mucky-muck at apple. He was at the meeting yesterday with Jobs when it was formally announced. It seems that apple's uber-nerds have spent the lat five years working towards this. All current apple software and hardware is 100% compatible with the new intel chipsets.
um. only thing you forgot is that it is still about the mac os. which is WAY better than windows. BY FAR. at least in my opinion. I don't particularly care that they switch to intel chips, but I don't see problems with my G5 either. so long as they work it on opteron or other dual processor systems, I'm fine. I still get more work done on my mac because it "JUST WORKS" and I don't have 1% of the problems that most people I know that use windows do...syadasti said:Yeah, Steve decided to turn down the reality distortion field... Whats next - Apple buys Rio and releases better mp3 players
(and no johs, mr. IT guy, you are not considered "most people")
My head hurts after reading this.
This is coming from someone who is still using a computer from 1998.
This is coming from someone who is still using a computer from 1998.
I don't know if they are designing one specifically for the Mac, and neither do you or anyone else here. For all we know they might have been developing one for the last 5 years. You can e-speculate all you want that since they only make the Pentium, Xeon, and Celeron for desktop/workstation, that must mean they will use one of those for the Mac. You're still just speculating.sanjuro said:
like syadasti quoted: "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 assume it will be a standard PC (except made to actually look nice) for all intents and purposes. But I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before someone writes a software patch that will let it run on other systems (like crappy dell machines or whatever)
I assume it will be a standard PC (except made to actually look nice) for all intents and purposes. But I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before someone writes a software patch that will let it run on other systems (like crappy dell machines or whatever)
I'm curious if this "technology" will be completely transparent, or if it'll be similar to switching between OSX and Classic. I guess this is the "Rosetta" that Toshi wrote about.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_hi_te/apple_chips;_ylt=AvoCD4Wu7enQBJlvYEZHvXEjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
I don't really care about Macs and Intel. You said Intel makes a lot of processors and I think we established they really only make 3.Echo said:
Whatever processor Apple decides to use, I just question how long it will take to develop code for it. It will be interesting.
I am just hoping Sun keeps improving the UltraSparc or my Solaris skills will go the way of the typesetter.
Just a matter of time 'til they toss the US.sanjuro said:
Didn't you hear - they're a storage company now............
-S.S.-
I found out recently that "Sun" was actually an acronym for Stanford University Network. So apparently at some point they fancied themselves a network company. Wall Street has been fairly skeptical of their ability to survive:sanjuro said:
Don't worry - your Solaris skills will transfer easily to a Linux environment.
Who cares about Mac OS X. If you have an Intel platform, there's plenty of Linux flavors out there, w/ GUIs to compete against Mac OS X. You tell me a G5 can out run a dual Xeon w/ HT using a flavor of Mandrake, FreeBSD, or Susey (spelling). By the way, add up everything involved in a G5 running OS X and add up everything for a dual Xeon (2mb L2) and any flavor of Linux (FREE), and I'd bet the Intel platform comes in at 1/2 the cost and prob runs at 2x the speed.
Let's face it, this was long overdue. IBM has little interest in keeping apple happy and the sooner that apple can get off the PPC platform and onto Intel the sooner they can be competitive. Macs cost more because apple had to amortize the development costs over such a small base of systems.
Where have they moved in the past 5 years? PCI. USB, standard Video controllers, standard peripherals, standard memory. Their OS moved over to a free BSD core specifically so that this could happen - I saw it coming years ago.
5 years from now Apple will be a software-only business. But more importantly, 5 years from now they will still be in business.
Where have they moved in the past 5 years? PCI. USB, standard Video controllers, standard peripherals, standard memory. Their OS moved over to a free BSD core specifically so that this could happen - I saw it coming years ago.
5 years from now Apple will be a software-only business. But more importantly, 5 years from now they will still be in business.
And I will hopefully be runnign a vastly superior OS (whatever spawns from tiger in 3 generations) on vastly superior and cheaper intel platforms.Austin Bike said:
There is a god.
you're being facetious but you bring up a valid point inadvertently:sanjuro said:
office, photoshop, itunes, iDVD, Sibelius: all applications that i and many other mac users rely on daily and which we could not run on Linux. therefore it's not an alternative.
(openoffice sucks, the gimp pales in comparison to photoshop in terms of interface, automation, cmyk, color management, nothing other than iTunes works with the iTMS, iDVD has no open source equivalent of any slickness whatsoever as far as i know, and sibelius [a music layout program] also has no open source equivalent afaik.)
wow and i thought computers were supposed to make life easier. Im pretty happy with my HP laptop and P4 processor. I just need to check email and download porn occasionally. Does OS X do a better job with those two functions?
just playing guys, i haven't seen such deeply divided loyalties since Ford and Chevy back in the day. BTW Mustangs kick Camaro A$$. IM OUT
just playing guys, i haven't seen such deeply divided loyalties since Ford and Chevy back in the day. BTW Mustangs kick Camaro A$$. IM OUT
I am rarely inadvertent, just not everyone catches on to what I savvy. Too much deadpan in my diet.Toshi said:
One point I try to make is the need to break up Microsoft. For example, if the O/S and the application division were to split, you would see Office for Linux, which would mean more software for Linux.
Why in God's green Earth are they using Intel instead of AMD?
On a side note...my shiny new Athlon 64 3000+ arrives Friday... :love:
On a side note...my shiny new Athlon 64 3000+ arrives Friday... :love:
if microsoft thought they'd make money selling office for linux you'd see it. but they don't think they'd make money doing that, and i don't think so either: the microsoft haters wouldn't buy it (or would pirate it and use it with a guilty conscience), and the rest of the linux community generally can't be bothered to pay for software, caring more about it being free than Free.sanjuro said:
I disagree. When I was doing Solaris desktop support, I was pushing hard for "thin clients", or X-Window Terminals, with no disk and almost no CPU. All operations would rely on midrange servers.Toshi said:
While this is not a home solution, for the average office drone who uses only Office and a browser, this would minimize administration to one central server. This would also be much easier than Citrix or the other solutions today, considering I am talking about 1996.
If Office was available at that time, it would have cemented Sun's place in the desktop environment, affecting Microsoft's control of the o/s market. Of course, Mr. Gates wisely chose to refrain porting Office to other platforms, to protect Windows.
To add to what mtbikerNJ said. The thing with PCs and why we use Macs is that THEY WORK - all the time, the user interface (OS), design and functionality seal the deal. People are much too caught up in speed and price. PCs have really ****ty OSs (90% or more DO NOT and will not use Linux so keep it down) and they just simply implode on a much more regular basis (whether this is due to the OS or hardware I don't care. It happens all too often). Software is also a NON-issue for at least 65% of the users. In my opinion, pcs are disposable lighters and Macs are Zippos.
If the switch in processors makes thing better, great. More market share for Apple.
If the switch in processors makes thing better, great. More market share for Apple.
AMD doesn't have the fab capacity or consistent supply chain to support another OEM, even one as small as apple. Intel has 11 fabs to intel's 1, so from a business decision standpoint, if you have to put yourself on the line and put apple users through another transition, the last thing you want is a supply problem. Intel is the best long-term solution to minimize risk.blue said:
I love this mass delusion that somehow all PCs all the time are constantly flooded with problems. I've done desktop support for several years, freelance consulting for a few more years, and been involved with the IT departments of all the schools and businesses I've attended.spincrazy said:
Do PCs have problems? Sure. Are Macs a little more stable? Usually - for your average schmuck. But none of my Windows machines suffer from problems. My roommate puts so much crap on his computer that I'm mildly suprised it even turns on, but he never has a problem. My family and friends generally only suffer from preventable problems (viruses, spyware) and never to a severe extent. The users I've supported very rarely have severe problems.
Fact is, Apple's market share is tiny. I think I read the last numbers at around 11% but don't quote me on that. So you're going to hear about a LOT more Windows problems than Mac problems. Kinda like saying Specialized bikes break a lot more than Soul Cycles - well, how many bikes do you think Specialized sells in a year?
The market share comes into play big time when you consider the "preventable" problems like I mentioned above. Why do Macs not get viruses? Because people don't bother to write them for Macs. Why do Macs not get spyware? Because the spyware authors would be stupid to go after a +/- 11% market share.
I'm sure there's some brand loyalty here, too, where Windows users don't feel loyal to Microsoft and will rant about their problems, but many Mac users somehow feel indebted to Apple and problems, as they come and go, are fixed and ignored.
Meh, I'm done. I just hate this stupid fallacy that Macs are somehow the perfect machines while Windows boxes explode every week.
um, no. windows is susceptible to viruses because many applications won't run properly unless you're logged in as an admin. therefore everyone runs as an admin (akin to *nix people all logging in as root every day) and as a result viruses and exploits have free rein to wreak havoc on the system. in comparison a OS X "admin" account is limited to the sandbox of its own User folder unless one escalate's privileges through sudo or the authentication dialog.binary visions said:
in short: there are architectural differences between *nix and Windows that make the former more secure, and this isn't even taking to account Outlook and its myriad holes...
You're being generous. The last paragraph of this article says that its 2%.binary visions said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20050608/bs_nf/36099;_ylt=AjQCgHFYbaWg0bemmobbJDEjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl