# Your reaction to the planets re-aligning (Apple move to Intel)



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Are you happy or in a cold sweat?


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

I'm here at WWDC and the reaction is fairly mixed. The immediate response in the room was an incredible murmur and then a deathly silence. But now, after it has had some time to digest (and I'm certain that this keynote was intentionally short to let people think about it for a long time before they moved on to the rest of the show), people are pretty accepting.

Some people are pretty bitter. A lot of us have a very personal attachment for no good reason. But it's there and we can't just accept this.

Some developers are pretty freaked out, particularly those still using CodeWarrior. This means a lot of work to them if they are to keep up with the Joneses.

Some are enthusiastic and think this is years overdue.

I think the vast majority don't see this as a huge issue and will continue on as normal.

The presentations show that Apple has obviously put a lot of thought into this and want to minimize the pain to developers. They utterly depend on us to actually make Universal binaries in order for this gamble to pay off.

- Martin.


----------



## Strongblade (Jul 9, 2001)

I have to admit I am a bit nervous. This *COULD* end up biting Apple in the keister if things don't go right.

Some of the news I heard was that these new "Mactels" will be able to run Windows if you wish and that of course they'll run Mac OS X as well. The interesting tidbit is that the Wintel boxes will NOT be able to run mac OS X, which leads me to think Mactel processors may be specially designed with something 'extra' that makes it work with Mac OS X.

But this is all just speculation.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

The way I see it: if Apple had the foresight to develop an Intel version for the last several years _just in case_ IBM drops the ball, then the inverse can be believed that Apple will continue to develop a PPC-friendly OS in tandem with whatever versions of Mac OS X Intel iterations will follow regardless if they are Intel-only.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Hey mbaldwin, is there a feeling there that this change has been planned for a long time?

That's just the feeling I'm getting the more I read about it. And the fact that Jobs acknowledged that all those Marklar rumours for the last 5 years have been true. Plus the fact that Next could run on a few platforms. This tells me that Jobs has had this one in his back pocket for some time.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

mbaldwin said:


> I'm here at WWDC and the reaction is fairly mixed.


Thanks for the update. Nice to hear from someone who is "there".


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Geez, AS, you're batting a 1000 for the most cynical posts today. Rough day at work?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Strongblade said:


> Some of the news I heard was that these new "Mactels" will be able to run Windows if you wish and that of course they'll run Mac OS X as well. The interesting tidbit is that the Wintel boxes will NOT be able to run mac OS X, which leads me to think Mactel processors may be specially designed with something 'extra' that makes it work with Mac OS X.


Phil Schiller confirmed that they will be able to run Windows, it's just that Apple won't support it. And he also said that Apple doesn't want OSX to run on other PCs, but people who understand this stuff don't think they'll be able to prevent geeks from quite easily doing this. It just will violate the EULA, meaning nobody will be able to legally sell a PC with OSX on it.

No doubt there would be lots of PCs with illegal copies of OSX on them just like there are lots of PCs with illegal copies of Windows on them. OSX may not work very well on them unless the owner knows what he's doing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I'm adopting a wait and see attitude. My hardware is getting old and this announcement came just at a time when I was contemplating replacements.

If i do have a concern, it would be about upgrade paths for my collection of expensive software. Will I be able to get upgrades at a reasonable price...that is the question. I don't place much faith in Rosetta to run video editing software or Photoshop. Putting out the full price for such apps on top of the new hardware is not an option and that may sway me to remain with the PPC architecture well past the 2yr. transition period.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

My reaction? I say bring it on. It's not like Jonathan Ives is going to lose it, causing Apple to suddenly going to start producing beige boxes again. Macs will still be Macs. OS X will still be OS X. Apple will still be Apple. None of us are going to lose anything in this transition.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Geez, AS, you're batting a 1000 for the most cynical posts today. Rough day at work?


No, just not ready to blindly accept all this as "good". 
Too many questions have not been answered.
This will be the third major shift with Apple, not sure we will follow....


----------



## nino (May 29, 2005)

*nervous*

finally took the plunge from my g3 imac to a new imac g5. now what? will it last me five years like my g3? help.....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

It's good to see people not blinded by the drama, but why are you so sour about it? I don't think I've read a single positive thing from you about Apple moving to Intel. Is there nothing good that come of this? 

__________________


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

I welcome it. Now... can Frankenmac hold on for one more year??


----------



## vapour (Feb 18, 2003)

As I read way too many posts I can't help but think of the change model in terms of people's reaction...In a typical change model you have a bell curve consisting of various groups of people/reactions. 1. Those that are not even aware a change is happening 2. Those that resist change prefering to stick with the old. 3. Those that will get on board once they see the value. 4. Those that say bring on the revolution now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

When I heard the news this morning, I took some time out of an otherwise INSANE work schedule to check in here at ehmac and see what the Mac faithful were saying about this big doppler shift in the computer world.

After reading through WAYYY too many posts and replies, I went from slightly freaked, to mildly worried, to cautiously optimistic and accepting.

All in one day. All in about three hours, actually.

And now that I've had time to consider ALL of the possibilities for the future...I'm definitely feeling pretty darned positive about this. Macdoc is right...Apple is now poised to take advantage of ALL that is out there. They've just broken out of a confined space. It's a bold move. And it looks like Steve-o was planning this right from the first days of OSX. What a chess player!

Hmmm...let's see now....Microsoft has made billions and become a major force. While selling a deeply flawed and crippled OS to the world. One that everyone seems to love to hate. And they make no major hardware. Just a buggy and bloated OS. 

On the other hand...Apple has been long known as an industry leader and a source of superior software and hardware. Now, the Apple OS will be available alongside the inferior Windows OS. You will be able to use apps from both systems on the same machine.

Just so long as that machine was made by Apple. 

Too cool. So...how long until just about everybody decides that Apple is the better choice? Especially when the prices for the (demostrably better) Apple hardware are almost the same as for the flawed Windoze boxes?

And then there is always the possibility that PPC RISC gear will still occupy the top end of the market. With Apple's Unix-based OS as the obvious choice there too. Apple has the option of running on both systems. Microsoft will be suckin hind tit on this. 

And, a year or so down the road...what about a native 64-bit OS that is well developed...versus a brand new one that is full of bugs and is coming from a company that is well known for software glitches? Can anyone say "Longhorn" here?

Jobs is a freakin genius.  

Onward and upward!!


----------



## parousia (Feb 15, 2001)

I must say that I am shocked, but I guess a little optimistic, although I am a little spooked about a hardware purchase now.

I was just talking to PosterBoy @ London Drugs checking out the newest iMac G5 2ghtz and now I dont know if I should buy now or suffer for a yr until much faster and better machine comes out?

I guess it is just that it seems like it is going to introduce some uncertainty in a platform that I was very confident about. To to worried about the OS but will developers intro new products for the PPC or will they now hold off for at least another 1yr to recompile and intro just 1 new multiplatform program?

I hope this is an seemless and easy trans for us consumers.

Parousia


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

OK, we thought that Apple moving to Intel was a sign that Hell had just frozen over. But look at this - MacNutt just agreed with MacDoc!!   



MacNutt said:


> Macdoc is right...Apple is now poised to take advantage of ALL that is out there.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This has happened before GA. I've also agreed with YOU on some things as well. 

I go with what works. What is obviously better. I take a good hard look at things and I use the "first principles" method. If someone can show me that something...anything...is obviously a better choice than what came before, I will go with it. Wholeheartedly. And never look back.

The past is the past. I live in the NOW...and the future is very bright. What's ahead is far more interesting than what has come before. And I'm ready for it. Bring it ON!!

That's all there is.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

As I'm sure you know Gerry, I was only joshing 

Good to see you back, - you should tell people when you're going away so they don't get all worried and such.


----------



## MacBro (May 14, 2005)

I hope that if you decide on the new Imac g5 that you buy from stock and not BTO like I did. I ordered my Imac g5 from London Drugs in Vancouver Street on Davie on May 05 and paid cash and as of Friday, 4th of June, it still hadn't shipped. I think they messed up the order in their purchasing dept.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I find it rather perplexing that anyone was really worried about my usual spring/summer absence from the forums here at ehmac. Gordguide dissappears every spring (for work) and no one gives it a second thought. So do I, sort of...but there seems to be some concern when I do this.

Not sure why. Especially since I seem to irritate so many people around here on such a regular basis. I'd have thought you would all be grateful for the break 

I'll try to get back here once in a while during the hot weather season (when water sales peak). But no promises.

Count yourselves as fortunate.


----------



## MacGenius (Nov 13, 2001)

I wonder what the move will do to Apple's insistence on charging a premium price. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the higher prices because I appreciate the better hardware design of the PowerPC Mac but if they really are going to use a standard PC architecture that pretty much means they will have a tough time charging their usual premium.

If prices drop to a reasonable level compared to PC then getting people to switch will a lot less difficult.


----------



## Jordan (Jul 20, 2002)

After doing some thinking on this subject, I don't think Apple would put themselves at RISC  by going to Intel, and going head on against Microsoft.

More than likely Apple will have proprietary hardware (Intel chip?) that OS X will only run on. Are they (Intel) going to have a 64 bit (Xeon) processor for Apple? Or is Apple going back to 32 bit? All I know is, I like my new iMac, especially the power cord    

I priced a similarly equipped (almost) Dell Inspiron 4700 to my 2 Ghz iMac G5 and the Dell was $600 more, and that's without comparable software that Apple includes.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Realistically, this won't have any effect on my world until I can afford a new Mac. Which is years away (barring any unforeseen cataclysmic hardware failure).

As a sales person, though, it's great that soon I'll be able to compare Apples to apples in terms of horsepower for customers.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

I am optimistic in the outlook especially for the portables. Centrino is the best thing to come along in a whlie for Intel. If a G5 PowerBook is a dream, then a Centrino PowerBook is not too bad a second choice. 

It would be a good fit for the mini and iMac maybe. But does that mean a Celeron eMac is coming


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

Now, where did I put my box of diskettes?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Hey MacBro, that CTO iMac G5 that is on back-order might be "bumped" to an Intel-inside version  

It's gonna happen at some point unless Apple releases entirely new machine designs when they roll out the processor switches.


----------



## MacDaddy (Jul 16, 2001)

I submited my feedback to Apple about this. I asked them why they have been telling us the PPC is so much better than Intel then switch to it, I also asked if they would be removing their speed comparison tests from their website.

What a bunch of crap, that is all I have to say. I don't think I will be buying another Mac when my G5 dies.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

MacDaddy said:


> I submited my feedback to Apple about this. I asked them why they have been telling us the PPC is so much better than Intel then switch to it, I also asked if they would be removing their speed comparison tests from their website.
> 
> What a bunch of crap, that is all I have to say. I don't think I will be buying another Mac when my G5 dies.



I think there is a lot more to the Intel thing that you or I are aware of. Possibly, the bottleneck in the Machines wasn't Intel? Maybe it was Windows? A computer is only as good as the OS that runs it, with OS modification, I'm sure it's possible that the new Mintel machines will be superior.

Maybe there's new chips on the way? Maybe Intel figured out how to kill the PPC. Who knows? This is only a transition to the x86 architecture. A much broader spectrum if you ask me.

Why would they take down the speed comparison tests? They are comparable.. but as we all know. PPC has hit a wall. Aside from Dual Core. But.. x86 is already there or on it's way and probably has much more power to accel. Apple wouldn't make this move, if it didn't deem itself necessary. There's a lot of overhead to it.. why do it? If it wasn't better?

Wait and see what happens, you will be better in making your choices in a years time, as we all will


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vexel, the people who are bringing up the strongest "opposition" and pointing out a certain hypocrisy on Apple's part are also heavy-user and many of us make our living by using computers. MacDaddy points are echoed in the video community.

Apple expects the pros and programmers to carry the $$$ of these transitions. In the past the argument was G5 is better than Intel (that literature is still up on the website).
Many studios are going to say "screw this". 
OS 9 -> OS X cost us over 100 000$+ not counting all the down time, lost of productivity, and many other factors. 
The switch may be good for the consumer market in the long run, but it does not help the pro market.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What's the alternative: Switch to Windows and then have to worry about Longhorn?

The question begs to be asked: What do you upgrade more often, your computer or your software. If it's the software, it's a moot point -- developers will most likely offer a dual binary application that will run on old/new hardware. If it's the hardware, it won't matter until early 2006 when all PPC Macs are gone. Otherwise it'll run under emulation, which as we've seen, suffers no severe performance hits.

Of course, time will tell. 

Then again... how many developers will be just giving away Intel updates to their customers? We don't, yet... do we?

__________________


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

The problem with PPC isn't that it's better or worse, it's that PPC development is slow. Very slow. Every once in a while they make a big advancement (the 60x, the G3, the G4, the G5) and Apple has been able to say "we've got the best machines,", but it usually takes less than a year for x86 development to outstrip the PPC in terms of power. The G5 is still holding it's own, but the G4 is seriously bottlenecked and there is no viable replacement for Apple's portable and low end machines.

What I am really wondering is, did Apple even approach AMD?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I've wondered about this myself. AMD clearly would have been the more popular choice amongst the Mac faithful. And the combination of AMD 64 bit CPU and an Apple UNIX-based OS would have been a very powerful draw for the seriously geeky types out there.

There must be a reason. Something Jobs knows, but isn't sharing with us just yet. Wonder what it is?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Vexel, the people who are bringing up the strongest "opposition" and pointing out a certain hypocrisy on Apple's part are also heavy-user and many of us make our living by using computers. MacDaddy points are echoed in the video community.
> 
> Apple expects the pros and programmers to carry the $$$ of these transitions. In the past the argument was G5 is better than Intel (that literature is still up on the website).
> Many studios are going to say "screw this".
> ...


I understand your points ArtistSeries.. I'm sure it was pretty painful. And it has the opportunity to be again. But, this is where I am struck. In the coming years, would you not be upgrading your hardware/software anyway? If not, then what's the problem, you are going to have everything you need as of right now. This is also where dual binaries comes in. If you do upgrade your software, then you can run the PPC version of your new bought software, and if you end up purchasing a Mintel, then you can run the Mintel version right?

I don't see how this transition, is as big a step as OS9->OSX at any level. 

Eventually, you will have to upgrade your hardware, by then, you will only be able to buy a Mintel Machine. But, you still have the Dual Binary version of your software which you purchased.

Granted, we don't know who is going to jump right on the Dual Binary option, however it would be silly I think, when the userbase is definitely going that way.

There is still a about a year an a half in probability before the pro line is updated. From what I gather from the keynote.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> 've wondered about this myself. AMD clearly would have been the more popular choice amongst the Mac faithful. And the combination of AMD 64 bit CPU and an Apple UNIX-based OS would have been a very powerful draw for the seriously geeky types out there.
> 
> There must be a reason. Something Jobs knows, but isn't sharing with us just yet. Wonder what it is?


I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with the fact that despite AMDs better performing chips, Intel is still a much bigger name (and has deeper pockets, too).


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Are you happy or in a cold sweat?


Me I'm extremely happy I think it's about 4 years too late but it's here anyways, I predicted this would happen someday and it has finally happened X on X86 . 

I do agree that going the AMD course would probably be the best course of action right now but we don't know what's up Intel's roadmap for the next 4 years, Intel has one major advantage over AMD right now and that's the ability to ramp up production of new chips very quickly so if Apple wants to take advantage of those new chips they can allot quicker, one other thing that I think will happen will be more hardware configurations and choices from the Apple store as well as Mac's will be upgraded on a more regular basis possibly every 3-4 months depending on Intel's chip development. my .2.

Laterz


----------



## speckledmind (Jan 12, 2005)

I am sort of happy : )
Let's not loose focus.
The intel processor will get Apple into the next generation of higher ghz.

I am sort of sad : (
The Mac's we now know, will be worthless, when the new Mac's with intel processors come out.

But I am glad after all  

-----------------

Read on...

Apple system software is the core, then comes the software, it is a direct.

What is really wrong with the PC world using intel processors, is trying it to work in conjuction with Windows, there is nothing wrong with the processor, it's Windows the problem.
Windows is an emulation, that has to pass though DOS.
To get a software to run on a PC, first you turn on the application, then it goes through Windows, then the whole shabang has to through base codes " DOS " and try to work, to much emulation, that is why the Windows world is a mess.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

K_OS said:


> Mac's will be upgraded on a more regular basis possibly every 3-4 months depending on Intel's chip development. my .2.


This is not necessarily the case. Most PC manufacturers are on a quarterly upgrade schedule, the CPUs are often only advancing by a small amount each time. Usually what changes is everything else in the machine.

For example, the top end HP machines are often exactly the same processor when revised, but the HD is bigger, it has more RAM, and more extras. This is not to say that the CPU never changes, just that the CPUs don't change as often as many people think.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

John Siracusa of *arstechnica* has posted an excellent article which pretty accurately describes how and why I feel the way I do about this announcement. Read it:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars/1

Some of my favourite quotes from the article: 


> "Sure, x86 has the market-share and usually the speed, but is it elegant? Does it turn the CPU geek knobs all the way to 11? Is it sexy? No, not really. In fact, it's pretty darned ugly."
> 
> "I fully realize the market realities that conspire to make all of this x86 effort worthwhile, but this is about emotion, not reason. And if I didn't give significant weight to my feelings when it comes to my platform choice, would I really have been a Mac user for the past 21 years?"
> 
> "It will pain me to know the contortions that instructions are going through in an x86 CPU inside a Mac. I will miss the idea of AltiVec, and the promise of powerful new CPUs arriving "out of nowhere" to power new Macs, a la the G5. I'll miss the interesting things that "only Macs can do" thanks to clever CPU features like AltiVec, or even just a particularly fast barrel shifter."


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I second that! Go read it.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

It was good.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Also, here is the reaction from some game developers:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=355

snippets:


> I could probably get, say, ut2004 up and running on an x86 Mac within...well, the time it takes to change a few lines in a Makefile and recompile the game, and I'd have optimizations suddenly enabled that were never previously feasible to put into the Mac version.
> ...
> ...
> I'm calling BS on Rosetta. While I'm sure it'll run Office well (specifically, the Must Have With No Viable Alternative Apps), I refuse to believe that it'll be the panacea people at WWDC are already calling it





> Once Windows runs natively on a Mac there won't be any reason for publishers to make Mac-specific versions of their warez anymore. It's going to totally kill the Mac game porting industry and probably have serious implications on original content developers like me.


All these reactions seem natural to me.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

It seems that game developers are as divided as everyone else. Some saying it means the death of Apple, some saying it's the best thing to ever happen and everything in between.

I think that getting more games and gamers onto the Mac is crucial to the Mac's future. This may actually have had a lot to do with the move to Intel. Even die-hard Mac users say "If you're into games, better stick with your PC." Maybe now this won't be necessary.

A hopeful quote from the article:


> it's going to narrow the gap between the release of a game on Windows and the release on Mac -- maybe to zero.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Found this comment from the same article interesting:


Ryan Gordon said:


> 2) FreeBSD has had a "Linux Binary Compatibility layer" for years...it is more than sufficient to run the x86 Linux version of UT2004 on x86 FreeBSD flawlessly and without significant overhead...I suspect something similiar will show up in Darwin (if not a straight port of the FreeBSD code). This gets you a few good apps that weren't previously practical to port to the Mac, and basically all the Linux dedicated servers. Could this be something that moves the game hosting industry to Macs? Well, probably not, but it at least makes this a feasible endeavor for those that are interested.


Hey ... and what about Gimp, OpenOffice - Mac porters can stop spending so much time on ppc vs. x86 issues and spend time on GTK vs. Aqua instead!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I have to say, I 'm a bit puzzled and worried by the change. But I also believe it doesn't impact me in the next year.

I'm kinda curious as well, but suspicious. Okay, so if Apple is now going Intel, how do I compare my current Dual 2.5 G5 to an Intel-based Mac? If I upgrade in 2 years, what do I upgrade to and how do I know if I'm actually UPGRADING in terms of speed. Do I trust Apple to sell me a faster Intel-based Mac? How much heat does a Pentium D chip give off? What's happening to the 64-bit OS X architecture?

I'm also a bit worried about my investment in a Power Mac G5, as it may have little resale value. It's useful for the next few years, but who'll want it when I upgrade to a new machine. Might be keeping it a soveigneer


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

My biggest issue is one of *trust.*

Steve Jobs puts himself on stage as the front-man for Apple, and we religiously lap up the sermon.. while I realize the benefits of the change to Intel, what I don't like about it is that up until the WWDC conference, Steve was still selling the benefits of the G5 chip.

Now I get the argument of "well, the G5 today is better than the P4 today -- Steve was talking about the future," but I don't know... what can Intel be previewing to him to make him so impressed.. how much further can their test development really be along? Do they have a 4Ghz Pentium that they're testing?

Also.. it wasn't mentioned in the keynote address.. but it doesn't seem like Apple has any kind of proprietary access rights to Intel technology.. it would have been really nice to get a 6-month head start on a new chip in the competitive PC wars..


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why are you confusing things. Is a Miata BETTER than a Windstar?

One is a sportscar the other is a MIni Van. One is not BETTER than the other - they serve different purposes.

Intel has a wider range of processors and has power consumption advantages AT THE LOW END.

Certain Pentiums have faster clocks that G5s - G5s do more work per clock than an equivalent Pentium.

G5s cost less than upper end Pentiums - lower end Intel chips offer things there are no Freescale or IBM chips for.

It ADDS choice....it's not EITHER OR............... it's BOTH.

For being able to choose from either processor architecture Apple has created a strong OS with good tools to make this feasible.
It's good all around for the Mac community.

It's not like they came up with this a few months back.
There is 5 years of work on this.

It gets Apple out of the box of depending on a limited range of options for a wide range of product requirements.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Intel has a wider range of processors and has power consumption advantages AT THE LOW END.


Actually, Intel just has a number of CPUs that don't suck at the low end. Don't get me wrong, the G4 was good in it's day, but it's is far outshined by basically every other mobile chip these days.

IBM not having a mobile version of the G5, I'd bet, is as big a reason for Steve to want to switch as IBM not delivering on the 3 GHz promise.



MacDoc said:


> Certain Pentiums have faster clocks that G5s - G5s do more work per clock than an equivalent Pentium.


The problem is that Intel chips are developing much, much faster than their x86 cousins. a 2 GHz G5 may perform as well as a 2.4 Ghz P4, but the P4 has come a long, long way since it ran at 2.4. The G5 has only gained MHz.



MacDoc said:


> G5s cost less than upper end Pentiums - lower end Intel chips offer things there are no Freescale or IBM chips for.
> 
> It ADDS choice....it's not EITHER OR............... it's BOTH.
> 
> For being able to choose from either processor architecture Apple haas created a strong OS with good tools to make this feasible.


Apple has made a choice. By the end of 2007, you're right in that its won't be an either-or situation because it'll be an Intel only situation.

One can only hope that the Intel arrangement isn't exclusive for too long.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc, it's NOT either or, after 2007, Apple will be using all Intel. The transition period is to transition you over to Intel.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah and for the last 5 years they've not told us about the parallel Intel development.

C'mon - that's bread crust to Intel. Apple is a PowerPC partner and has millions of PowerPC users out their. They'll choose the chipset that 

a) makes them the most money
b) does the job best.

If Intel fails to deliver they'll hop into the PowerPC camp pronto - he's already stated there are new PowerPC machines in the pipeline.

They spent 5 years with an Intel solution in their back pocket ....just in case.
You don't think they'll keep a PowerPC solution on the low burner.....just case???? 
I sure do.

They just crawled out of the "limited supplier" box - they won't soon crawl back in.


----------



## Argimou (Jan 27, 2003)

Same processor, same hd, ram, motherboard. Will Apple market fashion or function? Maybe this is the end of the "Mac myth" for those who are still believers. Anyway, where will computing be in three or four years? Those who have the ability to see the major developments as they emerge may already realize that the computer age, as we know it, is over. Any other opinions?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> They'll choose the chipset that
> 
> a) makes them the most money
> b) does the job best.


According to Steve, that's the choice they just made.

I'm sure that they'll keep PPC development going, but that doesn't mean that after 2007 we'll have PPC machines to buy.

They have more PPC machines in the pipeline, we all know that, we need new iBooks among other things, and I doubt that Apple is dumb enough to let their customers wait another year for the best selling laptops to be updated.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc, I'm not so sure the developers and power users are willing to accept ANOTHER MASSIVE CHANGE.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Kosh said:


> MacDoc, it's NOT either or, after 2007, Apple will be using all Intel.


That's what Apple is saying as of yesterday. A couple of years ago they were transitioning to IBM chips. The thing about the universal binaries is that they can keep their options open because OSX and OSX apps can run on both.

I think that the move to Intel has more to do with wanting to take on Windows head-on in the future.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly - it's part of a larger overall picture that is not fully revealed yet. It gives Apple far more options and that is the most important factor.

A superb portable??? they have a decent ones....coveted ones already BUT how about one that can run both Windows and Mac natively......only from Apple.

We know people exposed to X usually stick - having a box that can run both .......then the user truly gets both worlds........only from Apple.

For Apple to grow market share it's going to come in the MIni and portable world....already has.

and he can choose which ever chip offers the best bang at the top end but that's not where the growth is.

He didn't show power curve charts for upper end machines - he showed power per watt....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I still like the Theory that Steve Jobs pissed off IBM and they called his bluff.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> I still like the Theory that Steve Jobs pissed off IBM and they called his bluff.


I can believe the part about Jobs behaving like a spoiled brat, but the IBM side of the equation...not so much.

The DRM theory doesn't ring true to me, though some proponents sound fairly convincing. The problem: surely Apple, IBM and Freescale would have been capable of implementing DRM-on-a-chip if they'd needed or wanted to.

Then there's the theory that Jobs has been planning this since around 1998, and has simply been waiting for the right moment. Jobs is a smart guy, but this one sounds like a stretch...

I prefer the theory that Apple saw a dead-end up ahead (especially for laptop performance) and made a change before it was too late. Probably before it was too late, anyway.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

Sorry, been busy attending sessions and couldn't respond until now... 

From GA:
Hey mbaldwin, is there a feeling there that this change has been planned for a long time?​
It has definitely been a contingency plan since the conception of OS X. My guess is that the decision was almost made a couple years back but instead went with IBM and the G5. IBM's failure to deliver on promises probably caused Jobs to flip out and here we are. 

From KPS:
If i do have a concern, it would be about upgrade paths for my collection of expensive software. Will I be able to get upgrades at a reasonable price...that is the question. I don't place much faith in Rosetta to run video editing software or Photoshop. Putting out the full price for such apps on top of the new hardware is not an option and that may sway me to remain with the PPC architecture well past the 2yr. transition period.​
Photoshop on Rosetta was demoed in the keynote and appeared to perform adequately (from my limited perspective). But users obviously want these sorts of apps to be running at peak performance so a native binary will be much preferred.

Funny story: during the Rosetta demo someone yelled out "Steve, show Final Cut Pro" which brought a good roar and absolutely no response from Jobs (who seemed to always have a quip for the other smart comments made). Methinks FCP will take a while to be on Intel.

From Nino:
finally took the plunge from my g3 imac to a new imac g5. now what? will it last me five years like my g3? help.....​
I see no reason to worry. I see no reason for future apps to drop PPC support. It's possible that a piece of future software may require SSE (Intel's Altivec) but that case would be extremely unlikely given the emphasis on using the massive power of modern video cards over SSE/Altivec.

I am confident that future applications will work on PPC machines for at least 5 more years. The programmers would basically have to go out of their way to prevent it from working on PPC.

From MacDaddy:
I submited my feedback to Apple about this. I asked them why they have been telling us the PPC is so much better than Intel then switch to it, I also asked if they would be removing their speed comparison tests from their website.​
It is lame they haven't changed the website. But the repeated message in the Keynote was that they looked at the PPC/x86 roadmaps and Intel was going to provide something like 4 to 5 times the processing power per watt of electricity. In other words, a IBM simply admitted that a G5 PowerBook was an impossibility and it forced Apple's hand.

From MacNutt:
I've wondered about this myself. AMD clearly would have been the more popular choice amongst the Mac faithful. And the combination of AMD 64 bit CPU and an Apple UNIX-based OS would have been a very powerful draw for the seriously geeky types out there.​
My guess: Intel makes chipsets as well as CPUs. Maybe it's a package deal.


Phew! Enough for now...

- Martin.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67767,00.html?tw=rss.TEK


Just read on Macrumors that today, Rosetta doesn't support Altivec (Vortex Engine) or OS9 Apps.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iMatt said:


> I can believe the part about Jobs behaving like a spoiled brat, but the IBM side of the equation...not so much.


This would not be the first time Mr. Jobs has done something like this. He did go off the handle at Motorola (and look what happened).

This sentiment has been echoed by others - more recently bu John Siracusa
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050607.ars


> So, why didn't it happen? I can think of two reasons, both of which probably contributed to the end result. First, it seems like IBM promised Apple something that it failed to deliver: a 3GHz G5 one year after the 2GHz G5 was announced. Steve Jobs stood on a public stage and declared it a fait acompli, presumably because IBM told him that it would happen. (Granted, this may be a big presumption, knowing Jobs...)
> 
> Two years later, a 3GHz G5 has not appeared. Steve Jobs looks foolish, and is undoubtedly pissed. This is the same guy who, back in the G4 days, famously (allegedly) told a senior Motorola executive, "I can't wait until we don't need you anymore." This happened in the middle a meeting about future CPUs that Apple still needed from Motorola!
> 
> ...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

That doesn't contradict what I said. Maybe Jobs behaved badly (he's a well-known control freak and blusterer), but IBM's reaction seems to be not so much calling his bluff as a corporate shrug. They couldn't meet their promises, plain and simple, so they lost a customer that's neither very large (if you're IBM) nor a customer in its core business (IT services). 

I don't see any real disagreement here, except maybe over the semantics of interpreting (and speculating over) IBM's reaction. Calling the bluff, or just saying "it's true, we can't put a G5 in a laptop that weighs less then ten pounds and has fewer than six fans." Same thing, when you get down to it.

(Note that a gaming-console chip doesn't have to be able to do the range of general computing tasks that a desktop chip does, and doesn't have to meet extreme heat requirements. And I'll bet the cell processors are weak on both counts -- which is not a problem if you're building a console.)

Edit: out of curiosity I searched around to jog my memory about why the Cell wasn't a good choice for Apple, because I know I'd read that elsewhere. Turns out it's not because of lack of appropriateness for general computing, but rather because (among other reasons) it's so different from the G4 and G5 that there would have been a porting job on a par with shifting to x86...and of course that's a port that's already well advanced.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1768416,00.asp


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> and he can choose which ever chip offers the best bang at the top end but that's not where the growth is.


Sorry, but I just have to ask: which part of the "Intel only after 2007" thing are you having trouble reconciling?

Sure, maybe in the future they might go back to PPC, but this is what we have for the time being.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Sorry, but I just have to ask: which part of the "Intel only after 2007" thing are you having trouble reconciling?


Maybe MacDoc is in shock and denial after some of the bold statements about the futur of PowerPC and Apple...


----------



## Derrick (Dec 22, 2004)

I realize some of the discussion has revolved around continued options in terms of both Intel and PowerPC processors ... 

If OS X has already been run on 2 different processors ... is it a stretch to think that Apple's eventual goal is to make OS X platform independent ?

According to Phil Schiller's comments after the keynote ... they will only allow OS X to run on Apple hardware ... and since it would also be (at least in theory) able to run other operating systems ... no one else would be able to offer this flexibility.


----------



## Bighead (May 3, 2005)

Kosh said:


> MacDoc, it's NOT either or, after 2007, Apple will be using all Intel. The transition period is to transition you over to Intel.


http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/693.html


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

Is this the right tread to ask about when people think the new PowerBook G5 is coming out - lol ...

I can't wait to see you guys pounce on the next poor individual who asks that question, which is a t least once a week.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

Maybe this has been covered here and I haven't done much research into the topic, but P4 processors are clocked high [e.g 3.6 GHz vs 2.7 GHz G5 PPC], but they're 32 bit instead of 64 ... isn't this kind of a move backwards at least for PowerMac G5 users? What's the probability of Apple using Itanium processors? I know Apple is kind of against a brick wall with the PPC chipset, but having touted the merits of 64 bit architecture vs. 32 ...

I sure they have something crazy up their sleeves. Maybe Intel will debut some nutty new processor in the next PowerMac.


----------



## bugmenot (May 25, 2005)

kent said:


> Maybe this has been covered here and I haven't done much research into the topic, but P4 processors are clocked high [e.g 3.6 GHz vs 2.7 GHz G5 PPC], but they're 32 bit instead of 64 ... isn't this kind of a move backwards at least for PowerMac G5 users? What's the probability of Apple using Itanium processors? I know Apple is kind of against a brick wall with the PPC chipset, but having touted the merits of 64 bit architecture vs. 32 ...


Don't forget about Xeons and EMT64. Apparantly those will be used for the PowerMacs.

Edit: Public Account.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Desperation or Genius?*

I've been following this since the rumors started circulating early Friday morning, and I still don't know what to think.

Either Apple has been forced into a desperate gamble by their CPU supplier yet again, or this is a bold and potentially brilliant play for a bigger chunk of the main-stream market.

From the timing... just as things are starting to settle down from the OS X transition and as Apple is starting to get recognition for its innovation and well-made products, I have to suspect the former.

One of the big costs of this move will be the corporate sector. All of this drama will scare off business customers.

I'd have been much happier if, rather than a transition, Steve had announced an Addition. Keep the PPC architecture and hope that the promise of a better CPU is fulfilled as Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Apple all create more demand. But add the Intel architecture for the low-wattage portable market, and to show off how flexible OS X and it's APIs are. The fact that Apple is dropping the PPC architecture suggests that there is more than engineering involved. I smell politics.

As much as I hope and believe (to an extent) that Apple will survive this transition, and will continue to make insanely great products, I'm glad I don't own any AAPL stock today.

Cheers


----------



## m_gear (Jul 12, 2004)

Maybe Intel is looking for someone to carry their Itanium-line to the desktops? Could Apple just be waiting to plug a HyperTransport-version of a P4, or Itanium, or anything really, into the same old G5 board (i.e. the U3 series), and have an Intel Powermac? Or maybe they'd already got a laptopitized U3-type controller just waiting for a comparable CPU, like Pentium M. I wonder what's going to happen to AltiVec now, is Intel going to bolt one on to Apple-versions of its CPUs, and in that way prevent non-Apple systems from booting OS X? Who knows? And that's what worries me.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

http://news.designtechnica.com/talkback57.html

Checking out some of the positive things to this transition 



> This will clearly put massive pressure on Microsoft to deliver their new operating system on time, as it will face a renewed Apple on Intel in 2007. This would not only avoid the blood bath that Apple enjoyed during the Windows 95 roll out; it has the potential, if executed sharply, to reverse it.





> Microsoft’s next generation OS will be two years late at launch and it is already being positioned in the media as little more than a minor patch over Windows XP.


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

bugmenot said:


> Don't forget about Xeons and EMT64. Apparantly those will be used for the PowerMacs.


Source?


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

Would Apple use any current Intel chip? Is it not possible that Apple will be using a new, and exclusive chipset that we'll be seeing from Intel in the next couple of years?


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

trump said:


> Would Apple use any current Intel chip? Is it not possible that Apple will be using a new, and exclusive chipset that we'll be seeing from Intel in the next couple of years?


That would be the best-case scenario (well, second-best to keeping the PPC).


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I found a great little Article on why Apple might have chosen Intel over AMD  Just for all of you that were wondering 

http://overclockers.com/tips00791/


----------



## joltguy (Apr 15, 2005)

By the way, am I the only one who noticed that Steve was wearing all black for the keynote instead of his usual blue jeans/black shirt combo? Maybe he's mourning the loss of PPC too.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

MacDaddy said:


> What a bunch of crap, that is all I have to say. I don't think I will be buying another Mac when my G5 dies.


I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm genuinely curious -- why is it that the silicon inside your Mac matters to you?

We all interface with our Macs through the software -- Mac OS X. That is not going to change, and OS X will just get better.

Apple wouldn't be switching to Intel chips if it meant their machines would end up SLOWER -- quite the opposite, of course.

So why would you refuse to buy another Mac? Again, genuinely curious, not trying to bash your point of view.


----------



## ct77 (Mar 10, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> I'd be willing to bet it has something to do with the fact that despite AMDs better performing chips, Intel is still a much bigger name (and has deeper pockets, too).


And a huge supply of chips. The last thing Apple wants to do is go with another chip supplier who is going to run into supply problems. I think that is one reason why Apple went with Intel.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Wow - after reading that Rosetta doesn't support Velocity Engine, I suddenly feel the RDF starting to wear off. Still, the possibility of PCI Express and DDR2 coming around soon helps.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Elmer, Rosetta does not support much. See a previous post.
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=27633
Rosetta does not run the following:

Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
Code written specifically for AltiVec
Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
Kernel extensions
Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated

So Rosetta is no magic stone. Most programs that we call Apple will see no benefit from Rosetta. 

When it says :'Code written specifically for AltiVec" I would guess most cool software from Apple, Adobe etc...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ct77 said:


> -- why is it that the silicon inside your Mac matters to you?
> 
> So why would you refuse to buy another Mac? Again, genuinely curious, not trying to bash your point of view.


I can tell you why I will be reducing the amount of Mac I will be buying.

But first, I do understand the need for a low end chip and part of the dillemma Apple has when it comes to laptops.


For years I have bought Mac in a production environment, at times Apple was more expensive with little cost benefit. Still I stuck it out because of a love for the OS and the integration of the applications.

The upgrade to PowerPC was painless overall with good support.

The next big change was from 0S 9 to OS X. 
This was one of the worse transitions ever. The first release of OS X frankly sucked; unstable, crash prone, missing elements that just worked in OS 9. Only when we received OS X 10.3 did I feel that finally the OS is starting to look good. It's not perfect, font management is still the pits. I do feel that Pros are not being well served as the focus is mainstream (even if Pros are a big part of sales). Apple is still promising to optimise the OS X code, as it's GUI is rather slow.
The ease of use than came with OS9 is just not there - you just can't hide the FreeBSD underpinning. Every new release of OS X bring about irrational GUI changes, questionable "enhancements" - sure you get more eye-candy.
With 10.4, I'm expected to pay for yet another Quicktime license?


The software transition was worse. Adobe really dropped the ball on it. Even today, I see remnants of a bad code transfer. The first releases of OS X applications would crash for no reason leaving many of us looking for solutions instead of working.
Quark is still not up to speed, Adobe has more offering on the PC side, Avid works better on Wintel. Many Audio applications are still working better in OS 9.


On the hardware side, we have been told by Apple that Mhz do not matter that PowerPC chips are equivalent to whatever Intel has at a higher speed. Apple hardware is always smoking the PC because of the PowerPC chip, we see graphs, we see test results - this is drilled year after year. We get to hear about going 64 bits, we get dual processors (how much to you bet they will disappear?). 
Some applications, such as FinalCut pro, are very well optimised for the G5. It took years to get there. 

So after this long transition period where many of us have invested time, money and effort to support the Mac, we get new marching orders.

The Mac is moving to Intel but don't worry about it developers will take care of the transition.
So we get some bold announcements and we can all hope that the marketing will keep us all happy Mac Zealots....
The transition with the OS maybe smooth but I do predict a performance hit.
We are told about Rosetta (it can run your old applications in emulation mode). Only if you actually read about Rosetta, it's pretty much useless on anything more than textpad.
Your applications don't take long to rewrite, take a look at Mathematica - even the developer said Steve overstated the case (again).
We are told of the Intel Roadmap - Intel is an inferiour chip to AMD. Apple is not ever going to be Intels main customer. 
We are told of "universal binaries" - how long did that last in the past? Not long.

So you are looking at hardware, software and transition cost (not everything will work out of the box). All the while Apple is a niche player at less than 2%. The last time we had a transition, there was another lost of market share. 

There already exist software that is optimised for Intel chips...


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The upgrade to PowerPC was painless overall with good support.
> 
> The next big change was from 0S 9 to OS X.
> ...
> The software transition was worse.


I think this new transition will be somewhere in between those.


> We are told about Rosetta (it can run your old applications in emulation mode). Only if you actually read about Rosetta, it's pretty much useless on anything more than textpad.


Maybe it'll support more by the time you really need it. They do have some time. If it never supports Velocity Engine, oh well - you'll just have to buy upgrades for your software when you get a new machine. It's not like this doesn't happen all the time. Each new version of Adobe Creative Suite has new optimizations for whatever the latest chip is, and it's always part of why people upgrade. It's not as if a G6 was never going to come along. Now we're told the G5 is around for two more years - that's more predictability than we've ever had! As for applications that don't support G3, well, Velocity Engine's been around a _long_ time, they've gotten good mileage for their optimization effort. Time for a new effort with SSE3, or else just write for CoreVideo.


> We are told of the Intel Roadmap - Intel is an inferiour chip to AMD. Apple is not ever going to be Intels main customer.


Exactly. Maybe Intel's roadmap, i.e. their future chip lineup, is better than AMDs for use in Macs. And finally, Apple is able to take advantage of the economics of scale of x86 because they are not the main customer for the chip they are buying (by the way, Apple was not IBM's main customer nor Freescale's, unless you limit your view to a particular chip model). So the positive way to look at it is that Apple is now a customer for Intel's main chip.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

After watching the Keynote, I have to say that I'm excited and can't wait to try out a Mac running on an Intel processor. If I'm not mistaken Steve Jobs was running on a P4 3.6 GHz machine during the keynote? It seemed to work pretty fast for most tasks. 

If you look at Intel's roadmap and do some research you will find that Intel is probably the best company to go with over IBM. Why? Microsoft is depending on Intel for Longhorn and that is going to be huge for both companies in the next two years. This puts Apple in a very good position to snag some of those processors and keep up with the demand of faster and better technology. This doesn't seem to be happening with IBM. Although we were told that IBM still has some more PPC life for us this year, so it will be interesting to see what happens with that.

Everyone will still have to buy a Mac, you can't just buy a beige box and slap OS X on it. So, I'm looking forward to future designs of the Mac from Apple and I'm looking forward to the change over to Intel.

All I really care about is that my main computer handles the tasks I throw at it, it doesn't matter to me what type of chip is under the hood, as long as it all works in the end.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

I was heavily addicted to Macs when the "1st transition" went into effect - switching from Motorola to IBM. I felt sullied and dirty. All those "bulging vein on my forehead" arguments I made for the Mac were thrown out the window(s, hey look, a pun) as Apple climbed into bed with Big Blue - I'd been outflanked. All my PC friends (and there were a lot more of them then) called me and my beloved pewter company "sell-outs." Oh well, so I moved from a Powerbook 165 to a 1400 once the dust had settled (and I had enough money). 

The clincher for me was this: my evangelism was re-ignited with the change in OS, not processor. Moving from OS 7 (.5 & .6) to 8 sealed the deal. The fact that I couldn't get OS 8 to run on my beloved PB165 said to me that whatever it took to make this change was acceptable to me. Steve J calls the OS the "brain" of the machine, however I think many of us here will agree that it's also the soul of the system. And this is just a transplant of body parts needed to evolve to a higher level of complexity (and emotional attachment). 

So we now should grieve the demise of the Power PC and bite our tongue when the PC/Windows crowd say "see, I told you so." And then we can laugh so hard that milk comes out our nose when Bill Gates has another system crash on stage with Long in the Horn - Even Steve knows how to run an Intel machine during a keynote address without it crashing. 

And in 20 years when they figure how to run the latest version of OS XIV or OS XXX (will they skip 13?) on my 33 MHz Powerbook 165, at blazing speeds, I'll say hooray for Apple. 

The king is dead, long live the queen...


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

CamCanola said:


> So we now should grieve the demise of the Power PC and bite our tongue when the PC/Windows crowd say "see, I told you so." And then we can laugh so hard that milk comes out our nose when Bill Gates has another system crash on stage with Long in the Horn - Even Steve knows how to run an Intel machine during a keynote address without it crashing.


ROFLMAO. CamCanola, O Wise One, post often, okay? Kudos, Karma, etc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS why do you continually quote nonsense about niche players.....do us ALL a favour and switch to Windows....you deserve each other.



> According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, *Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

An ehMac poem:

Apple, Canada, Yoda ...
Small But Mighty.
Underdog, eh? No way.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> > According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, *Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.*
> > Apple shipped 1,046,000 Macintosh units during this quarter, representing a 26% increase in CPU units over the year-ago quarter.
> 
> 
> who needs it.


MacDoc,

Talk about quoting nonsense - 
The Article from Macdaily news put casual bits of information together...
In a press release on Friday, Wizzard Software explained why they believe the Macintosh market is important as they prepare to release AT&T Natural Voices for Apple's Mac OS X:

According to a statement released earlier this year, Apple Computer reported their 2005 first quarterly revenue and net income as the highest in the history of their company, with 74% revenue growth. Apple shipped 1,046,000 Macintosh units during this quarter, representing a 26% increase in CPU units over the year-ago quarter. According to US News and World Report, Macintosh owners buy 30% more software than their Windows counterparts. Further, Macintosh software comprises over 18% of all software sold, according to the Software and Information Industry Association. In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs.
In this quoted press release Wizzard Software then explains that the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates 16% of computer users use macs.
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/5933/

The Software Publishers Association, which apparently hasn’t referred to themselves that way (now, they are the Software and Information Industry Association) since at least before 2000,

Seven year old article from MacWorld quoting the same source and statistic:
http://www.macworld.com/1999/06/opinion/desktopcritic/

And another 10 year old article which quotes the same statistic:
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/internet/notes.html

So, why are you quoting press releases?


The fact that Apple is selling more units is a good sign - finally a turn around.
But are you going to tell me that Apple has not loss market shares over the years?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Every computer company has taken losses in Marketshare over the years... it's the nature of the business.

However, I doubt many can tout the statistics which MacDoc provided.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vexel said:


> Every computer company has taken losses in Marketshare over the years... it's the nature of the business.
> 
> However, I doubt many can tout the statistics which MacDoc provided.


1) Sure but how big a piece of the pie is Apples Shares over the years?
2) Those "stats" came from a roundabout way. reread what I wrote

I do hope there is a turnaroud - seems to be going that way.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

CamCanola said:


> I was heavily addicted to Macs when the "1st transition" went into effect - switching from Motorola to IBM. I felt sullied and dirty. All those "bulging vein on my forehead" arguments I made for the Mac were thrown out the window(s, hey look, a pun) as Apple climbed into bed with Big Blue - I'd been outflanked. All my PC friends (and there were a lot more of them then) called me and my beloved pewter company "sell-outs." Oh well, so I moved from a Powerbook 165 to a 1400 once the dust had settled (and I had enough money).


You make it sound like the PowerPC processor was an IBM product. It was *not*. 

PPC came from the AIM alliance (Apple-IBM-Motorola). So when the PPC transition was implemented, there was a fair bit of family history involved. It never felt "dirty" to me, it felt like a pretty natural progression.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

> It never felt "dirty" to me, it felt like a pretty natural progression.


Intel feels like a "natural" progression to a lot of people. As did IBM. It was only a matter of time. If you don't mind me asking, how does it feel dirty to you? Just curious, just want to understand  Not trying to pick a fight


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

Vexel said:


> Intel feels like a "natural" progression to a lot of people. As did IBM. It was only a matter of time. If you don't mind me asking, how does it feel dirty to you? Just curious, just want to understand  Not trying to pick a fight


I said - 'It never felt "dirty" to me'. That would probably lead most people to think that it *didn't* feel dirty to me. So I'm not really sure what you are asking me.

"CamCanola" said that the original PPC change made him feel "sullied and dirty". Perhaps you meant to ask him.

As far as natural progressions, I'm not sure that I could ever see a switch to Intel as natural, coming from PPC. But, it's gonna happen anyways.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

My mistake, 
I really based those feelings on my experience with the Apple II line and the original IBM PC line. Those emotions were dragged into the next generation of computers when all this processor inter-breeding took off. It was a "coke/pepsi" thing when I argued with my friends about Apples and IBMs, and I was a little miffed that, having bought into the marketing, the strict division of platforms (she did throw a hammer at Big Blue/Brother in 1984), we were now working side by side. I really wanted to remain an outsider as long as I could, at least for all the cache it provided.

But my point again, after my arrogance subsided I realise that it was the OS and the beauty and function of the box, not so much the inner guts that made me a Mac user. I've never felt cleaner using a Mac today...


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

RobTheGob said:


> I said - 'It never felt "dirty" to me'. That would probably lead most people to think that it *didn't* feel dirty to me. So I'm not really sure what you are asking me.
> 
> "CamCanola" said that the original PPC change made him feel "sullied and dirty". Perhaps you meant to ask him.
> 
> As far as natural progressions, I'm not sure that I could ever see a switch to Intel as natural, coming from PPC. But, it's gonna happen anyways.



Sorry RobTheGob, I read your post wrong.. and even quoted it lol! Man.. I'm sucking! I thought I read it as though you were saying the Intel transition felt dirty to you.


----------

