In a ridiculously subtitled article, “Apple’s Switch to Intel Tests the Mac Faithful – But users say they have no plans to switch — yet,” Computerworld’s Tom Krazit basically writes about analysts, developers and Mac users who think Apple’s move to Intel is a good decision. We don’t know why the “yet” is added to the subtitle because the article certainly isn’t about when or why Mac users would eventually “switch” to some unnamed alternative. What are Mac users who are upset over Apple’s switch to Intel going to do? Are they going to dump their Macs for some box assembler’s undesigned pile (most likely containing an Intel processor anyway) and run the inferior Windows XP? A Mac user would have to be so apoplectic over Apple’s move to Intel as to give themselves a debilitating stroke before making that poor of a decision.
“Apple Computer Inc.’s decision to put Intel Corp. processors in its Macintosh computers provoked a wide range of emotions last week among software developers, industry analysts and its famously opinionated user base,” Tom Krazit writes for Computerworld. “For the most part, Apple’s network of developers appeared willing to give CEO Steve Jobs the benefit of the doubt when it came to the decision to move away from IBM and Freescale Semiconductor Inc.’s PowerPC chips. But analysts say the decision will slow sales as users await the swap. Apple didn’t specify which Intel chips it plans to use beginning in 2006, but an Intel spokesman confirmed that they will be based on the x86 architecture.”
Full article here.
[UPDATE, 6/14, 5:38pm EDT: Computerworld has changed their headline to read: "Users, analysts differ on Apple's switch to Intel," but they haven't changed their ludicrous subtitle -- yet. It remains: "But users say they have no plans to switch -- yet." We still don't know why the "yet" is added to the subtitle because the article certainly isn't about when or why Mac users would eventually "switch" to some unnamed alternative. Computerworld's Online News Editor is Ken Mingis: ]
MacDailyNews Take: It’s a processor. A lump of silicon. Would we have preferred to have PowerPC if it could deliver what Apple needs? Sure. But, if Apple thinks they can get better performance in the future from Intel than from International “Where’s That 3GHz G5 You Promised Us Last year?” Business Machines, so be it. What’s next, are some Mac users going to burst a blood vessel if Apple changes hard drive suppliers?
“More than even the processor, more than even the hardware innovations that we bring to the market, the soul of a Mac is its operating system and we’re not standing still.” – Steve Jobs, WWDC 2005 Keynote, June 6, 2005
Related MacDailyNews articles:
What happens when world’s No. 1 Apple brand is combined with No. 5 Intel brand? – June 13, 2005
Video of Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel running on Dell laptop posted online – June 13, 2005
Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites – June 11, 2005
Is Apple setting up the ultimate “Switcher” campaign by preparing to let Mac OS X speak for itself? – June 10, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Twin Mac website debuts, dedicated to dual booting Intel-based Macs running Mac OS X and Windows – June 10, 2005
Cringley: Apple and Intel to merge; Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates – June 09, 2005
Fortune: Apple’s switch to Intel processors to accelerate Windows users switching to Mac OS X – June 09, 2005
Will developers stop writing Mac applications if Apple ‘Macintel’ computers can run Windows? – June 08, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Apple to use Intel microprocessors beginning in 2006, all Macs to be Intel-based by end of 2007 – June 06, 2005