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
I agree with the MDN take. It’s just a processor which could make the Mac better or even the best.
(first post)
OMG, the hard drives too???
MDN is right Intel makes chips, whereas Microsoft makes operating systems (and Xboxes). I stopped using Windows because it was a lousy operating system. I started using macs because of the operating system.
It was some years later that had some understanding what a chip actually does.
So here I am twelve years later and I don’t give a fig about chips; just operating systems.
Those people who think it’s so important have two choices accept the decision and move on or choose another platform. Umm, there’s Linux or Windows; those are the main OS’s.
MDN Magic Word is play as in play along
Wrong again. The processor has always been the core of debate between the Macintosh and everyone else. A Macintosh is more than the OS it is everything including the processor. If you think the processor doesn’t matter then wait. The result will not be flattering for Apple.
>MDN wrote: It’s a processor. A lump of silicon.
Hmmmm…. MDN likes to put long lists of links to previous MDN articles that touch on the subject discussed (check out all the articles on “Windows” & “virus”).
Where are the links pointing similar articles to this one?
Ya know… back when it wasn’t just a processor, it was a G4/G5 – back when it wasn’t just a lump of silicon, it was a G4/G5.
>MDN wrote: It’s a processor. A lump of silicon.
Hmmmm…. MDN likes to put long lists of links to previous MDN articles that touch on the subject discussed (check out all the articles on “Windows” & “virus”).
Where are the links pointing similar articles to this one?
Ya know… back when it wasn’t just a processor, it was a G4/G5 – back when it wasn’t just a lump of silicon, it was a G4/G5.
>MDN wrote: It’s a processor. A lump of silicon.
Hmmmm…. MDN likes to put long lists of links to previous MDN articles that touch on the subject discussed (check out all the articles on “Windows” & “virus”).
Where are the links pointing similar articles to this one?
Ya know… back when it wasn’t just a processor, it was a G4/G5 – back when it wasn’t just a lump of silicon, it was a G4/G5.
MDN
“Where’s That 3GHz G5 You Promised Us Last year?”
Well…there will be a 3GHZ, or better yet, a 3.2GHZ PPC chip shipping before the end of this year. It just won’t be in a Mac. But rather a Microsoft product. Kinda makes you wonder what’s really behind the switch. Regardless, OS X is superior to any Windows OS.
Send him an email to let him know how you feel
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Tom Krazit
Krazit is a reporter for the IDG News Service.
tom_krazit@idg.com
I agree, if pancake batter worked better, Apple should go for that!
Wow, Tom. Thanks for phoning that one in. Deadlines must be a real problem for you if you have to start spewing the obvious.
I switched for 2 reasons.
1 – their design. I love what computers do but not what they look like. Apple’s designs (mine is the flat panel iMac) look great and fit nicely in a living room.
2 – The OS for it’s simplicity, elegance and it’s lack of viruses/malware.
I don’t really care what’s inside the box. As long as it looks good and just works.
The beauty of Mac OS X is that it can be simple enough for a 3-year-old to operate or as complex as a scientist or an engineer needs it to be and still work exceedingly well. Mac OS X can work powerfully with a one-button mouse or any number of complex input devices. Mac OS X is a wonderful, powerful operating system.
Actually it makes a lot of sense to buy a G5 right now if you think it through. The problem is a lot of computer consumers are clueless so I think we may see some potential switchers waiting it out.
Steve Jobs promised everyone the 3.0GHz G5 would be available last year. There’s no evidence that IBM made the same promise to Apple or anyone at all.
Personally, I think it’s more that IBM can’t be arsed to bend over for Apple rather than Apple suddenly seeing the light and moving to Intel.
bjr, the 3.2’s are NOT g5’s. they are stripped down versions that are no way the workhorses that the G5’s are.
(magic word : “western” hence the horse reference)
MDN says, “We don’t know why the “yet” is added to the subtitle.. ” Yet ludicrous subtitles abound from MDN…
Pot calling the kettle blac?
Windows tech writer Thurrott keeps harping on ‘Apple Mac OS X for Intel” rumor
IDC analyst Kay thinks Google Desktop equals Spotlight
Apple’s biggest blunder in years? The unconscionable lack of Mac advertising
Kiplinger’s blows it: ‘Viruses are written for Macs, although they’re much rarer than PC viruses’
Real CEO pitches to half empty room at tech symposium; Apple draws standing-room-only crowd
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
I wonder what they care going to call the Macs with intels.
I mean, besides the slang names (ie: MacTel )
They are not gonig to be calling it the G6, because that’s the PPC chip correct? And I am not sure if they’d get in trouble w/ Pontiac for the name either…
I think Macintosh featuring Intel’s Pentium M sounds rather boring. I liked the name scheme with the G3, 4 and 5…
Has anyone coined the term “Macintel” Yet? If not it’s mine!!!
I don’t know why everyone is blowing blood vessels over this processor change. There acting like Steve has switched Macs OS to Windows. Now there would be a reason to blow some blood vessels. The Mac is still a Mac since it still uses OSX. If that changes then it might be time to have a cow or something. But all this nonsense is really rediculous.
Switch to what?
WINDOWS??? Running on the same processor?
I tell ya, these so called technology journalists are so utterly clueless it makes me wonder sometimes if they don’t hire these people off of turnip trucks on their way to the farm.
In fact, I think many migrant farm workers know more about technology than most of these morons do!
It’d be cool to take a poll – I wonder if ANYONE will switch to MS because of this news. I can see though, that it will slow the people who are considering switching to OS X. One more reason for them to wait to see what Longhorn looks like.
Zupchuck, methinks you do not know what a “subtitle” is.
Jack Arends, the clueless consumers are the least of our worries. They’re clueless, after all, so they don’t even know that there’s a difference between PPC and x86 (remember, these are consumers that bought the MHz myth for all those years). It’s the “slightly informed” consumers that might hold off.
Guys and gals. The problem is that the Pentium is built on 30 year old technology, just more of it crammed into a smaller space. Now I don’t care what chip Apple uses, but don’t anyone tell me that a 32 bit CISC chip is better than a 64 bit RISC chip – I’ve been a Sun Solaris admin too long to buy that b.s.
My hang up was that I was looking forward to finally have a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit chip. My guess is that the low-end macs (mini and iBook) will end up on x86 chips and my hope is that the high end systems will end up on a future Intel 64 bit chip. On the other hand, going to Intel still leaves Apple the option of using a chip like AMD for the 64 bit processor.
But talking about watts to performance is not the same as talking raw processing power and please, don’t anyone including MDN try and make it otherwise.
Another trool!!!