“Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday,” Reuters reports. “The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.”
“Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as ‘rumor and speculation.’ It was unclear whether such a move would signal a large-scale shift away from chips made by IBM, Apple’s longtime supplier, the report said,” Reuters reports. “Apple sells only about three million computers a year — a small portion of the estimated 200 million sold globally. But for Intel, winning over Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology’s most influential trend-setters and could associate the chipmaker with Apple’s hugely popular iPod music player.”
MacDailyNews Note: Apple is currently selling over 1 million Macs per quarter, or closer to 4.5 million Macs per year.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: With all three major next-gen gaming systems all going PowerPC and the G5 poised to break the 3GHz barrier, we don’t see this as anything more than a rumor. Unless Intel has something completely new that nobody outside Intel and Apple know about. Does anyone remember that the Apple, IBM, Motorola (AIM) Alliance developed the PowerPC? Why would Apple admit defeat, especially when GHz to GHz the PowerPC pummels anything from Intel into submission? This could be a planted story to save some sort of face for Intel as even Microsoft have dropped Intel and chosen PowerPC for the Xbox 360 and with Sony’s Cell processor causing so much excitement. For Apple to go backwards to what Intel currently offers would be ridiculous.
Macs are cheaper than PCs, and their processors are faster too. – Paul Murphy, “Will Apple switch to Intel?” – May 23, 2005.
Some things to keep in mind: Apple already uses Intel IOP chips in Xserve RAID, so maybe this is related to this rumor and people have gotten the details screwed up. Or maybe it’s a new Apple product like a remote control or tablet Mac or something that will use some Intel processors? Maybe Apple is using this to light a fire under IBM to finally get a G.D. 3GHz G5 Power Mac this summer. You know, the 3GHz G5 that we were supposed to have last summer as promised by Steve Jobs? And, (stop reading now if Mac OS X for Intel gives you a queasy stomach), as we reported last week, Intel did add FireWire 400 and 800 to latest motherboard. Also, remember that Apple’s iPod revenue stream makes them far less dependent on Mac hardware sales and give them the ability to maneuver in ways nobody would have dreamed just a few years ago.
The Wall Street Journal article (paid subscription required) is here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple shares rise on Intel Mac rumors – May 23, 2005
Bio authors: Steve Jobs wants ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – May 23, 2005
Intel adds FireWire 400 and 800 to latest motherboard – May 18, 2005
Windows tech writer Thurrott keeps harping on ‘Apple Mac OS X for Intel” rumor – April 29, 2005
Apple Xserve RAID has ‘Intel Inside’ – March 04, 2005
Intel has no answer to the ‘Cell’ processor; will Apple use it in Macs? – February 10, 2005
Apple Macs now cost less and run faster than Wintel PCs – September 30, 2004
Apple CEO Jobs misses ‘3Ghz G5 within a year’ prediction by wide margin – June 09, 2004
Steve Jobs needs to stop making predictions he can’t hit – June 09, 2004
iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
Intel’s Senior VP and CTO: ‘Steve Jobs has made the wrong CPU choice for 20 years’ – August 05, 2003
Another call for OS X on Intel chips – July 09, 2003
Dvorak predicts the ‘MacIntel’; says ‘Apple must go with Intel or risk its future’ – April 07, 2003
Dvorak spews latest prediction: Apple to go Intel within 18 months – March 19, 2003
Intel claims MHz doesn’t matter; Wintel world perplexed – March 14, 2003
Steve Jobs needs to stop making predictions he can’t hit – June 09, 2004
Whaaat??!!
doesn’t mean they’ll use Intel for the computers, per se, though it could mean they’ll use Intel chips for other products, like a new iPod or video player or some such…
just a guess on my part…
Off the subject – check out what WSJ has to say about Apple not being able to change enough to fend off new competitors:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111679774079740049-pP_LMXvmdy0P87mq_Jl6jdVTYT0_20060522,00.html?mod=mktw
Is it six months already? How the time flies when you’re having fun.
This rumors resurfaces about every six months on websites. Who really believes such drivel?
I don’t know about Intel processors replacing the CPU’s in Macs: doesn’t seem likely to me. But might an Intel product be used by Apple in some other way? Down the road a couple years things might be quite a bit different. One possibility comes to mind: Google seems headed toward using server based software to provide a whole range of services. This could call for a home computer much different from what we’re using today. Our visionaries at Apple might be considering the possibilities in this area too. Certainly Apple can set up server farms. Who knows?
i don’t think Intel is doing any better with improving their chips’ speed than IBM is doing with the G5… they both hit similar bumps and i don’t see why apple should be shifting (with IBM seemingly taking the lead right now in chip development as wtinessed by the next gen consoles)
so unless it’s for marketing or major cost cutting reasons (very un-Apple like, i don’t see this happening anytime soon…
but if it does, what will this mean? third party apps being re-coded and that emulation for now situation again going on for the new machines… I don’t think apple can do that to their customers again…
Apple is just keeping the door open to all credible platforms. This is good, but it doesn’t mean anything will be happening. IBM’s Power is “powering” all the new consoles coming out. For PPC, the future is now. Apple would be idiots to move to Intel at this point. PPC shows flexibility where x86 has hit a performance wall.
Intel is not being innovative, just look at the dual pentium with two separate cores taped together. AMD is doing it right, but they are hampered by the x86 platform too. No, Apple will stick with the PPC and we’ll see multi-core chips by next year, except the Power multi-core chips will scale much better. Cell? Probably not in a Mac as we know it, maybe as a media processor that hangs off the Firewire port.
MDN: my Magic word is truncated. I’m guessing “why” we’ll see.
Or maybe MDN has no clue what they are talking about with their 2cents comments.
IBM is hurting Apple.
Maybe Apple knows something we don´t know – like Tiger runs a whole lot faster on Intel chips than IBM.
Or Intel is bringing out something new.
Maybe Apple will offer both – IBM chips plus AMD and Intel chipped computers.
speculate this:
1.
OS X on intel… why not? people forget that Mac OS always needed a ROM inside the hardware it runs on (remember the clones… they licensed this ROM from Apple) – no ROM = no GO!
so maybe a new kind of Apple “help-the-switchers-switch-box” could be the source of the rumor… a sister Mac mini based on intel – still able to run OS X on this special Apple hardware, due to the ROM – AND – it can run Windows natively also, due to the intel thingy inside… such hybrid hardware could help windows-patchers switch for good, maybe?
2.
Apple signed a contract with a british company who’s making some new chips… sometimes rumored as the new iPod video chips?
can this british company manufacture these chips fast enough and in sufficient quantities… or could intel do the job for them?
“Apple sells only about three million computers a year — a small portion of the estimated 200 million sold globally.”
Hmmmmmmmmm………..that means that annual market share for Apple is 1.5%….
Something new on the horizon from Intel but too early to be any positive about that. Might, might not. No companies put all their eggs in one basket.
And, it will not need to run very fast: MHz myth is dead at Intel as well.
How about Mac OS X for Intel in Mac minis only – with some kind of ‘Classic Windows’ environment?
…but at same time something new from IBM as well. You have to have chip manufacturers on their toes, otherwise they become complacent.
Mac OS X on Intel runs since beta versions of OS X 10.0.0
What if Intel started manufacturing PowerPC-processors?
How does the Cell CPU fit into all this?
Man I hope this isn’t true. I’m all for Apple dropping IBM but Intel is yesterday’s news. If they are going to change manufacturers, AMD is where they should be looking. Its technology is far better than what Intel has to offer anymore.
MDN’s Take really is a great service to their readers in this case. Apple is leveraging IBM, pressuring them for a better price, better performance. That’s the reason for the WSJ story.
Woohoo! FAT POWERBOOKS!
No seriously.. I’m all for offering a watered down version of OS X that runs on Intel PC’s.. at least then PC users would have.. *egads.. CHOICE.. and they might be able to move away from MS.. but other than that.. why go BACKWARDS!?
Intel hasn’t budged much from 3.4 Ghz.. everyone’s got the same problems ramping up to higher speeds.. not just IBM..
IBM’s chips are CLEARLY the way to go..
Yes, Apple does use Intel chips inside the xRaid. Those Intel chips in the xRaid are the best money can buy, so Apple made a good choice to use them. PPC will be Apples main chip, otherwise they would have made that switch a long time ago.
Someone had gotten something crossed here, just because Apple talks to someone, doesn’t mean Apple is abandoning what they have worked on for what the to company they talked to has in production. In other words, this is FUD to keep people scared of going to Macs.
“The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of discussions between the two companies…”
Why am I skeptical of a news story that uses unnamed sources as it’s basis?
Here’s my news flash:
I’ve been talking to two industry executives who have knowledge of Apple Computer strategy who say that Apple is planning to create and use biological chips in there next line of Macintosh computers. “The only problem is when one your computer catches a virus, you need to give it a good dose of antibiotics for two weeks. Other than that, they’re good to go by Christmas.”
I’ve decided to give this scoop to MDN because they’ve entertained me for the last year or so. Run with this story! You won’t be disappointed.
Ahh, MDN’s PC knowledge is lacking as usual. AMD is the new king in terms of speed. Intel has been lacking lately, and ummmm, yeah, I love having my own personal heater in the studio with me.
I love Macs, but let’s be honest here, the 970 processors are nuclear reactors practically, they give off A LOT of heat and the G5’s are ENORMOUS.
The MacMini is a joke in terms of processor speed if you want a small footprint, not to say that it’s not a good machine for other topics.
All in all, Apple is on the right track, but we need less propaganda so we can bring others over.
Hey, beatsme,
Why do you feel the need to reiterate MDN’s take and try to make it sound like you just came up with it yourself?
MDN-“Or maybe it’s a new Apple product like a remote control or tablet Mac or something that will use some Intel processors?”
beatsme-“doesn’t mean they’ll use Intel for the computers, per se, though it could mean they’ll use Intel chips for other products, like a new iPod or video player or some such…
just a guess on my part…”
Wow… I would love to see OSX on the faster Intel platform. PowerPC lags when compared to what AMD and Intel offer. I bet if OSX were ported properly to x86 architecture, it’d outpace Windows by a nice margin (not to mention security and stability improvements).
Imagine… Apple having state-of-the-art, blazingly-fast notebooks.
Wow… I would love to see OSX on the faster Intel platform. PowerPC lags when compared to what AMD and Intel offer. I bet if OSX were ported properly to x86 architecture, it’d outpace Windows by a nice margin (not to mention security and stability improvements).
Imagine… Apple having state-of-the-art, blazingly-fast notebooks.
Wow… I would love to see OSX on the faster Intel platform. PowerPC lags when compared to what AMD and Intel offer. I bet if OSX were ported properly to x86 architecture, it’d outpace Windows by a nice margin (not to mention security and stability improvements).
Imagine… Apple having state-of-the-art, blazingly-fast notebooks.
Dont think so….besides I think that sticker “Intel Inside” just meeses with the “chi” look of my mac.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”hmmm” style=”border:0;” />
Don’t forget, I said not long ago that several PC makers were wooing Apple in an attempt to put OS X on their computers.
Now, who thinks we’re giving up on PowerPC? They don’t know what they’re talking about. That doesn’t mean we can’t expand our market.
It’s not either/or.
Mac & PC Guy,
I’m asking an honest question here – how would moving to x86 acrchitecture improve security and stability for OS X? Please elaborate, it has lots on interesting implications.
Huh…been running all the usual through my head this morning.
The latest:
To ask developers to rewrite apps for OSx86 would be ridicuolous, coming only 4 years after the transition to OS X.
Which leads me to think that, if Apple will indeed use Intel microprocessors (not chips for other uses as in xRaid, ertc.) then they will not be used in consumer machines, but perhaps the xServe. Consider that Server’s have limited need for productivity apps. Most of the MacOS X Server apps are *nix derivatives, so they would probably be fine on Intel. A box sitting in a closet wouldn’t need to run Photoshop or iLife, for that matter. Apple could market the robustness and security of OS X on xServe hardware to IT departments. The xServe is already a great value in the 1U server space, but maybe making the hardware that much cheaper with Intel chips would really turn people’s heads.
Just spittin’…
Definitely has to be a rumor. PowerPC architecture is better than Pentium architecture. Intel would probably be able to deliver the chips, but the performance would suck.
Apple is going Intel because Intel chips are cheap in bulk. IBM bulk is not. It’s all about the bottom line. Gotta keep fuel in Steve’s private jet, remember?
I thought the G5 was the best out there?
Its fairly obvious that if Apple could port OS X and applications like Final Cut to the Intel platform that it would grow as a software company….software, where margins are still high.
Hardware has been comodified and only companies like Dell will be able to turn a profit based on volume…
blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… I’m not an engineer blah… blah… blah… I’m just a dumb-ass user blah… blah… blah… regurgitating someone else’s lame OPINION mixed up by the satanic voices in my head as I hum Winnie the Pooh songs blah… blah… blah… I wish I had a life, but as long as I spout crap on here, I can emulate a life, because I am so stupid I have no problem fooling myself blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… I think typing my totally useless comments on MDN while naked is very kinky… hope my mommy doesn’t catch me… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah… blah…
Intel may not be able to offer anything better than IBM at the high end but surely if OS X can run on intel then they might be looking at them as alternatives or slight improvements on the g4 level machines? If apple can buy something in huge bulk for use in mac minis that runs as well as for less money then why not?
Intel chips in Macs just simply isn’t going to happen. Maybe Intel chips for a new generation of iPods perhaps, but absolutely not for Macs. How many times can this stupid rumor get recycled anyway?
Anybody remember Power.org? Intel, or anybody else that wants to join, can produce PPC-type chips. There is nothing stopping Apple from employing Intel to produce PPC chips for them. Apple will not go x86.
hey stfu
to reiterate is to repeat something more than once. If you’re going to criticize try to have a better grasp of the language.
and I didn’t read MDN’s take…it’s usually too one-sided to be worth the bother.
It’s good negotiation tactics.
I wonder how many of you read all the posts and see how utterly ridiculous rumour conversations really are? This thread is a JOKE! Some people have far too much time on their hands and now brain power to pull them out of this kind of funk……
Slow down, people. Intel makes ALL KINDS of chips. They make chips for netwroking, PDA CPUs, cell phones, WiMax and all kinds of stuff other than the x86 CPU. Take a walk along these links and use your head.
http://www.intel.com/design/pca/cellularprocessors/index.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/pca/intro/wirelessmobility.htm
http://www.intel.com/products/wireless/index.htm?iid=Corporate+Header_prod_hand&
http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/253820.htm
http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/300571.htm
http://www.intel.com/netcomms/products/index.htm
Remember to Think Different
CNBC was to have someone from Apple on Sqwak Box this morning to discuss the story. I couldn’t stick around to see it…had to get to work…but if CNBC had an Apple guy on to discuss…
Any one catch this?
Personally, I think if there is any truth to this, it’s all about laptops. They haven’t been able to get a G5 into a laptop, so maybe Apple is looking at Pentium-Ms.
Don’t forget Intel makes more than just microprocessors. It also creates flash memory and wireless networking hardware. These are two areas Apple needs additional suppliers from.
With that said, Apple is NOT going to switch from the IBM Power chips. Such a move is just ridiculous.
Ain’t gonna happen. Intel is old tech and IBM is new tech. Why would Apple choose an over-glorified calculator CPU (x86 – Intel) over a jack of all trades CPU (PowerPC – IBM)? It does not make good business sense.
Latest thought…
No Intel microprocessors in Macs…but perhaps some other Intel chips in another Apple product.
For example, Intel is one of the largest manufacturers of WiFi/Max chips. I don’t know who makes Apple’s airport stuff now, but I could definitely see them tap Intel for this type of product.
Read that Cringely article from last week. AirPort streaming of audio/video content could be huge.
The time is right, the iron is hot.
OS X.4 functional on Intel chips now, with Longhorn 18 months away is the final chance of expanding the base. Security concerns will gain OS X an increased base. This kind of opportunity to strike is not going to happen again! A deal with HP to sell Intel machines running OS X?? Sweet!
Beatsme-You reiterated what MDN said. To repeat something more than once would be to reiterate several times. Don’t criticize my English, which is correct, when you don’t even bother to read.
If YOU don’t want to come off like an idiot, try reading the article you’re commenting on in it’s entirety.
The Wall street Journal must have a Windows reporter working for them. Total complete nonsense especially at this time.
[[zupchuck wrote: I’m asking an honest question here – how would moving to x86 acrchitecture improve security and stability for OS X? Please elaborate, it has lots on interesting implications.]]
Zupchuck:
I should’ve been clearer on this. I meant – by virtue of OSX being a more secure OS than Windows – running OSX on x86 will improve security for everyone. The comparison was (OSX on x86) vs (Windows on x86), and not (OSX on x86) vs. (OSX on PPC).
That thought leads to similar questions:
What would Intel do for Apple that IBM doesn’t already do? Faster chips? Faster development? Faster time-to-market?
What if OSX could run on 100 (or even 1000) times the number of computers they currently run on? How would developers react? How would customers react? How would businesses and the government react?
Is the lesson learned from iPod’s success that Apple embrace Windows rather than try to compete directly? (iPod didn’t take off until is was made compatible with Windows.)
—
I use both platforms because the work for me. What if both platforms were housed in the same console (desktop, entertainment unit, notebook, etc)?
[[zupchuck wrote: I’m asking an honest question here – how would moving to x86 acrchitecture improve security and stability for OS X? Please elaborate, it has lots on interesting implications.]]
Zupchuck:
I should’ve been clearer on this. I meant – by virtue of OSX being a more secure OS than Windows – running OSX on x86 will improve security for everyone. The comparison was (OSX on x86) vs (Windows on x86), and not (OSX on x86) vs. (OSX on PPC).
That thought leads to similar questions:
What would Intel do for Apple that IBM doesn’t already do? Faster chips? Faster development? Faster time-to-market?
What if OSX could run on 100 (or even 1000) times the number of computers they currently run on? How would developers react? How would customers react? How would businesses and the government react?
Is the lesson learned from iPod’s success that Apple embrace Windows rather than try to compete directly? (iPod didn’t take off until is was made compatible with Windows.)
—
I use both platforms because the work for me. What if both platforms were housed in the same console (desktop, entertainment unit, notebook, etc)?
[[zupchuck wrote: I’m asking an honest question here – how would moving to x86 acrchitecture improve security and stability for OS X? Please elaborate, it has lots on interesting implications.]]
Zupchuck:
I should’ve been clearer on this. I meant – by virtue of OSX being a more secure OS than Windows – running OSX on x86 will improve security for everyone. The comparison was (OSX on x86) vs (Windows on x86), and not (OSX on x86) vs. (OSX on PPC).
That thought leads to similar questions:
What would Intel do for Apple that IBM doesn’t already do? Faster chips? Faster development? Faster time-to-market?
What if OSX could run on 100 (or even 1000) times the number of computers they currently run on? How would developers react? How would customers react? How would businesses and the government react?
Is the lesson learned from iPod’s success that Apple embrace Windows rather than try to compete directly? (iPod didn’t take off until is was made compatible with Windows.)
—
I use both platforms because the work for me. What if both platforms were housed in the same console (desktop, entertainment unit, notebook, etc)?
A cheap Intel chip in each Mac along with the usual PPC chip would make it much easier for Apple to emulate Windows for the odd in house or obscure Windows app that some of us need to use every now and then.
Maybe they could get the Mac to play that #1 Windows app of all time, SOLITARE.
Just a thought.
It’s one thing for Apple to have OSX running on Intel (which may or may not be true) but it’s another thing entirely to get enough developers on board to port (or heavily modify) their code to a new processor. And just because Adobe makes cross platform apps does not mean all they have to do is recompile their Windows version to run under OSX/Intel. It’ll be a ton of work for any company to do this, and it ain’t gonna happen.
I for one would ***NEVER*** buy a Mac with a kluge of an Intel processor in it. They can’t even make a dual core chip where 1 core can communicate with the other without having to use the main bus. The only thing they have that can match a G5 is Itanium, and that beast outshines a nuclear reactor and is terribly expensive. I tell ya, Apple won’t drop PowerPC for Intel.
Where would I get my twin engine dual-core G5 next January if they did???
(Man, you should see all the financial news outlets running this story… it’s crazy.)
>Maybe they could get the Mac to play that #1 Windows app of all time, SOLITARE
If you think Solitaire is so awesome, you’ve gotta visit a computer store and see what thunders beyond the puny Apple section.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Apple itself says to think different(ly). Step outside of your cute, little box from time to time.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
You may end up using both platforms.
>Maybe they could get the Mac to play that #1 Windows app of all time, SOLITARE
If you think Solitaire is so awesome, you’ve gotta visit a computer store and see what thunders beyond the puny Apple section.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Apple itself says to think different(ly). Step outside of your cute, little box from time to time.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
You may end up using both platforms.
>Maybe they could get the Mac to play that #1 Windows app of all time, SOLITARE
If you think Solitaire is so awesome, you’ve gotta visit a computer store and see what thunders beyond the puny Apple section.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Apple itself says to think different(ly). Step outside of your cute, little box from time to time.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
You may end up using both platforms.
Maybe Apple really is going to make a Mac with Intel inside.
Maybe Apple isn’t going to give up on PowerPC either.
Maybe Apple is going to produce something with BOTH chips.
sftu
wrong again…
you’re not worth the effort my friend
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
>sftu
Goodness! You can’t even cuss right. You just took the fun out of making fun of you.
>sftu
Goodness! You can’t even cuss right. You just took the fun out of making fun of you.
>sftu
Goodness! You can’t even cuss right. You just took the fun out of making fun of you.
I give this story a lot of credibility since its from the WSJ. However,
given that the xbox and PS3 are using PPC processors, I don’t see Apple “switching” to Intel. It may be that Apple is going to offer both PPC and Intel boxes for sale.
– Mark
{What the heck is the point of having to type in the “MDN Magic Word” before submitting your comments?)
Mac & PC Guy,
I think the spectre of Apple employing Intel to manufacture chips (where “chips” is very ambiguous) for them certainly puts pressure on IBM to produce. I would think SJ has some piece of Intel hardware running OS X in a secret room to show to IBM now and then how easy it would be to move. Motorola taught Apple a good lesson in hardware dependency.
Rather funny, since M$ seems to be doing the same to Intel by going PPC with the XBox.
Maybe Apple is just pointing out to IBM that it wants a little more attention?
My (far-fetched) opinion is that if Intel x86 chips were used, it would be either high-end stand-alone workstations (multi-core, multi-CPU work horses) or hybrid Xserves which have a PPC CPU and an x86 “co-processor” to run Windows apps natively in a virtual machine to make more inroads into the enterprise space.
With Longhorn being very late, and the enterprise market a little in flux, the hybrid Xserve could provide some piece of mind to shops that need to move on to something. Just trying to think a little out of the box!
Why should Intel & Co not be able to produce -risc- Ppc chips.. ?
Going xx86 on a Mac sounds redicul.
Here’s an idea..
Apple does an iPhone which icludes all the usual suspect: full iPod like capabilities (with screen equal to or larger than the iPod photo), full PDA capabilities to rival the top of the line Palm or Windows device, full phone capabilities to rival the top of the line Nokia, Moto or Samsung models. What processor would this run? Intel’s Xscale processor maybe?
</pure speculation>
Or much more likely…
Apple is talking to Intel to upgrade its Xserve and Xserver RAID products to the newer 4 Gbps FibreChannel standard using new Intel processors.
There are lots of reasons why Apple could be talking to Intel and none of them related to replacing the PowerPC line of processors.
T-T-T-Tiger UPPERCUT!!!
Man, I’m tired of arguing about stupid stuff. In my first post, I only wanted to point out that beatsme was saying the same thing as MDN, but passing it off as his own opinion. Now we’re in some stupid English usage thing.
From dictionary.com:
re·it·er·ate Audio pronunciation of “reiterate” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-t-rt)
tr.v. re·it·er·at·ed, re·it·er·at·ing, re·it·er·ates
To say or do again or repeatedly. See Synonyms at repeat
Notice, “See Synonyms at repeat”
re·peat Audio pronunciation of “repeat” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pt rpt)
v. re·peat·ed, re·peat·ing, re·peats
v. tr.
1. To say again: repeat a question.
2. To utter in duplication of another’s utterance.
3. To recite from memory.
4. To tell to another.
5. To do, experience, or produce again: repeat past successes.
6. To express (oneself) in the same way or words: repeats himself constantly.
Notice entry 2 “To utter in duplication of another’s utterance.”
Ok, maybe I was wrong to use a big a word as “reiterate” on the MDN forum, but my usage was spot on.
Mac & PC Guy said, “Goodness! You can’t even cuss right. You just took the fun out of making fun of you.”
First off, not sure where I was cussing. Second, why bother posting if I took all the fun out of it.
Sorry, M&PCG;, Just figured out what you were talking about.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
I wish I would take the advice of my name sake.
Anyone who thinks Macs cost more due to the Processor clearly has not stopped to think about it for even one second. Macs cost more because Apple designs the OS, the Motherboard and the case. Apple also maintains a higher margin on their products than PC manufacturers.
I don’t believe Apple would impose upon their customers or developers the burden of an Architecture change.
Mac & PC Guy,
I use Mac’s and PC’s daily.
I still say Solitare is the best Windows program ever written.
Some wouldn’t know sarcasm if it came over and bit them on the ass.
Kevin Gavioli said ” Anyone who thinks Macs cost more due to the Processor clearly has not stopped to think about it for even one second. Macs cost more because Apple designs the OS, the Motherboard and the case. Apple also maintains a higher margin on their products than PC manufacturers.”
Question: Have you priced a Dell or HP computer with similar specs to a Mac lately? I have, for my company just recently, and there is NO, that’s right NO DIFFERENCE in price. PC makers advertise super low prices for super scaled down computers. Example:
Dell Precision Workstation 670
Dual 2.8 Xenon
2 Gig RAM
250 GB SATA Drive
16x DVD-/+RW
256 MB Dual DVI Card
and all the other crap to make it close to a high end Mac
Total: $3707
Add 2 Gig RAM to a Dual 2.7 Mac (because that is the only difference in the stock config) Price: $3349
The Mac is ACTUALLY CHEAPER!
Several problems with this comarison…
1. It runs XP
2. It is not the “top of the line” Dell.
3. Security, security, security.
4. Mac is here in 5 days, Dell won’t ship until 6/1.
5. No affordable “pro” apps (for video), unless you like that crap from Adobe.
I could go on…but I won’t.
Not trying to attack, I’m just sick and tired of people saying mac’s cost too much. I guess they do if you only want to play games and watch porn on the internets…but if you actually WORK on your machine it’s no contest.
– Pariah
Might it make perfect logic for Apple to use Intel’s Centrino mobile chip (excellent from what I’ve heard) in the ‘books line, given all the G5 heat and power consumption problems?
All the x86 fanboys are out of the closet now – the dream that just won’t die – I’ll be able to buy a Mac and it will only cost me $200 because I’ll make it from parts I bought at my local electronics shop …
It’ll be a dual core at 5.0GHz and will run all my x86 apps too ’cause Macs suck!
Intel inside – it’s still a warning …
Aside: if the X-Box 360 has 3 chips running at 3.2GHz and will cost under $500, what will the new G5s cost?
I am a Mac user. Yes when you move up to workstation class systems Mac are right in there in price. At the consumer level systems is where Macs cost a bit more.
Mac Min 1.25GHz G4 256MB RAM 40GB Hard Drive Combo Drive no Monitor no keyboard no mouse $499.
Dell Dimension 3000 2.8GHz P4 256MB RAM 40GB CD-RW 15″ Flat Panel Monitor, I assume it comes with keyboard and mouse. $527.
Find me a 15″ flat panel for $28. But it is not even at the lowest price point where people perceive a greater value on the PC side it is the $700-1000 systems where people look at what the PC manufacturers bundle and believe they are getting more.
The penny pinchers are on the low end! Of coarse a business buying a workstation whether they choose Mac or PC will shell out the bucks to get what they need.