By Paul Carlin
It seems most people have the “who cares what is inside” attitude, not me. Maybe I need to think different some more.
Personally, I think Apple could have worked things out with IBM but chose not to, Was it egos? Lack of resources at IBM? Wanting something new? Who knows? A dual core PPC with a new bus architecture could have been just as fast or faster, IBM could have done some work on lowering power consumption. Instead, we have Yet Another Transition (YAT) where we have to update all our software, that seems to happen every 5 years on the Mac platform. Eventually PPC machines will stop being developed for so we will not get the latest and greatest.
Despite the Dual Core nature of the new chips the new Intel Macs are not beating the pants off the single core PowerPC. You would think, if they were going through all this effort of switching architectures, they would be seeing much better performance. Apple claims 2 to 3 times better performance but most independent tests show rough equivalence with Intel beating it by a little and in some tests the G5 beats the Intel easily.
I don’t mean to imply moving to Intel will not be successful for Apple, but it could be quite risky, because clone manufacturers can come in and start running OS X on their hardware. Apple is a hardware company, they make most of their money on hardware. Intel’s TPM (digital rights management) does not seem to be very good for preventing Mac OS X from running on a stock PC. It has been hacked many times. Some thought that moving to Intel would bring the price down, economies of scale and all that. The first prices for the MacBook Pro and iMac have not borne that out. They are just as expensive. Did Apple get a bigger margin? Who knows? The fact is, the Intel Mac is not cheaper than the previous model.
Also, now Intel owns the desktop, what is to say that they will do the right thing now that they have no competition? I suppose there is AMD, but they do not really represent a major difference in chip design philosophy. It also seemed that PPC was gaining momentum with Microsoft and Sony moving to the platform for gaming. Apple ran the other way.
Now there are, of course, some advantages, it now becomes possible to have a virtual machine, that runs Windows software at native speeds. Software that never ran very well on a Mac will now run well. This is a double edged sword however, because some companies will just take their existing Windows software and not update it to work well in the Mac environment. Sure you will be able to run it, but it will be clunky and not take advantage of all the features the platform has to offer. Some companies may just decide to not even continue development for the Mac saying the VM is a solution. Another advantage, I suppose, is being able to boot Windows on a Mac. Apple has said they will do nothing to prevent this, but this is not really a huge advantage to a long time Mac user.
The main thing is that would me happier about this is if they announced that Universal binaries must exist indefinitely and that should IBM fix its heat and power problems then we can go back to PPC if they are faster and better. I am all for flexibility, if Intel is better now then lets use it, PPC is better then use that. Apple has proven that it does not matter the chip is underneath, they can still run their OS. They could play one company off the other to get what they wanted. They could use PPC for high end server machines and Intel on others if they offer better power consumption. They could let competition work for them, but this is not what Apple announced, they announced a marriage with Intel and from the looks of it this is what they are going to keep for the foreseeable future. What happens when the Intel honeymoon is over? What happens when they have told all the developers to forget the PPC? Do we do YAT again?
Mostly there are not a lot of technical or business arguments as to why I don’t like the Intel Mac, mostly emotional, I feel like Intel has been the enemy from the early days of my computing experience. This is a very tough pill to swallow, now the Mac is just another Intel box. Some of what was special about the Mac is gone, a differentiator that made the Mac seem better. I will have a hard time rallying behind the hardware aspects of these Intel based Macs. Every other Intel PC box will have the same thing. It is like turning to the dark side. I will have a very hard time forgiving Apple for doing this. I think I will find that I just don’t care that much about the hardware and maybe I care less about Apple than I used to. Perhaps
this is how it should be, maybe I should find other interests. Apple could have changed a lot of things, and has changed, a lot of things over the years, but this one that I am having a hard time with.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Jay, good points, Jobs made his mind up long ago, probably all the way back to 2001 and let the partnership whither.
“How much leverage do really think Apple will have with them?”
It absolutely doesn’t matter. As long as AMD keeps Intel competitive, we are going to be better off with Intel.
We can thank AMD for Intel winning out over PowerPC… Kind of funny.
Jay:
If Intel’s cheap 32bit laptop chip can kick butt over G5 at a powerformance per watt and performance per dollar level, then I think Steve made the right decision.
“We can thank AMD for Intel winning out over PowerPC… Kind of funny”
How is that? What are you referring to?
The bottom line is that the Intel hardware platform caught up, surpassed, and continues to accelerate past Apple/PowerPC’s old architectures. While there are occasional hiccups with IRQs or whatnot at the driver level, the user never needs to know anymore. EFI is better than OpenFirmware. Intel chips, chipsets, and integrated functionality beats Apple’s old parts in features, speed, AND power consumption. They have economies of scale.
The bottom line, though, is that Apple’s still a maverick that controls the whole experience. They can still switch vendors, choose firmwares, fit chipsets into bizarre shapes to fit their latest case, etc. Despite being “just another PC vendor”, they are still the only one for whom good design goes to the core.
jake,
AMD has kept Intel on their toes for the past several years. They’ve been in a pretty fierce war over CPU performance, in which AMD is pretty much winning in the desktop market and Intel is winning in the mobile market (especially with the new Core Duo). Anyways, now that we Mac users are getting Macs with Intel-powered Macs, we can thank AMD for keeping the intense pressure on Intel to drive performance up to where it is. Contrast that to the G5, which had no competition on the Mac – it’s getting beat out by the latest 32 bit mobile chip from Intel. Without competition from AMD, I doubt that Intel would be offering CPUs that would be nearly as fast right now.
Attention Paul Carlin:
It’s the OS and not the CPU that makes a Mac a Mac. You shortsighted thinking is precisely what would keep the Mac’s marketshare at 2% forever…
Here’s my thoughts:
In the first place, this editorial is clearly emotional for the person involved, and isn’t really approaching this from a balanced, nuanced place. However, as a clear mac-addict-fanatic (which we all are to some degree, I expect), he’s fully proving Apple’s worth over Windows: how many PC users get this attached, get this emotional, over hardware and software?
So let’s stop attacking him for being emotional and get to the facts of the matter.
I was surprised that Apple chose the iMac to make Intel’s desktop debut. As a desktop chip, the PowerPC G5 is very powerful and quick, one of the best chips in the business. As such, while I was initially worried watching the Job’s MacWorld podcast (having just bought a 20-inch iMac G5 in December), I knew that beyond a slight up-tick in performance, the iMac G5 and the iMac Intel would be identical computers in most ways. The macworld.com benchmark testing proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt: having the G5 beat the Intel a couple of times, and mostly running only a little tiny bit slower the rest of the time (is that 15 second faster song burn really all that much more remarkable?) So really, aside from Intel’s start-up technology and slightly better performance than the G5, I don’t think that current iMac users will feel left behind in the Intel transition. I guess choosing the iMac as the desktop launch pad indicates that Apple believes in Intel so much that they will port it to the flagship before the other desktop products. If anything, the iMac Intel is as much publicity ploy as product. However, in terms of processor need and speed, the Mac Mini could have really used that Intel chip!
The new MacBookPro, replacing the PowerBook G4 wasn’t a shock at all. In fact, I chose the G5 iMac because the G4 PowerBook was insanely slow. Seriously…to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a computer that runs like an eMachines PC clone is pretty lame. Without a portable G5 chip, Apple really had no choice, because their G4 notebooks are significantly weaker than their PC counterparts.
Do I think the Intel chips detract from the differences that so define Apple computers? Not really…if anything they place the benchmark off of the now-shared processing platform and on to the operating system. Now, if Windows runs slower and less efficiently…we’ll all know, beyond a shadow of a PPC vs Intel doubt, that it’s software, not hardware that’s killing the PC.
I think we’re all going to have Universal apps for the next half decade or so…and then it will all be Intel…but 3-5 years is pretty much the life of a computer these days anyway, so really? Who cares? If it still barks, walks and talks like a Mac, who cares if it has an Intel heart?
The dual-core Intel iMac absolutely has 2-3 times the power of the single-core G5 iMac; whether the software you are running on it takes advantage of that extra power is another question.
I remember when we made the transition from 68k to PowerPC (i.e IBM). At the time IBM was truly regarded as the evil empire by many and I remember people expressing views identical to this one. Its just history repeating itself….
The transition will be bumpy and it will take a while for the true performance of these new machines to be seen but in the long run, it’ll be worth it.
Remember, its about the software. Not the hardware.
Boy, there is sure a lot of wild assumptions here by some people. Some of whom also don’t have their facts straight before they went off.
People, we are not going to have to run Rosetta for everything forever. People had to run classic for a long time only because they wouldn’t let go of some old software that had long ago been updated to OS X that they refused to upgrade to.
Pro apps from apple will be Universal in March. Not in a year, but in two months. If you are so worried about dismal performance under Rosetta, just watch for your favorite apps getting Universal builds, then buy.
I think the video ports dropped from the MacBook Pro are recovered via the adapter for the video port. The ports were probably not that used by most and just costing everyone else. Similar story for the modem, only that is a bit more extra cost. FW800 same too. Only a very few used it, so get a card for it when one comes out and don’t buy that laptop until one is available. They traded that cost savings for other things like the built-in camera that more people will use.
According to a June 11, 2005 eWeek article *What’s Really Behind the Apple-Intel Alliance* By JOHN MARKOFF, the biggest reason for going with Intel was economic – IBM wanted Apple to help pay developement costs [like M$oft did for X-Box uP] & Jobs didn’t.
Similar situation with Moto/Freescale – Apple wouldn’t help with $ to get faster FSB G4s.
Finally, but IMO most significantly, the Intel switch is nearly the final step by Steve Jobs in erasing all traces of Sculley, Gasse and Spindler et al from the Mac, thus re-claiming it as “his” computer. He’s already changed the OS to NextStep, now he’s dumping IBM & Motorola. He’ll likely dump the Tower Macs soon, too. He doesn’t want users to be able to monkey with the “perfect” computers he sells them, so open architecture’s gotta go. The Mac line-up will likely consist of laptops, Minis, iMacs & servers.
SJobs is “claiming” the Mac the way a dog “claims” a fire hydrant – by urinating on it.
Whenever SJ has inflicted his idea of fanless perfection on computers, the results have been suboptimal. Apple ///. Original unexpandable 128k Mac. Cube. The Mac likely would have died in the late ’80s if Jobs had stayed at Apple because the Mac II and its descendants would never have existed. The last Mac might’ve looked like the original neXT cube – a single MO drive & closed box.
More recent examples of Jobs’ “perfection” are the titanium and aluminum G4 PowerBooks. Exquisite design but the paper-thin shells and cramped interiors render them far too fragile to endure the slings and arrows of inevitable misfortune of portable life.
A portable should be able to suffer minor accidents without a scratch or hiccough, but an Al book dents. From an engineering standpoint it would make sense to add 1/2″ to each dimension and use the extra space for a thicker shell with consequent greater durability, and more design flexibility. Is a 1.5″ thick computer somehow inherrently less “perfect” than a 1″ thick one? Size and weight differences would be trivial, and the durability difference could be dramatic.
The Intel switch isn’t likely motivated by IBM’s inability to supply G5 chips Apple “needs”. More likely they won’t expend great effort to create what SJobs “wants” – infinite processing power together with infinitesimal power consumption and consequent heat generation – and at a bargain price. The eWeek article *Chip Vets Line Up For New PowerPC Processors* By David Needle [October 24, 2005] indicates that P.A. Micro has put together a world-class group of uP designers to create a scalable range of G5-based PPCs with power efficiency as the main focus.
It would be relatively easy to design a portable around IBM’s newly announced low-power G5 if you let the engineers do the designing instead of Steve Jobs. Let engineers decide things like cooling needs, body shell thickness, &c within general guidelines like “as small and light as possible with a given size LCD display and sufficient ruggedness for portable use”. Then let Jonathan Ive make it pretty. But SJ seems obsessed with 1″ thick laptops.
64-but X86 notebook chips by end of ’06? Don’t bet on it. Intel’s roadmaps aren’t any more accurate than anyone else’s. They’ve repeatedly painted themselves into corners in the past by thinking only of the past. “Outside the box” isn’t their style. [Think 8086, 432, 960, Itanium aka Itanic] The ultimate result is the Pentium family – basicallly malignant 8085s designed by Rube Goldberg on acid.
If you spent as much time optimizing code for it as has been spent optimizing for x86, you could make a cheese sandwich look like a good processor. RISC processors inherrently shift more work onto compilers than CISC, and thus far relatively little effort has been aimed in that direction for the gcc compiler PPC variant.
Note that Anandtech’s recent PPC tests under Yellow Dog Linux 4 using the latest gcc version showed a 70% improvement in floating point performance over the gcc version they tested with earlier. The mid-section of the PPC newest version of gcc finally got some PPC-specific tweaking. You can’t paste a PPC back end onto a compiler that’s highly optimized for x86 and get optimal PPC performance. The PPC has a main register set with 32 gp registers; x86 has 4 gp and 2 index registers [vector & FP sections are roughly equivalent twixt the 2 families]. OS-X & all aps compiled with Apple’s supplied gcc are created with much less than desireable PPC optimization.
SJobs said Mac-OS X86 has been under development for 5 yrs. Why didn’t he devote those efforts to optimizing PPC gcc? Why didn’t he invest some of Apple’s several bilion $ cash with Moto & IBM to get the uPs he “needs”? My guess is he’s been planning the switch all along.
Apple’s recent changes are causing many of us to rethink our platform/OS choices. Although I have been an Apple user since 1983, I find it more difficult to remain with my favorite fruit company. Windoz is a royal pain in the backside; however, Micro$oft does endeavor to maintain backward compatibility with applications with each incarnation of Windoz. Every time Apple changes chip architecture, it “widows” a number of apps that many users need. I have jumped through emulation hoops for a decade or so, and am growing weary of the changes. I will miss Apple’s wonderful designs, creative apps, and user community, but my next computer will be a PC. I guess I’m getting too old for the rollar coaster ride. I’ll leave the fun to a younger generation who are arriving at Apple’s doorstep with iPods in their hands, and Macintels in their briefcases.
Within a month or two or less OSX is going to be running on a cheap Walmart special and by extension in most Asian countries on a cheap PC, Apple never has had to worry about that they will. The PPC was a great dongle, also notice the price on those Macbook Pro’s, going to intel didn’t drop the price.
F.C. Kuechmann good points, yep, seems that almost every play in job’s book has happened at NeXT. Started with 68000 then moved to intel. Moving to Intel did not save NeXT. This was what he planned for Apple long ago, why else would they be spending their development resources with a parallel Intel build from when OS X was being developed. I agree, Apple could have made the IBM relationship work but chose not to. Even perhaps setting unreasonable expectations for the G5 reaching 3Ghz a year before it could be ready, then using that as a justification for why the switch was necessary.
Fluff story.
DanoX:
“Within a month or two or less OSX is going to be running on a cheap Walmart special…”
so what’s your point?
Billy Bob:
Please, do us all a favor and go to Windows where you belong.
F.C. Kuechmann:
Maybe you should go buy yourself a nice new Alienware laptop with an Athlon64 FX60 in it. It comes in a tough plastic case that’s about two inches thick and has outrageous performance.
Meanwhile I’ll be enjoying my nice new 1″ thick MacBook Pro, with several times your battery life and one third your weight.
How many times will we hear the same silly drivel? Many more, I guess.
Let’s debunk this shit once and for all:
Personally, I think Apple could have worked things out with IBM but chose not to, Was it egos? Lack of resources at IBM? Wanting something new? Who knows? A dual core PPC with a new bus architecture could have been just as fast or faster, IBM could have done some work on lowering power consumption.
Yes, and Danny De Vito *could* be a major NBA player. Only not in this world. In your daydreaming maybe.
Now, about what you “personally think”: have you any reason to doubt Apple’s frankness when stating the reasons for the switch? If IBM could lower the power consuption they would have done it. They could not and they did not. In a years time and more, even though initially the promised they would try to do it ASAP. Furthermore, IBM (not Apple) came forward later and admitted that the problem of G5 Power Consuption was a very difficult one. This does not only affect portables, but also the Mac Mini and possible future and thinner iMac designs. Any compact case design would suffer (heck, even PowerMac G5’s suffer: they use huge elaborate cooling systems).
This is only one thing. The other thing is that IBM and Freescale weren’t interested in the platform. Updates were few and far between since Apple was a minor customer to them (Freescale has the embedded market, IBM has game consoles, servers, etc). How do I know? Do I simply believe Apple’s bull? No, I heard it from the horse’s mouth, from Motorola’s CEO who was previously head of the IBM G5 division. Here it is:
Q: Weren’t you there during the discussions when IBM convinced Apple to adopt the G5?
Mayer: In my previous job, I ran IBM’s semiconductor business. So I’ve seen both sides of the Apple story, because I sold the G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to move to Intel.
Q: Five years ago?
Mayer: Yeah, that’s about right. So I sold the G5. First I told IBM that we needed to do it, and then I sold it to Apple that the G5 was good and it was going to be the follow-on of the PowerPC road map for the desktop. It worked pretty well. And then IBM decided not to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to really focus its chip business on the game consoles.
(Interview on News.com)
If you don’t believe Apple, at least believe the Freescale/ex-IBM guy for heaven’s sake. Or, else, go put on your tin foil hat.
Some kook comments:
More recent examples of Jobs’ “perfection” are the titanium and aluminum G4 PowerBooks. Exquisite design but the paper-thin shells and cramped interiors render them far too fragile to endure the slings and arrows of inevitable misfortune of portable life.
WTF? Don’t you know that PBs are among the most durable laptops out there? “Far too fragile”??? What have you been smoking? In fact, most on the road pro’s in extreme conditions (music gigs, djing, photography, cinema etc) use PBs!
The man continues:
The Intel switch isn’t likely motivated by IBM’s inability to supply G5 chips Apple “needs”. More likely they won’t expend great effort to create what SJobs “wants” – infinite processing power together with infinitesimal power consumption and consequent heat generation – and at a bargain price.
Ha, you’re killing me. Suddenly every spotty teenager can talk business decisions, and has deep insights at what a company decides.
The dellusional rambling continues:
Jobs said Mac-OS X86 has been under development for 5 yrs. Why didn’t he devote those efforts to optimizing PPC gcc?
Because he saw that PPC was a dead end. Because he actually WAS on the phone and in the room when negotiating with IBM and Freescale and you weren’t. That’s all there is to it!
Yes, a dual core PPC there was. But one chip does not THE FUTURE make. The magic word is ROADMAP. Intel had a roadmap: it had to, this is its core business. IBM and Freescale did not, even if they had a couple or less models for future production. Half-arsed commitment just doesn’t cut it.
Why didn’t he invest some of Apple’s several bilion $ cash with Moto & IBM to get the uPs he “needs”? My guess is he’s been planning the switch all along.
WTF? Really WTF?!!! Because for a COMMERCIAL company it makes sense to buy its components on the cheap. Spending …several BILLIONS $ to keep a ….suppliers technology floating DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Not for Apple, not for the consumer.
Even if Intel’s CPUs are more expensive that PPCs condidering solely their price, if you add the $$$ Apple would have to pay to keep G5 afloat, and the $$$ lost for not having their laptop lines updated with current professors, they come a lot cheaper. But ofcourse they do: if they wouldn’t Apple wouldn’t use them.
You can argue that they are not a good move from a philosophical standpoint. But not from a BUSINESS/PRICE standpoint. WTF do you think? That you, a spotty teenager or simply Mac Daily News poster, know what is best business decision and Apple’s board DOES NOT?
I don’t think so!
Mostly there are not a lot of technical or business arguments as to why I don’t like the Intel Mac, mostly emotional, I feel like Intel has been the enemy from the early days of my computing experience. This is a very tough pill to swallow, now the Mac is just another Intel box. Some of what was special about the Mac is gone, a differentiator that made the Mac seem better. I will have a hard time rallying behind the hardware aspects of these Intel based Macs. Every other Intel PC box will have the same thing. It is like turning to the dark side.
“Fetisism of small differences” is called in shrink speak. Who the fuck cares whats in the box? The only nuissance is that temporarily we will have to rebuy our software (cross-grade, more like it). And for a while, like 6-7 months we will have to use some apps under Rosetta. That’s all. The faster and easiest transition in the history of computing!
But a normal person (as opposed to a spooty laid-less computer geek) does not care what’s in the box. What they care is what they can DO with the box. And this is all about software, not hardware. Oh, and 5% and 10% differences in speed do not even count. That’s why an audio or movie professional can make do with an 2 year old Mac while the whiney nerds compain if that or this benchmark is like 2% slower. Like it matters. Like 02:24 rendering time is different than say 02:35.
As for Intel being an “Evil Empire”. WTF? What’s an “Evil Empire” in technological parlance? Nothing, it is just fanboy-ism. (IBM used to be the evil empire in Mac days of old, since idiots always have something to hate instead of loving and using the platform they care about).
Last, but now least.
P.S Oh, and concerning AMD. It’s in the arch stupid! It doesn’t matter that Apple choose Intel for now (based on endless meetings, discussions and negotiations which surely have happened but YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT while Mr. Jobs does since he was there, so he was better informed). It’s all in the arch. Apple may, if so choose, use AMD after the transition to x86 arch is completed. Or even Transmeta (are they even still around?).
You’re quite right about the performance issue and about the need to continue with the PPC.
On the other hand, I believe the issue with IBM wasn’t price, performance, or capacity related but a difference in policy with IBM artifically slowing G5 evolution to presure Apple toward Cell knowing that this would give IBM virtual control of Apple’s software assets and direction.
So what are Apple’s choices? admit Intel was a mistake, release a G5 64bit Powerbook line (1.8Ghz, 13W), use the dual core 32bit G4 (8841D, 2.0Ghz, 14W) in the ibook/mini; re-invent MacOS X for Linux as a separate business aimed at generating higher quality and higher volume software, and ultimately move either to custom designed PPC or SPARC.
This gives them an opportunity to become wildly popular on x86 (the MacOS X desktop on Linux), kick MS in the teeth (Office on Linux), get their ivideo rental into production, and improve brand credibility first by fessing up to a mistake and then by offering a premium PPC mac line.
The performance issue seems to be quite clear from the real-world benchmarks, not the Apple marketting spin RDF benchmarks – a single core G5 is only slightly slower than an Intel Core Duo running at the same clock speed.
Benchmarks show that whilst the Intel iMac is generally 20-30% faster then the G5 iMac it gets out-paced by the PowerMac Dual G5 2.0GHz across the board. See, for example, http://veerle.duoh.com/
The implication is quite clear that if IBM or Freescale devoted the resources they could produce chips that cream the Intel Core Duo.
It’s a shame that IBM and/or Freescale didn’t deliver a low power high performance chip suitable for use in a laptop. Right now the Intel chip on the desktop makes only vague sense in the iMac – the Core Duo just doesn’t cut it for the higher-end.
Hey Nick — I surmise you may be young, and enjoying cracking on anyone who speaks a word of constructive criticism in Apple’s direction; however, remember that computers are inanimate objects created by man to serve man. A computer “platform” choice is NOT equal to choosing a spouse, or a religious affiliation. For the most part, computers are used to accomplish tasks, to entertain, or to educate.
Apple has, by far, the most sophisticated operating system on the market. The integration of hardware, applications, and their operating system has been, and will continue to be a huge benefit for most users. I personally have directed hundreds of people to purchase Apple products over the last 20+ years, and will do so in the future, for those to whom Apple makes sense: that is about 80% of computer users in my humble estimation.
Yet, Apple’s low market share has always been a hindrance to broad software support. Yes! The major players are Apple supporters – they have enough financial capitol enabling them to maintain an Apple presence, even with relatively low sales figures (in relation to the Windoz world.) The problem this presents is broad-based support for Apple, particularly in the vertical markets.
I happen to be one of those individuals who works in a market that has very little software support in the Apple community. The frustration for people like me is the fact that smaller software companies can not withstand the incessant changes at Apple: new processor architectures, Apple’s choice to not fully support legacy apps in their new offerings, and the endless POINT upgrades to the software that creates havoc for developers. Obviously, the very methodologies that keeps Apple on the cutting edge of innovation is the very method that leads to some software firms choosing the bland, monotonous Windoz world — a world that is boring, but consistently boring. For the small developer, boring is good. (I speak simplistically, but the point is made.)
I have not articulated this as fully or as well as I should, but I hope the point is made, and I am sure others understand the basic truths presented here. Again, Apple is is BEST at what they do! Apple computers have been in my family for about 23 years – some of my family will continue to use them. Yet, if a person’s SOFTWARE is not available, or crippled by your computer company’s software/hardware road map, then you have little choice but to be logical, and do what is necessary.
My situation is NOT an isolated case. I am aware of many other users battling the same issues. This is not good for Apple. Hey! Nick can write me off as needing to “go where I belong” but the bottom line is Apple should NOT BE HAPPY when long-timers like me are forced to jump ship.
For some time I have been concerned about the electromigration problems in the newer processors. Bob Pease, who writes a column for Electronic Design, wrote a column about these concerns a few years ago. I think that it is possible that the newer processors may become flaky after a few years of use. I also have not heard any comments recently about the use of ECC memory in the machines. Seymour (?) Cray did not even put parity checking in his 1960’s super computers. One bad bit could take a computer center down for a week! I have had endless trouble with flaky memory with problems not identified by the techtool diagnositics. The Apple Hardware Test is somewhat better, but it evidently will not catch all the memory problems. “Memtest” is supposed to catch problems not found by either TechTool or the Apple Hardware Test.
If Intel is getting their speed gains by using lower Voltage swings, this could also lead difficult to diagnose problems.
One person at Apple did admit to me that the lack of ECC memory could lead to problems. ECC memory only adds about 10% to the manufacturing cost and can save the user thousands in lost time.
Ok … here’s the though question … do I buy a G5 high-end tower now, or do I try to wait for an Intel Mac tower to be released?
Oh this is rich, now we find out that the Intel chips are more expensive than the PowerPC and only 25% faster. So much for a smart business move.
http://cestockblog.com/article/5966
More reports show it is only 25% faster
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2148912/intel-mac-fail-speed-test