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 $19.
From: Nick
Maybe you should go buy yourself a nice new
Alienware laptop with an Athlon64 FX60 in it.
It comes in a tough plastic case that’s about
two inches thick and has outrageous
performance.
No thanks. Don’t need one. But it was designed by engineers with ruggedness in mind.
Meanwhile I’ll be enjoying my nice new 1″
thick MacBook Pro, with several times your
battery life and one third your weight.
I’m enjoying my 28mm thick 17″ PowerBook.
From: foljs
Mayer: In my previous job, I ran IBM’s
semiconductor business. So I’ve seen both
sides of the Apple story, because I sold the
G5 to Steve (Jobs) the first time he wanted to
move to Intel.
Q: Five years ago?
Mayer: Yeah, that’s about right. So I sold the
G5. First I told IBM that we needed to do it,
and then I sold it to Apple that the G5 was
good and it was going to be the follow-on of
the PowerPC road map for the desktop. It
worked pretty well. And then IBM decided not
to take the G5 into the laptop and decided to
really focus its chip business on the game
consoles.
Like I said before, Jobs has been planninng the Intel move for years.
And one big reason IBM focused on game consoles is the customers [Micro$oft, Sony etc] put up a few billion $ for development.
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!
So? I use one myself. It’s got a nice dent in the top shell from a 6″ drop onto the seat holddown rail on a 757 [turbulence at a bad time caused the drop]. Cost $600 to replace the electroluminescent panel after the drop too.
A long-time friend is a top exec at NBC News Chicago. Their field crews use PowerBooks for on-site editing. The only complaint they have is lack of durabilituy. Too easy to dent.
Ha, you’re killing me. Suddenly every spotty
teenager can talk business decisions, and has
deep insights at what a company decides.
After spending 30+ years working with uPs & reaping a fortune in the software business & investments, I’m hardly a spotty teenager. I and several others I know have been long-time observers, at varying distances, of SJobs. Apple is Jobs – it’s that simple.
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!
According to the business press & other sources, Jobs wasn’t on the phone with IBM & Freescale, & Jobs wouldn’t return their calls.
Yes, a dual core PPC there was. But one chip
does not THE FUTURE make. The magic word is
ROADMAP.
Like the P.A. Micro roadmap for low power G5 chips, maybe? If Apple was interested in the PPC, they’d have known that a line of lp G5s is on the way.
Intel had a roadmap: it had to, this is its
core business.
Not long ago Intel’s roadmap said Itanium would be its only 64-bit chip. In the late ’70s the x86 roadmap stopped at the 8086/88. The future was the i960 and 432 Ada chip.
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.
Apple’s half-arsed commitment to PPC is one reason IBM/Freescale weren’t willing to risk a lot just to meet Apple’s wants.
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.
In the first place, much of the PPC’s design was determined by Apple’s need to emmulate 68k. Apple was originally a partner in the design. Buying components on the cheap is what ruined Compaq. And Micro$oft, Sony et al seem to think it makes sense to invest in IBM’s technology. Apple owns a bunch of the PPC patents. They’d be investing in their own technology with their putative partners.
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,
IBM’s 13-15 watt G-5s could’ve been in PowerBooks by now. And the cost to “keep G5 afloat” would be minimal, less agravating to small SW developers.
You can argue that they are not a good move
from a philosophical standpoint.
Not a good move to go back to mutant 8085 technology from 1975.
But not from a BUSINESS/PRICE standpoint.
SJ treated IBM/Freescale execs like peons. He didn’t “negotiate” with equals – he made demands of “inferiors”. That is hardly good business practice.
WTF do you think?
That the biggest reason for the switch was Jobs re-claiming the Mac as “his” computer.
That you, a spotty teenager or simply Mac
Daily News poster,
I designed a uP based burglar alarm controller in 1974, was an early invester in Broderbund Software, and have published articles &c in Nibble, Microcomputing, Computer Shopper, MacTech, Dr Dobbs. I was on the “Ask Byte” column staff 1985-9 and at Circuit Cellar Ink for 10 years after that. I’ve designed-implemented-programmed everything from the control section of a gate & barrier system used in fish hatcheries [several dozen at last count] to volcano monitoring packages. I’m currently working on articles for MaacTech and Dr Dobbs.
What’s your pedigree? Are you just somebody who likes to call other people names like “spotty teenager”.
and Apple’s board DOES NOT?
I don’t think so!
Apple’s board is packed with people who think Jobs is the second coming.
The point is simply that Jobs’ past record on hardware decisions is not encouraging. The original Mac over-heated, had a dinky 400k floppy for storage. The Mac Cube overheated, esp the VRM.
“… 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?”
I wouldn’t count on Intel towers being made. Jobs doesn’t like open architecture.
Buy now.
Billy Bob
get a life…what software can’t you get on a Mac???
Wow, There are so many conspiracy theories on here that it’s just like watching some old episodes of the X-files. Does that make Steve the old guy that is always smoking? Anyway…
We can analyze this whole shift to intel from a technological standpoint but remember that Apple is a business and needs to be thought of in that way. Why did they shift to intel? Simple. The Powerbook. Overall a significant amount of macs sold are their notebook computers. They tried and tried to get the G5 in it and couldn’t do it. The engineers are sitting there trying to shoe horn a G5 in there while the other PC makers are getting ready for the next generation from intel. For the average computer user, not apple fanboy… why would someone buy a powerbook when they can buy a Sony that is 4 to 5 times as powerful for the same price? It’s simple economics. Steve saw the writing on the wall and wanted to jump ship before it got ugly. Now we have the macbook which will be running right along with the rest of the PC world. The G4 would have been the caboose on that train. I love Apple and my mac but when I look for a new notebook this fall it would have been hard to overlook the fact that the powerbooks would have been significatnly slower than their PC brothers.
So, as we put up many new theories remember that sometimes the simplest answer is often the truth. However, some of these theories are quite entertaining so keep them coming. Now I can’t wait for the theories of the latest Disney/Pixar deal. I will start… Steve wants to sell Pixar to Disney so he can use a mac to bring Walt back to life. Let the fun begin.
War,
I don’t buy it, why would they be developing an Intel version all the way back to the first release of OS X in parallel if it were just the power issues in the G5. Remember the secret double life of OS X? This has been in the plans for years.
“I wouldn’t count on Intel towers being made. Jobs doesn’t like open architecture.
Buy now.”
You mean you don’t anticipate Apple replacing it’s High-Performance Pro-user G5-towers with an Intel version?????
More supporting evidence that the Intel move was a bad one.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/01/23/intel_macs_25pc_faster/
>>
“I wouldn’t count on Intel towers being made. Jobs doesn’t like open architecture.
Buy now.”
You mean you don’t anticipate Apple replacing it’s High-Performance Pro-user G5-towers with an Intel version?????
<<
Yup. I think there won’t be any Intel towers. IMO the current 2ghz & 2.3ghz dual cores & the quad are the last towers.
For hi-end graphics SJobs’ll sell ya a 6-pack of closed-box factory config’d Intel servers.
“I think there won’t be any Intel towers. IMO the current 2ghz & 2.3ghz dual cores & the quad are the last towers.
For hi-end graphics SJobs’ll sell ya a 6-pack of closed-box factory config’d Intel servers.”
We’ll see, won’t we?
wow.. get over it.. apple sucks, and its going to continue to suck forever no matter what they do with their stupid cpu’s
Ive found the majority of the comments on this topic an intresting read. The majority of them are emontionaly based will little core fact. I have to say F.C.Kuechmann seems to know what he’s talking about. Im in the UK, happy at home with a 17″ iMac G5 with the new i sight. The new products from apple are intresting. Sure, naturaly the big american ‘show show’ pr has tired to mask over the hiked prices and the 15 and a bit” screen size of the new Macbook Pro; however, we should be optimistic. The bum-loving-steve-jobs-is-a-god people should stop whining about the move to intel. I admit, i was unaware of the Stev’s treatment to IBM but still. He must have moved for a better reason. Excusing the unfairsteryotiping however he IS a big CEO of an internationaly aclaime AMERICAN company. So any move he makes will be for money (and yes ego).
My only grip about the core duo chips from intel is that “G5” had a better ring to it. Ive only had 1 mac, for a few months. Im perfectly happy. The OS is what matters and its much better than Microsoft. A person above did say apple should open peoples eyes to their computer market. However theyve become obsessed with their new play toy the ‘ipod’. Personaly i dont like them. there the ford focus of the music industry. Apple made computers, thats what there good at, they should stick to it. My sony NWHD1 (a relativley old model) is still head and shoulders above the new ipods in sound quality. Sure, no videos… but who the hell is stupid enough to sit staring at a tiny screen watching an movie? (P.S. those that do… see a doctor or kill yourself to save the human race)… Back to the point. Intel vs Power PC….
Intel have had the links to microsoft first, that does not make them diseased like a leper. The apple add for the new intel chip was right. “Imagin the possibilities?”. If intel are as scatty in their plans as it appears, i dont believe that to be a problem. As long as the progress clearly, not advance and fix (like Microsoft). Progression is better. I will miss the “G5″ name.. it sounds nicer, it has better command over computer than Core Duo… that sounds floppy. And in a world of marketing for the common 2brain celled cave man… (yes, including mac users im sad to say) they dont like Core Duo… Mac OSX is still head and shoulders above microsoft’s Vista… which seems to nick quite a few ideas from mac (that is the danger). If microsoft begin to make their UI like mac… people wont buy mac. because they will say…”Vista look like mac… mac me not know… microsoft i do… i get vista”
Simple ‘ug’ logic. So be happy about intel. but we really should start worrying about how microsoft is trying to steal Mac’s thunder. (TBH, like Hitler, he lost cos he went into russia. Mac could fall due them being engrossed in ipods.) FOCUS MACHINTOSH! FOCUS on making greate computers! use Intel to your advantage… make sure they dont sell the chip they gave you to Microsoft otherwise your on the slippery slope. If PPC was having it rough… you switched to Intel…now your just ahead…. good luck! (The race has yet to begin)
Oh… I do like macs… not obsesed… but they truly are superior over XP… Linux is for the clever people and wise industry… Mac is for the Professional and home user… XP should have no place in this universe.
Interesting take.
Ultimately, we are talking about an emotional issue, not a technical one.
There will always be a segment of the population that doesn’t want to be the quaterback or the prom queen. Wintel has always been the evil to the Mac good, and having Mac go to Intel is kind of selling out the spirit of the Mac. I had a perfectly good top of the line G5 iMac, and just replaced it with the same configuration box only with “Intel Inside”. I have some apps that don’t and will never run on the Mac, so I hope for the time when I can also boot into windows so that I can run those programs and get rid of (some) of my PC’s.
I liked the fact that the Mac was “Different”, but it still is. Other than some teething problems expected from any new technology switch, its still a Mac. I can honestly say that I did care, but I can’t tell any difference other than the much faster speed in many areas (mine boots up in 22 sec from ding to desktop, considerably faster than my 2.0 G5). Over time as more apps are recompiled, or better yet, rewritten to run dual core and use the intel tricks things will only get faster. All in all, it was an interesting choice to change, but probably is a better long term solution if my experience working with IBM is any measure of the apple IBM deal.
I’m with the, “dang, I wish IBM would have tried.” camp. But the reality is they weren’t. This article clearly shows they chose a path in Feb, 2005, and was pretty much telling Apple to throttle down the clock, or make a fatter powerbook to get a G5.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-5559311.html
I wish IBM had chosen different, I like the fuzzy comparisons Mac gets to use when running comparisons to Intel. Now, there’s no excuse for weaker performance, shorter battery lifetimes, etc… Plus, the availibility of chips will become an issue. Steve lucked out this time, but Dell and the others will not let that happen again.
BC
It’ll all work out.
Yeah, let’s go back to SCSI drives, and ADB and ADC. The days when only an Apple branded printer, an Apple branded keyboard and mouse, and only Apple branded monitors were usable. When IBM was Big Brother and the enemy of the day, Gates was just a bespectacled pimply kid. When Tandy, and Atari, Commodore, and Osborne, to name a few were still around. When SJ had hair on his head but not his face. But then…what’s the point?
At one time everything was different between the two platforms, now the only difference is the OS and the industrial design of the boxes, and yet in some ways the difference is greater than ever. 100,000 viruses attacking Windows, zero for OS X. That’s the difference that matters to me! What CPU is inside is irrelevant, whether the HD is SCSI or SATA, ditto. I would rather have USB than serial anyday. As long as Apple continues to create great hardware, great software, and a great virus free Operating System they get my business.
But then again, there is no alternative…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Well, it seems the big risk mentioned in the article has come true. Mac OS X 10.4.4. has been hacked to run on stock Intel PCs. Apple’s only defense is a “Don’t Steal Mac OS” poem. Wow, once again so much for business savvy. Went from pretty much locking the OS to hardware to anyone being able to run it on commodity pc hardware.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/16/financial/f171701S77.DTL&type=tech
As a very longterm Mac user I have to express my dismay about this Intel switch. It does feel wrong to be working with Intel. It makes a Mac just like any other common PC. No more processor advantages like before where at times PPC would kick x86 butt.
However laptop sales are Apple’s largest seller and they just couldn’t go without if IBM couldn’t deliever.
I’m glad I got the dual 2 Ghz processor PowerMac G5, with a decent video card, it’s seperate 1 Ghz buses and memory controllers, 6GB of RAM, it was a worthwhile investment and it blows the doors off the Core Duo in these new iMactels.
Where a iMac G5 got 50, a iMactel got 60 in X-Bench scores, I get 100.
If i need a bit more performance all I do is add more RAM and a faster video card. Even a RAID O pair of 74Gb Raptors (don’t use the 150GB RaptorX unless you have a Quad)
No need to buy a whole new machine, I can run the latest 3D games well as they are video card dependant.
So the better value of course is a PowerMac.
My machine is over 2 years old and still is faster than a new Core Duo, so it definatly has at least 3 more years of life to it.
Seems Woz is is on board with this assessment too.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29887
And now because Apple can’t control things enough they are closing the open source of OS X.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=13946&Page=1&pagePos=2
Ohh, waaahhhh waaaaaaahhh.
Why don’t you fucking cry about the fact that Mac computers are 4x faster than it was before.
Are you pissed off because you bought the lastest-generation Powerbook thinking that the faster, Intel-versions were coming later? Is your return period up?
MacDailyNews, stop publishing this nonsense. This is quite possibly the most idiotic, fanboy read I have ever run into.
Intel BLOWS, crappiest CPU ever built
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/21/microchips_get_smaller/
Jimbob has explained it quite well. To all you people complaining about the Intel switch, I can understand you concerns, but come on please. Work out your differences, and lets all unite and work together. Progression IS better, and I beleive this one is a natural progression with long term vision in mind. Lets be happy with Intel as this was a bold move, and I commend Apple for going for it.
I have been using computers since I was a young child and have had the priveledge of using and owning many computer systems to this day — Apple II, Commodore 64, Mac Classic, Power Mac 6100, 486PC, P1, P2, P3, P4… Xeons, Eons, and Peeons!… Now with the Intel transition, I will will soon complete my full journey back to my beloved Mac for both my mobile work and lifestyle needs.
I use computers every day at work supporting Servers, DB/IM Admin work, as well as other advanced user support. I am convinced that the world will be a better place once people continue to see the possibilities of a Mac. As Jimbob put it, the race has yet to begin, and the retail and entertainment market is huge!
It is nice to see many long time PC users finally seeing the light. Good work Apple… and Intel. Keep pushing for the top and thinking different!
Hi
im doing a research about comparing two microprocessors
i.The Motorola MC68HC812A4
ii.The Intel Core Duo processor
and i should include an evaluation of the suitability of these processors for two applications:
i.Central control in a burglar alarm system
ii.Running games software
…………………………….
im ready to pay $100 for anyone who could help me with this
cheers
bye
>> I’m doing a research about comparing two microprocessors
i.The Motorola MC68HC812A4 <<
I’ll bite.
MC68HC812A4 is essentially a 16-bit variant of the MC68HC11 [8-bit] family. It’s strictly a relatively low speed embedded controller.
>>ii.The Intel Core Duo processor <<
32-bit x86 family general purpose uP.
>>and i should include an evaluation of the suitability of these processors for two applications:
i.Central control in a burglar alarm system<<
Ideal for the HC812, not suitable for core duo.
>> ii.Running games software <<
Not suitable for HC812 unless you like s-l-o-w games, but good use for core duo.
…………………………….
>>im ready to pay $100 for anyone who could help me with this <<
Don’t want to do your own homework, eh?