Discussion in 'Mac' started by cowofwar, Jun 4, 2005.
@lurk and cow
Either way, Apple is a hypocritical bastard.
They're a company. They don't give two shits about anyone except their bottom line. If they need to spin or lie they will, whatever sells product.
That fact does not necessitate hypocrisy. It is very possible to gain the respect of your customers and run a successful business without lying.
This is true, but unlike most companies Apple has a tremendous amount of loyalists that kept it afloat in the 90s. In the past they have recognized this fact and acted accordingly. Maybe the iPod/iTunes fad has given the company enough financial confidence to attempt to branch away from this "group", but regardless I doubt these same loyalists will buy the explainations for the Intel switch as easily or as wholeheartedly as things they previously did.
The biggest problem I see in switching to Intel is the competition they are now in league with. Using a completely unique architecture gave them a certain leverage to market their hardware products as a better, more efficient alternative to the "big, clunky Intel chips." Now that they are switching to the "big, clunky Intel chips" they have essentially made they're hardware irrelevant. Buying an Apple will be solely to run OS X, no other reason. They might as well go the way of Microsoft and Sega and get out of the hardware market at this point.
I agree, they really have killed they're sales for the next two years, in my opinion (I could be wrong). But knowing Apple's penchant for forcing people to upgrade, there is absolutely no point in buying a PPC Mac tomorrow, if you're going to be forced to buy an Intel Mac in a year, or two years because 10.5 won't run on PPC (10 bucks says it won't).
Also, is Apple going to allow complete freedom of upgrading, like the Windows market now? Why should I spend $3000 on an Intel Mac just to run 10.5, and be stuck in that static platform when I have complete freedom to build and upgrade a PC running pefectly fine Windows, hence never having to shell out thousands of dollars at a time to get better hardware?
I think I'm done with Apple now. The switch to Intel leaves me with no real option buy to switch platforms. My computer is old as hell anyway, I'm lagging behind in terms of the software I'm currently using. So to buy a new computer would mean buying all new software anyway. OS X, really isn't worth it at this point, not really. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe 10.5 will totally blow away whatever Microsoft is going to have out in 2007, but I just don't know if that true.
Besides, my wife hates my Mac and hates OS X with a passion. I'm sure my decision will allow me freedom to get whatever I want in my new computer.
I'm watching the keynote right now on the developer website. Steve is talking about exactly what I expected - not the P4, but Intel's next chip generation. He can't be talking about the P4, because he's citing something he calls "performance per watt". According to an Apple graph, future PPC processors are offering about a quarter of the same performance to power consumption as Intel's upcoming chips. To me this can only mean a new architecture. Apple's negotiations paid off.
I think the "PowerPC" loyalists realize that they're still "Apple" loyalists when they hear about benchmarks of new Apples outperforming G5's by significant margins.
But it really wouldn't matter unless A, Apple will allow for greater upgradability of their PowerMacs, B, you're an OS X loyalist, C, Intel sells the chips only to Apple, which it ISN'T going to do, or D, you're completely worried about viruses invading your computer from everywhere. I do have to admit, not having the same level of vulnerability as Windows users is a bit of a bonus. Maybe I'll become like Jake and buy a Mac laptop just to mess around with it, but I don't really see the point anymore in spending the premium dollars on an Apple once it makes the shift (unless the prices drop WAY down, or Apple will let me incrementally upgrade EVERY part of my computer). That's just the way I see it.
From what I can tell it looks like if you buy a mac from apple you could double boot os x and windows while if you buy a regular pc you could only run windows.
If that were the case, there would definetly be an advantage to buying Apple. But we'll have to wait and see. This isn't going to happen for what, another year for the cheaper models and 2 for the PowerMacs? So, it's a question of what happens with the rest of the bits and pieces. I'm waffling as I think about it. I'm not going to completely rule out Apple's systems before they're available.
I think that's laying it on a bit thick, but you're not the only one with that sentiment, I guess. Perhaps I'm not representative of most Mac users, but really I'm not sure why I should be offended by this move, because...
Exactly. Same as it is now. You guys are really buying Macs for the processor? The only reason to be concerned right now is if you're a graphics artist and you're mourning the death of Velocity Engine. And even then, you're probably going to stick with Mac because that's what you're used to.
I'll take that bet. When has Apple ever "forced" anyone to upgrade? If anything, Macs have demonstrated a far longer useful life than PCs by having much better backwards compatibility as the OS evolves. Apple's history suggests that they will support both architectures for the immediate future, just as they did with OS 9. And I've been able to upgrade my old G4 tower bit by bit, a new graphics card here, a processor upgrade there, and have been quite happy with the results. True, a tad more expensive than doing so on the PC side, but that's always been the case.
Like I posted [post=127736]here?[/post]
I really hope this will mean easy processor upgrades for these future systems.
You are arguing practicalities. I am arguing principles. Our arguments do not directly engage eachother.
Therefore invalid debate.
It's not a debate, it's a discussion. Please, feel free to disagree with me and directly engage my "arguments." In fact I value your opinion as someone who's had much more in depth experience with both sides, especially since I'm now in a bit of a quandary as to whether to buy a new G5 tower this summer, as I had been planning.
You're right, we're talking about two different things, but I guess my point was that I don't think most Mac users will care that Apple has spent years trying to dissuade people from buying P4 machines, as any competitor would, and are now embracing Intel. Nor do I consider it hypocritical. It's business. Things like this happen all the time.
But, I could be wrong, we Mac users tend to be a strange breed.
Here's a good read:
There was a pretty big write-up about this at work today. Everyone here is giving me crap about being an Apple fan. It seems they think now that Apple is using Intel chips I should be outraged and run through the cubes lopping off people's heads. I don't need Apple as a reason to do that....
On a different note our new stuff <top secret> is really cool. It'll do the Apple platforms justice.
Doesn't seem too complicated to me.
Well, they're planning on making the switch in 2007, so even if you bought a G5 in a few months, you'l probably want to upgrade in 2, 3 years anyway. I don't think it's a horrible investment at this point.
I don't want to read all of it but isn't it like the old applications back in the day where it looked like a single package but was actually an old 68k version and ppc version resedited into the same program which was actually a folder? Just like os x's .apps.
Doesn't seem like a big deal to me as far as the end user should be concerned. I assume making your application compile to run on the pentium 4 is going to be non-trivial but I'm not a programmer.
Even if some applications run at 1/4 the speed due to emulation most applications aren't very dependant on speed. I'm sure the major applications (most of which apple makes anyways) that most people use will be ported promptly.
I wonder if apple will want to participate in the wine project now that they're going to be running on a x86 CPU. That'd be nice to be able to play all the PC games. It might make it so game devolopers wouldn't be motivated to make anything mac native tho. Also it'd help out linux users since it's GPL'd.
What I want to know is if making a binary compatible with both the ppc and x86 forms is so easy why did they announce it a year in advance? Couldn't they have just talked to the big companies with an NDA about it and then announced it like a month before they changed over? That would have reduced the major loss of sales that they're going to encounter.
Separate names with a comma.