After seeing that keynot i have totally accepted apples choice. Look at that pentium blasting away, with "only" 2 gig ram. Imagine that system as a dualcore dual cpu system...
And that spokesperson from intel sounded like he cared about the cooperation between the companies, unlike someone else cough,cough IBM cough.
And the Pentium M sounds really promising. I recon it was the right choice, as IBM didn't keep their promises. How long have it been since steve promised 3 ghz?
And as soon as microsoft contacted IBM they where able to get cpu's with mutible cores, thats a bit strange huh...
Well this is just my oppinion, so let's keep this discoussion relatively clean, and discuss the matter on a constructive level
Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/06 18:56
_________________________
- iMac g5 2ghz, 1.5gb ram. - eMac 1ghz (clocked at 1.27): 1gb RAM, Dual Layer Pioneer DVD +/- RW, 80 gb HD, 160 & 250 external Lacie FW HD´s. And modified cooling. - iMac 600 mhz - b&w in atx case, with sata drives :p - PowerMac g3 b/w - with atx psu - PowerBook G3 Wallstreet
Griffer, I hate to be the negative one here, but did you read my other post. Expect an article coming next week about the positives (?) and negatives of this change. After all what the hell else do I have to write about. -maestro Still puking...
i personally think this was a smart move.if apple uses a x86 based processor then any os they release will be compatible with ALL x86 based peecees,the result of this being that any and all windows users will have the choice of switching to apples os thus causing microsoft to get off of their asses and make something that works for a change or (keeping my fingers crossed) they will fall off the map.this will also open more possibilities for more portable devices like a pocket mac,also the mac steve jobs was using in the keynote was flying right along with no problems and when has a windows based intel system ever done that? Not to mention the price drop in apple computers we will see. In closing i think they did this for the same reason they released the ipod shuffle they want 100% of the market and with intel onboard they get themselves one step closer.
maestro: Sry didn't see it. Sounds good whith and article, to get a better overwiev of the consequenecs. btw. i understand your anger, i would probably be pissed too if i had bought an PM g5, only to see the cpu arkitecture being changed. I didn't think about that, as i was planning on upgrading my mac anyway, but i do see the problems it will cause.
dead13: Apple won't allow osx to run on any other computers than intel macs (better get used to that word). But they don't have any intentions of prefenting people of installing windows on their intel macs. That was whay they said anyway...
Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/07 05:16
Post edited by: griffer, at: 2005/06/07 05:22
_________________________
- iMac g5 2ghz, 1.5gb ram. - eMac 1ghz (clocked at 1.27): 1gb RAM, Dual Layer Pioneer DVD +/- RW, 80 gb HD, 160 & 250 external Lacie FW HD´s. And modified cooling. - iMac 600 mhz - b&w in atx case, with sata drives :p - PowerMac g3 b/w - with atx psu - PowerBook G3 Wallstreet
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
It appears that the new macs will be able to run windows (ie. it will use universal PC components) but Apple won't allow the Mac OS to run on anything but a mac. I expect it'll be hacked even before the GM is released. :evil:
Yes it is a big change to switch processors. But macs are still going to be macs, just no powerpc processors. All this means is that the brand/type of the processor within computers is quickly becoming obsolete.
I agree with the switch, to a point. I think Intel should simply buy the rights to produce PPC chips, and therefore keep hardware essensially the same. I feel they could exceed what IBM has taken the ppc 970 to. The main thing that got me, was that this has been in deveopment for 5 years.
_________________________
Mobile-2.2Ghtz Core 2 Macbook, 4GB ram, 160GB HDD Server-Dual 1.42 MDD G4, 1GB ram, 4 random hard drives. PC-C2D 2.4Ghtz, Asus Commando, 2Gb ram, 3 hdd's in raid 5, 8800GTS.
I have mixed feelings about this, I do wonder what it will do to mac sales during the "Transition" I was considering either an upgrade of my B+W or even building a G4, now I don't know...
If the Intel-Mac, software wise, is user transparent then it would not be a big change to most people, My ibook's g4 is made by Freescale and my G5 by IBM and I spend zero time thinking about that difference. Imagine how cool it would be if our macs had the kick ass OS X and could also run most windows apps too! It would rock! I am cautiously optomistic...
Previous Topic
Index
