Intel Macs To Ruin Apple

[fuji257]

Because PPC Rulez d00dz!!

Just kidding.

Seriously though. Mac users are used to certain things. Like buying a Mac and having it supported for a MUCH longer time than a PC.

The reason lots of Mac users can "get by" on a 1999 B&W is because the Mac upgrade cycle allows that. Even when you buy a new Mac, you keep or donate your "old" one, because you KNOW it's still valuable. How many people keep PC's that long?

Mac users will lay down cash for a Mac Mini which is beneath any mainstream PC spec wise. This works in Apple's favor too. The Apple engineers put lots of time and effort into producing machines that smoke beige PC boxes on many other levels besides raw processing power.

Now with Intel chips having a new update every 30 days your shiny new Macintel will seem much more outdated much more quickly. Apple will feel pressured into introducing new models faster to compete with other Intel based products. In turn, developers will jump to take advantage of the "latest and greatest" making new apps that won't fully function if even run at all on your new box. Also in turn, with the time between shiny new upgraded Macintels shorter than the current PPC based Macs, the Apple engineers will be pressured and start to slip. Further down the road the Macintels will LOOK AND FEEL more and more like regular PC's - - - and what is Mac, if not LOOK AND FEEL? Sure that's not all, but it's a big part of the Mac experience.

You want Intel in your Mac, that's fine. But you also get the headaches of a much faster development cycle such as buggy software, less design, more exploits, less resale value, and the list goes on.

Come January, I may be in the market for another Mac - but mine will likely sport a G5.

 

[Counterfit]

Congrats, you have added your 2¢ to the pot on what will happen to Apple with the switch to Intel. I think we're up to at least $500 so far.

 

[kgarner]

Congrats, you have added your 2¢ to the pot on what will happen to Apple with the switch to Intel. I think we're up to at least $500 so far.

My question is who gets teh pot when all is said and done? If no one has claimed it yet, I call dibs.

To the OP. Where do get this line of logic? Because Intel releases new processors more frequently than IBM or Motorola did Apple will will now be subjected to buggy software, low quality design, and exploits. Am I following you on that point.

First off, Apple will still control the rev cycle. Just because Intel says, "hey we just upgraded the processors you guys use from 3.4 to 3.6 GHz" does NOT mean that Apple will have to include them right away. Also, we still don't know what processor Apple will be using, so anything based on today's PC market may be fatally flawed if Apple uses something brand new.

Second, how in the heck do you figure that Intel releasing new processors will contribute to buggy software, bad design, and exploits? Let's look at buggy software first. Apple is still incharge of the software. And, as I said before, Apple is still in charge of the rev cycle. So OS X will be no buggier than it is today. That is at a level that I am more than comfortable with.

On to bad design. Seriously, how do you figure that putting and Intel processor is going to influence Jonathan Ives? Apple will still continue to design great looking and functional hardware regardless of what is inside. I just don't follow your logic that because Apple is using a standard PC processor, they must, for some reason, use a standard PC case.

I could go on here, but I think I said all that I need to say about this. Apple is still Apple. Regardless of the processor, they will continue to do things their way.

 

[KREX725]

My question is who gets teh pot when all is said and done? If no one has claimed it yet, I call dibs.

I think after taxes it will only be worth a couple of bucks, which you'll have to declare on your 1040 next year. That's why I try to keep my two cents to myself, where the IRS can't touch it!

 

[wattage]

Apple will feel pressured into introducing new models faster to compete with other Intel based products.

I really hope not...I think they are updating rather quickly as is. We all know it is impossible to have THE latest and most up-to-date technology for more than 6 months, but every 3 months is just tiring.

If this becomes the norm I will simply buy what I need when I need it and stop trying to keep up....ya know.

BTW, that last line is really what we should do anyway, unless money is no object or you have no other interests. MHO.

 

[SummerBreeze]

I honestly don't think that intel macs are going to ruin Apple. After all, if PPC's were perfect, Apple wouldn't think twice about using intel.

I don't think Apple will just use the same thing that is put in the latest PC's, I'm sure there will be a bit of customization in the products that intel makes for Apple.

I also don't get the logic that says that we don't want to put the faster processors in our machines. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

Dude Apple would DIE with the PPC platform. This thing should be called PowerPC to Ruin Apple.

Nothin' to see here, folks - move on.

 

[RobHague]

This is my worry, and the thing that attracted me to the Mac in the first place (along with OSX). I felt it was a platform that offered much more support for older systems, you bought something and it had a good working life so to speak.. As ive read people are using G4 600Mhz systems and such still.

The thing that has bothered me has been when people (and apple?) have said that it does not matter what CPU is in a Mac, OSX is the 'soul', as well as the systems style/function. That people will be sort of oblivious to what CPU is in their macs... so switching to Intel does not matter Image wise.

Well if it does not matter what CPU is in their macs, why are they chasing more CPU power? I mean no one buys Apple systems to be on the bleeding edge of technology (unless its the highest end of course - and i think the Quad does that very well) and the G4/G5 are not 'slow' processors. Freescale have some better G4's yeah and im sure Apple can hold out with their lineups until IBM have something better to offer.. after all no one cares which CPU is in the Mac so why would a consumer go "OMFG SLOW G4!!" if they arent going to go "OMFG INTEL INSIDE" when comparing systems? Hmmmm i reckon that 70% of this choice to move Intel is money driven, that is, the CPU's are going to be cheaper so Apple's profit go up, sorry.

 

[EGT]

wow

Déjà vu (God, I love the option key)

 

[Sun Baked]

Congrats, you have added your 2¢ to the pot on what will happen to Apple with the switch to Intel. I think we're up to at least $500 so far.

With the devaluation of the US dollars lately, that $500US is probably $10 canadian or 1 peso.

 

[Meyvn]

Of course it's a money driven decision. If Apple WASN'T making money driven decisions, they would be fools, and I wouldn't have any interest in their products. They switched to Intel because neither IBM nor Freescale could deliver a solid laptop processor. If they thought they could "hold out" for a little while longer and survive, they would have. Their decision is based on a motive to make money, but they choose to go about that by means of quality. They always have, and if they want to stick around, they always will. Intel's 90 nm processors were close to disaster. The Pentium 4 is a piece of junk with overrated clock speeds that doesn't produce like it should. But their roadmap completely separates them from such issues. They are moving more and more towards lower power consumption processors. Let's see, who do we know that likes to put low power consumption processors in their systems? Oh, that's right, Apple Computer. Apple made a decision based on the FUTURE of their company, not the past. If you want to continue using PowerPC based Macs until the end of time, you may do so. If you hate progress, if you hate it when processors are upgraded every three months, then by all means, just go ahead and sit still, but leave the rest of us out of it. If you value having the "latest and greatest" more than overall technological process, if you only want them to upgrade processors when YOU feel you can afford to buy a new system, then you should probably just move to a third world country, and take your outdated computers with you, because progress will not stop for you and your techno-envy.

 

[Superdrive]

So how will an Intel chip make my Mac not last as long? Don't see the logic here .

 

[topher]

Miniscule Upgrades

I think the point about changing the release cycles is pretty well made, and takes us back to another of the potentially difficult aspects of this transition (for Apple Marketing).

Maybe Apple won't feel like they have to release an upgraded machine to take advantage of Intel's newest offerings, and will try, in that sense, to control the release cycle...but consumers will now have the ability to make a processor-to-processor comparison of a competing machine. And a slow release cycle is going to put Apple behind in that race...

So Apple Marketing will have to present to the consumer a series of intangibles that outweighs the fact that their processor isn't as fast. Previously, the power pc architecture was the only intangible that they needed, because it was different enough that people could resign themselves to "it works fast enough, and I like it."

Maybe people will still be able to take that attitude, but in the brave new world of competition against commodity boxes, lapses of a few hundred Mhz won't be tolerated (IMHO) as well as they were before, and will contribute to a faster release cycle and more miniscule upgrades.

 

[Lacero]

I don't care what's really under the hood. My mac could be powered by running hamsters for all I care, as long as I have OSX and my apps to play with, I'm happy.

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

I don't care what's really under the hood. My mac could be powered by running hamsters for all I care, as long as I have OSX and my apps to play with, I'm happy.

Alleluia.

 

[jadekitty24]

I don't care what's really under the hood. My mac could be powered by running hamsters for all I care, as long as I have OSX and my apps to play with, I'm happy.

Agreed. 'Nuff said.

 

[AJ Muni]

Dude Apple would DIE with the PPC platform. This thing should be called PowerPC to Ruin Apple.

Nothin' to see here, folks - move on.

i totally agree with u stew...what a stupid thread

 

[James Philp]

What makes you think that a short upgrade cycle of the microprocessor will change the upgrade cycle of the Mac?

Is there any evidence for your post?

As someone has said before, it is actually the PowerPC that would kill apple if the stuck with it - they are becoming less and less competitive in the personal computer CPU market.

DO you think that simply by adopting new CPU hardware, the ethos of Apple engineering would be forced to change? This is following a 20 year old history of supporting older hardware as much as possible.

As long as Apple know exactly what hardware goes into the Macintels they can continue to support older models - this has been the whole reason why Apple have been able to deliver such a integrated and obsolete-resistant computing experience.
Being able to control the exact hardware that software will run on (to a certain extent anyhow) allows you to create software that will be more universally supported - and supported by older machines.

To the o/p- do you really think Apple will stop controlling the hardware that goes into the Macs? And do you also think that Apple would go back on a 20-year record of diligence when it comes to support for old models?

 

[reberto]

Dude Apple would DIE with the PPC platform. This thing should be called PowerPC to Ruin Apple.

Nothin' to see here, folks - move on.

No lets think logically here. Here are good things about moving to Intel.

1. Cheeper macs
2. Faster macs
3. We can use Windows! Wait...
4. Better PC support

Here are bad things

1. We lose ALL classic support
2. Any old mac apps, run at G3 speed
3. We lose the whole "Think Different" thing. WE WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT!
4. Windows capable
5. Hackers
6. Viruses
7. Maybe we will move to cheep, plastic cases.

 

[Xephian]

No lets think logically here. Here are good things about moving to Intel.

1. Cheeper macs
2. Faster macs
3. We can use Windows! Wait...
4. Better PC support

Here are bad things

1. We lose ALL classic support
2. Any old mac apps, run at G3 speed
3. We lose the whole "Think Different" thing. WE WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT!
4. Windows capable
5. Hackers
6. Viruses
7. Maybe we will move to cheep, plastic cases.

Using Windows in a dual boot is one of my favorite things about the Intel switch.

 

[Nuc]

I second that!

Using Windows in a dual boot is one of my favorite things about the Intel switch.

I like this to. Now I can run stuff that engineers use

Nuc

 

[generik]

Erm.. the only reason why Apple users hold on to their machines for half as long as they do is solely because at this kind of rip off prices nobody is going to be able to afford being able to upgrade at the same rate as PC users.

On average I can keep a PC up to speed every year for about $300-400. Can you do it with a mac? No.. you have to throw the whole sucker away, and shell out another $2000 to buy a newer model.

Consumer choice counts.

 

[Meyvn]

No lets think logically here. Here are good things about moving to Intel.

1. Cheeper macs
2. Faster macs
3. We can use Windows! Wait...
4. Better PC support

Here are bad things

1. We lose ALL classic support
2. Any old mac apps, run at G3 speed
3. We lose the whole "Think Different" thing. WE WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT!
4. Windows capable
5. Hackers
6. Viruses
7. Maybe we will move to cheep, plastic cases.

'Cheap' is not a hard word to spell.

1. Very true.
2. Somewhat true; some third party software will be slow to convert to Intel-usable, but the big, important ones will probably be pretty quick.
3. Um, no? What about that whole, different OS, completely different design thing?
4. This is a plus, not a negative. Bad things can COME ABOUT from it, because people could write a virus for Windows on the Dual Boot systems that would erase OS X, but this could be easily fixed by simply turning off the OS X system drive while using Windows.
5. What? x86 isn't the reason Windows boxes get hacked. Windows itself is.
6. Same thing again. The only way viruses will become prevalent on Macs is if its market share grows.
7. There is absolutely NO basis for this statement whatsoever. In fact, you seem to have failed to notice that Apple's entire consumer line has plastic cases. Only its pro line is anodized aluminum. Another thing you failed to notice is that most nice PC cases are made out of metal and glass.

You call that "thinking logically"? Give me a break.

 

[zap2]

The only way viruses will become prevalent on Macs is if its market share grows.


You call that "thinking logically"? Give me a break.

Not true, it likly but i doubt it will happen to were its as bad as XP is and it will take a long time

 

[revisionA]

Whatever the future, Apple is still feeling a decade more advanced than windows to me.

And improving the foundation that rests upon is what I am hoping for.

#$#