Intel Macs To Ruin Apple

[840quadra]

Not really? How much can it be?

Complete overhaul of my workstation, dual processor mainboard $450, 2 x Opterons 240s, $100+ each, 4GB of ECC ram.. that depends, but contrast it with a PM which comes with a princely 512MB of NON-ECC ram (I should add) it is a moot point.

Superior price for inferior parts.

Nevemind that these are newegg prices for generic parts. The only point I agree with as far as inferior parts is in regards to ECC memory, I wish apple used this, but they don't.

Part of the problem with apples price point is the fact that they are unique, one off, and do their own R&D. Something we all know, and we (well most of us) don't mind paying for. I don't see this changing because of intel, as apple will still most liekly make their own ASICs and other components to make Intel work well with the Macintosh program.

No other company makes the whole Widget like Apple (Meaning they make the computer, Operating system, and most of the software used on said system), unless you look at Sun. But in the case of Sun they are not a home or workstation manufacturer per sey.

Couple with the fact how Apple always solder CPUs directly onto the mainboard, wow, how draconian can you get?

If you were in the same room as me I would throw my dead (dropped it on the floor once) Quicksilver processor at you. If you are talking powerbook / Ibook, yes the processors are soldered, but most Powermac comptuers don't have that as the case.

BTW this is a G5 Processor removed from a system. It is NOT soldered to the mainboard. A few people have even been sucsessfull in doing swaps of processors from faster G5's, however Apple dosen't make it easy.

http://www.warbirds-pilots.com/offi/g5/Resources/bild6.jpeg

Your Pismo lasted 6 years... so what? I presume you aren't keeping up in terms of software aren't you. So you are still using 1999 version's of Office.. and Photoshop.. and other bits of software that you have.

Of course the fact remains that your ancient hulks are painfully slow to do even the most basic of tasks.

In your opinion. I have used one of these "Painfully slow" systems, and compared to some more modern Intel AMD systems, they do just fine for many basic tasks. Not everyone does complex processor intensive tasks, nor processes that require much memory.

Don't tell me about how you run Tiger on your Pismo. I am currently running Tiger on my 1.67Ghz PB, face it, it is slow. I don't get the same lightning quick response I get in Windows.

Yes yes, we know your 1.67 is slow, has lines, and has killed your first born child. Don't ever stop someone from calling you a Chronic complainer. I would seriously just sell it and move on at this point.

Resale value is very very subjective. Consider Apple is going the way of the Dell in terms of quality nowadays, and with the Intel switchover accelerating release cycles, I strongly urge you to dump every single piece of PPC gear on ebay. They will end up no different from PCs.

The quality is no worse now then it has been in the past. Apple (like Dell, Sony and others) have a bad series of products every so often. But I guess you wouldn't know that unless you had been in the market for apple products for years now.

The reason that Apple hardware has such high resale value is because of the ability for older hardware to stand up to current offerings to a point, and the fact that the products are desirable for many in the current market. The other point to this is the fact that Apple still has such low market share. There aren't as many used iBooks or Powerbooks floating around like Dell Latitudes, and Inspirons.

 

[bigandy]

wow, people got out of bed on the wrong side today.....

 

[jefhatfield]

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.

those are great points and i hope you are right

for a whole host of reasons, apple could get into releasing too many upgrades too fast and run into quality problems...remember the early 90s when it was "mac of the month" and there were many bugs here and there?

i believe apple will stay with a small, yet reliable product line aimed at keeping mac users happy and not aimed at trying to capture every type of user ala dell of compaq/hp with their dozens of computer models

when apple got back in the headlines with the blueberry imac and the ibook, i got so excited i wanted apple to go head on against dell and hp/compaq and have widescreen ibooks, 10"-16" screen ibooks and powerbooks, multimedia desktops, stripped down desktops, gaming machines, servers including all sizes of rackmounts, mini laptops like the toshiba libretto under 2 lbs. with an 8" inch screen, waterproof laptops like the panasonic toughbook, cellphones, pda lines, joysticks, printers, scanners, etc.

i thought that somehow apple would have been able to approach the size and sales of dell but in retrospect i am glad apple kept small and high quality

 

[link92]

I doubt they'll move from their normal 6 month cycle...

 

[pubwvj]

Time for Classic to be let to die. I don't think that the people who rely on Classic need the latest machines. They can just keep their old ones to run the Classic programs.

I'm not worried about the near term, say 10 to 15 years, when getting older PPC machines (e.g., circ. 2005) will be easy. I'm considering the long term. I want to be able to access my data in 20, 30, 50, 100 years. I realize that some people don't worry about tomorrow's tomorrow but it is a real issue. I have gigabytes of magazines and books which our company has published that is only accessible in old file formats - the applications are no longer being updated by their producers.

Then there is the whole historical documents issue. We're going to see a big blackhole in history where a tremendous amount of historical information is lost because of failure to support legacy data and applications. Apple could continue to support Classic quite easily. They've already done the hard work.

 

[jayscheuerle]

I'm not worried about the near term, say 10 to 15 years, when getting older PPC machines (e.g., circ. 2005) will be easy. I'm considering the long term. I want to be able to access my data in 20, 30, 50, 100 years. I realize that some people don't worry about tomorrow's tomorrow but it is a real issue. I have gigabytes of magazines and books which our company has published that is only accessible in old file formats - the applications are no longer being updated by their producers.

Then there is the whole historical documents issue. We're going to see a big blackhole in history where a tremendous amount of historical information is lost because of failure to support legacy data and applications. Apple could continue to support Classic quite easily. They've already done the hard work.

Classic support is a road to nowhere and not in Apple's best interest, however easier it would make your life. It's up to you to export your data in formats that are open and cross platform as possible. Text files, pdfs... Those are about all you can really count on for now. If you want long term reliable, accessible storage, you're better off printing everything on paper, preferably PH-balanced, and putting them in a fireproof/moisture proof safe-box somewhere. It's a proven system. With computer formats, you can't predict 10 years down the line, much less 100...

 

[jefhatfield]

Classic support is a road to nowhere and not in Apple's best interest, however easier it would make your life. It's up to you to export your data in formats that are open and cross platform as possible. Text files, pdfs... Those are about all you can really count on for now. If you want long term reliable, accessible storage, you're better off printing everything on paper, preferably PH-balanced, and putting them in a fireproof/moisture proof safe-box somewhere. It's a proven system. With computer formats, you can't predict 10 years down the line, much less 100...

are you that important that you need to be remembered 100 years from now?

i think for most of us, putting data to cd should be safe for most of our lifetimes, even though 5 1/4" and standard floppy has gone out, as has the zip disk for a lot of people

but for some reason, we will always use paper and i can envision a paperless office a generation from now full of paper...he he...and a still thriving industry for document shredding companies

 

[Kelson]

CPU instruction set does not mean software development styles become more buggy, or there is less design quality in the system, or that higher performance is lower quality. Etc...

Thank you for the ignorant rant.

- Kelson

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.

 

[jayscheuerle]

are you that important that you need to be remembered 100 years from now?

Based on my backing up of records and files, even I don't think I'm important enough to be remembered 2 weeks from now.

That said, I'd trust an actual photograph to be around in 50 years more than a .jpg on a CD to survive.

 

[ewinemiller]

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?

Um, me. I just passed on a dual 266 PII that I built in 1997 to a guy from work. He was going to let his kids use it because it still does win2k, office, and web browsing just fine for the kids homework. Before that it was my step father's regular desktop for a few years. My step father still uses a Pentium 133 from even farther back for browsing the web on the couch. A new wireless card a few years back gave it a new lease on life.

My mom is still using a PII 366 laptop running from 98 or early 99 I think. Seems it was about a year old when I got it in late 99.

Getting lots of mileage out of a machine is not just a Mac thing.

 

[tristan]

Many years ago, I rushed out to buy the first PowerPC Powerbook model - a Powerbook 5300cs. I paid like $3500 for it if I remember correctly, and that was a hell of a lot of money for me. I think i was making $28k a year back then. Anyway it was garbage. It had a ton of hardware and software problems and I ended up basically throwing it in the garbage. I would have been much better off with used 520c, and eventually I switched to a Samsung running Windows 95, which was much more stable. It took me many years to trust an Apple laptop again.

So my question is - does that anology hold today? I'm not going to take any chances. I'm definitely buying the last AlBook off the assembly line and letting other people beta test the new intels. If I'm wrong, I'll just be a late adopter.

 

[pubwvj]

I'm not going to take any chances. I'm definitely buying the last AlBook off the assembly line and letting other people beta test the new intels. If I'm wrong, I'll just be a late adopter.

Agreed. I am doing the same thing. I currently have a Pismo which was the last of it's line and a wonderful machine. They had worked out the kinks by the time they got to the PowerBook Pismo.

I'm hoping that the last PowerBook with PPC will be similar and am planning to upgrade to that and give my wife my Pismo (she has a Lombard).

This will avoid the bleeding on the cutting edge of technology with revision A and B of the Intel based Macs. Let other people try them out and find the kinks, I'm not interested. I have real work I need to do. I don't want to waste my time and money debugging the hardware and software for Apple.

The biggest bummer on the new MacIntels is they don't support Classic applications. That means I'm not interested in the slightest. I must have Classic support for legacy software.

 

[jefhatfield]

Um, me. I just passed on a dual 266 PII that I built in 1997 to a guy from work. He was going to let his kids use it because it still does win2k, office, and web browsing just fine for the kids homework. Before that it was my step father's regular desktop for a few years. My step father still uses a Pentium 133 from even farther back for browsing the web on the couch. A new wireless card a few years back gave it a new lease on life.

My mom is still using a PII 366 laptop running from 98 or early 99 I think. Seems it was about a year old when I got it in late 99.

Getting lots of mileage out of a machine is not just a Mac thing.

man i need someone like you to work for my pc repair business ...he he... or better yet you can work for uncle sam and keep the 'puters humming and that way, we can give more tax breaks to the rich and prolong our war in iraq

i have a couple of phd friends, hard core techies, who love to get mileage, too from their machines...when the pentium II was introduced, this one 60 year old programmer/engineer kept using his 286 at stanford where he was a professor...the other cs prof i know reverted back to a 486 when he had two perfectly shiny pentium 4s at his disposal...that whole mouse and gui thing bugged him

the most extreme case i know of was when i was teaching a computer networking class there was this one student, in his 80s, who still liked to use his slide rule to help him program...this goes way back and i don't know how and why he did this, but he, also a phd, but in math, liked to do things the hard way because only people like him had the skills of knowledge to pull things off like the two week tic tac toe game that gates and allen used to play using supercomputers (of the day) and managing multimillion dollar computers the size of big houses that approached 1 mhz and could store as much as a floppy in just a few hours

 

[ozone]

The faster we upgrade, the more rubbish we produce.

Very, very true!

... and I can't quite figure out all this angst about the PPC disappearing. Get with it - it'll probably run better, faster, quieter, and cooler.

 

[budugu]

I doubt they'll move from their normal 6 month cycle...

They will industry standard is 3 months on an average for consumer systems (professional (read Business) systems is another factor). Models completely get over hauled every 1 1/2 - 2 years. As some one pointed out they will be more pressured to keep up with the industry. But it might not play a huge factor as the processors change but not their core speeds, so lay man is clueless. I understand there are atleast 3 different verions of AMD athlon 3500+ (cache diff, process diff, even speed difference i am not even talking of dual core here!), same for 3000+, 3200,3400 or what ever. But the point is intel will not be interested in keeping phased our procs and neither will apple like to be called a lagger in a very clear open comparison. And i am assuming Apple will lower the price as the upgrade cycle decreases.

I am not sure how many new powerbooks/powermacs/imacs/or whatever next wed or thrusday (for new intel macs) threads will be comming out on there forums.

 

[tristan]

Intel generally releases and reprices their chips quarterly. Any computer you bought should be cheaper three months later because the CPU price has fallen. Ideally, Mactel's should work the same way.

 

[pubwvj]

I can't quite figure out all this angst about the PPC disappearing. Get with it - it'll probably run better, faster, quieter, and cooler.

I hope so but past performance of Intel chips is not encouraging on the better, faster, quieter, cooler front. Of course that was before the G5 came out and Apple started delivering toaster ovens, er, I mean PowerMacs, with it in them... Prior to that PPC was better, faster, quieter and cooler at even 2x the MHz to Intel's favor.

Personally I was never fond of the x86 architecture. There are some funky ways they do things at low levels, which is meaningful for those of us who do hardware and deep programming. Generally with higher level languages it isn't a big issue either way though. *shrug*

Most importantly it uses MacOS X. It would be very nice if the new MacIntels support Classic. Apple appears to be supporting the full G4 now and perhaps they'll add the Classic support as well. If not them then I expect we'll see Classic support from someone else running in emulation. If Apple doesn't want to continue Classic support then it would be great if they would release the license to the public domain for the Classic code. There are still a lot of people who use legacy applications which will never be upgraded to OSX or x86 because the programmers are long gone and the code is locked up.

 

[progx]

the person who started this forum had a point. we are used to our hardware lasting. hell, i had an old PowerPC 603e up from 1996-2003, i to sell it since it was taking up space; plus not acknowledging a 3Dfx card i bought while running a Sonnet G3 upgrade through the L2 cache.

today, i'm running an iMac G3 Graphite, with 1 GB of RAM (my specs are below). i used it for all of 2004 to August 2005, before that it was my parents from 2000-2004. presently, i still have it, my grandparents use it and love it. will i part with it? hell no, it runs great, almost better than the G4s. but that's a different story.

we are used to different hardware, that's what made Apple the BMW of computers, these things just last. does anyone still have a Intel box running from the time my iMac rolled off the line in 1999? probably not. in fact, it's most likely a Pentium 3 (aka Pentium 2 plus), doesn't run for s*** and is sitting in a landfill somewhere.

what in the blue hell makes you guys think Intel cares about Apple? this is just another notch on their belt. they're going to give us special treatment for a few years maybe, but then they're gonna give us the finger when Dell and Gateway debut the newest and best before us.

while i don't think it will kill Apple, but i hope people realize that this is a mistake. i mean, it may be the end of the Mac line. why would Apple care, they still have the iPod, this product gets more push than any Mac ever did.

not to mention Intel? i could go on for pages about them. i'll just say this, if AMD never came into the market, then Intel would not have anyone to copy. AMD is ahead of the game, they have affordable dual-cores and 64-bit chips available to buy. don't trust Intel, still won't.

what makes you think that Apple will still have hardware control? they're not making it. they just design the casing for the hardware to sit in, everything is done by Intel. Intel gets their ideas from AMD's hard earned research, hence it's the same thing. so, you can run Mac OS X 10.5 on a 3rd party or custom PC. Apple can't stop it forever, it will eventually happen. when people stop buying Mac hardware and just grab an OS X box. though Apple won't directly advertise it, but it will happen.

this Powerbook and (hopefully) the iMac G5 (if i can get it, if not the Quad) will be my last Mac machines. if i can run OS X or not, i don't think i'm willing to pay that kind of money for that hardware.

and i do agree with some of the posts in here, since when did we care about speed? remember, it's just a number…but i guess that doesn't matter anymore. we're no better than windows users. heh, we're Windows wannabe users.

not to mention, the G5 runs better without OS X.

h**p://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/pipermail/yellowdog-announce/2005-September/000099.html

 

[ewinemiller]

we are used to different hardware, that's what made Apple the BMW of computers, these things just last. does anyone still have a Intel box running from the time my iMac rolled off the line in 1999? probably not. in fact, it's most likely a Pentium 3 (aka Pentium 2 plus), doesn't run for s*** and is sitting in a landfill somewhere.

Yeah, actually I do. Dual 266 PII, still running win 2k that I built in 1997 is now a coworker's kid's machine for doing home work, email, web, that sort of thing. My mother has my old Dell inspiron, 366 PII running win2k still in constant use. I originally got it about 1999 I think. Her husband is using a Toshiba laptop with a Pentium 133 running windows 98 for surfing the web, I can't even remember when they got that machine.

A PC can last just as long as a Mac. The big difference is that about that same time is when the Intels really started ramping up the clock speed and dropping the price. That dual 266 my friend's kid's are using was my mothers for several years. When she wanted to do some upgrades about a year ago, she was better off just buying a new dell for $350 that was ~20x faster. It could of ended up in a landfill, but it didn't need to go there just because it's a PC. I found someone who was happy with the 1997 technology and it's faithfully chugging along.

Now I won't argue about AMD leading Intel these days. If Intel wasn't a bit farther ahead on manufacturing process, I think they'd really be in trouble. AMD is very competive at 90nm with Intel chips running a 65. Can't wait until AMD starts shipping 65nm parts. I think however Intel still has some very interesting products now and in their future pipeline, and Apple has already been burned by chip vendors that can't meet the demand, AMD would not have solved that problem.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

How many people keep PC's that long?

Are you joking. Most run of the mill PC users keep their machine until it dies. My sister + husband are still using a 3 year old 1.8 P4 Dell. It doesn't even have USB 2.0 but does have a crappy Geforce 2. There previous computer was a P2 200Mhz which they had for SEVEN years before I could convince them it was obsolete.

 

[iPhil]

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!

any money amount UNDER $1,200.00 you win e.g. race tracks/vegas/bingo halls.. You don't need to report to IRS..

If the winnings are $1,201.00 and above and you DON'T report to the IRS then breaking the da' law .. Whatcha you gonna do when the feds come after YOU..

 

[Gurutech]

I think the reason to this PC not lasting as long as Mac's is due to their cheap starting price.

Think about it...

You have this 5 yr old PC.. People know, whether it "functions just right" or not, that this machine is obsolete. And as you can see, cheapest "new" PC desktops are priced around 300~400, which is pretty inexpensive.

Anyhow, to add my 2cents,
I believe this whole move to Intel was right thing for Apple. Trying to stay at PPC would cause more harm than good unless IBM does something miracle...

 

[kalisphoenix]

does anyone still have a Intel box running from the time my iMac rolled off the line in 1999? probably not.

*glances at a Compaq Presario @ 300MHz chillin' by his desk* 1998 was the manufacturer's date there. I also had a Packard Bell (very reviled for lack of quality, mind you) 486DX-33 from 1993 (iirc) to 1999, when it was consumed by a housefire. I used it every day, mind you, because I couldn't afford to upgrade (I was 18 at the time of the fire).

Apples are kept around longer because they can generally support a wider range of operating systems than a PC from the same year, imho. I have a Blue and White G3 and a Compaq from late 1998 or 1999. I wouldn't dream of trying to run Vista on this Compaq. The G3, however, runs Tiger passably (not fantastically well, but it's been my primary computer for almost a year now). It might even run Leopard, even though I figure that the minimal requirements for Leopard will be a G4.

 

[mongoos150]

The software won't be buggy. The hardware won't be any less valuable. Our computers won't be any more obsolete than they were before. Just because Intel releases a new chip that certain PC vendors pick up (or individuals install in their system) doesn't mean Apple will drop it in their system configs, or that you have to have that .02GHz upgrade. Stop bitching, the Intel upgrade is allowing Apple to go to greater heights in performance that the PPC could never touch - true competition with the PC market. Perhaps you're just sore because you can't buy an Intel mac....

 

[hulugu]

First, the PPC architecture is very efficient, but also complex and hasn't been fabed by companies who have truly been on the ball. Frankly, I think if AMD and Intel had been building PPC chips we'd be much better off.
That said, Apple had to switch chips. The G5 was not going into a laptop, or a Mac Mini, and the G4 has not been able to keep up with Intel/AMD's latest offerings, especially when you consider Intel's Duo-core or AMD's 64-bit chips. The G4 has lived its life, just as the G3 before it, but has reached the ends of its current design. Apple has been beaten black-n-blue by processor comparisons and with the Pentium-M and the new Duo-Core chips this was only going to get worse. And, the future didn't look much brighter with IBMs Power 6 which also has the same problems the G5 did—it's really a server chip—or the Cell, which is still a fantasy that may not be viable as a desktop/laptop chip.

I would also like to remind everyone that the Universal Binary could be pure genius for the future: Apple may become platform agnostic. Rather than be trapped by chip design and one (or two) fabricators, Apple can fit the OS for the chip. Think of it, OSX could run on a big monster dual-dual-core G5 spitting out genetic research, or it could run on a low-power Duo-Core in an internet cafe'. OSX could be both x86 and PPC—like Linux—and have the benefits of both.

You can stop buying Apple and go for commodity systems, but you're going to miss out while trying to make some unfounded statement about a system that could not be maintained in the current market.