It's offical, apple moving to x86 Intel chips by June 6th 2006

[Sheff]

Whatever Apple does, they need to build a significantly better machine than everyone else. They need to be able to justify the price premium that they're going to charge for it. That or when they lower their prices, make it a more realistic decision when choosing between an Apple and regular PC hardware.

Someone will probably be able to figure out how to run OS X on a regular PC. Assuming it's a BIOS flash that will do the trick, I'm guessing that that hardware will no longer be able to run Windows and that PC running OS X won't be nearly as good or efficient as running OS X on the hardware that it's intended for.

So if you could get an Apple machine that was closer in price to a PC that could run OS X and Windows in a dual boot, wouldn't that be more tempting to a PC user? I think this is more likely in the near future than a PC that could dual boot Windows and OS X and run both equally well.

Apple users are accustomed to spending a lot of money on hardware. No one likes spending a lot of money on hardware, but if you're stuck with Apples, you don't have much of a choice.

In this transition period, it might be smarter for Apple in the long run to make sure that Windows can run on their machines as well as OS X. If their goal is to sell hardware, they need to build a machine that can do both without much hassle. I don't think Microsoft will aid them in this.

If their goal is slowly transition into being a software/OS company, then they can do that as well. The trick is now not to piss off the people who have invested in Apples. And again, Microsoft will be not be happy about this either. OS X represents a real and credible threat to Windows and is just the kick in the ass Microsoft needs to improve their product.

All in all, now there will be competition and improvement now that the all the players are on the same field. This will become an OS/Bios war now that the hardware is common. Hopefully we will wind up with better operating systems and the ability to CHOOSE.

 

[Parastie]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to run Windows on these computers anyway.

Think about it, we have Wine and Transgaming's Cedega. I've used both in Linux and had some luck with both. I had Interenet Explorer 6 running! Imagine what you can do with a closed hardware, based on an Open Source OS on x86!

 

[jarman]

Why the hell would anyone ever run Linux for a non-server when you can run OS X natively on it, especially if you want software compatibility? There are less applications for Linux than for OS X.

Damn, just as I thought I would yawn my way through another Mac/Intel thread I run across this little gem. Please, Morty I'm dying to laugh my ass off. Go ahead and try to prove that one...

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

I don't consider the laptops to be computers really. They are simple tools, just used for simplified actions, like word processing, email, etc etc etc. Who cares what hardware/OS runs on it, as long as it is capable of doing these things.

By your logic, it also doesn't matter what hardware/OS you have in your desktopm, since that is also just a tool. Or do you mean it isn't a tool? A modern laptop is more than capable of most things you can throw at it. Sure, you might not want to render Advent Children on any laptop, but it's not like it'll choke and die as soon as you touch the Photoshop icon in your Dock (or taskbar).

I have known quite a few Mac users. Most of them, had very limited knowledge of computers.

And you feel that those "quite a few" are many enough for you to know how Mac users in general, everywhere, are? That's impressive.

They need to be able to justify the price premium that they're going to charge for it.

I don't think it'll be quite that hard. First of all, Macs will probably because cheaper because of this, second, they're not really that expensive. Go look what a high-end x86 workstation costs. The PowerMacs aren't really more expensive. It's not hard to find x86 workstations comparable to PowerMacs that cost more. Really, the price premium isn't as high as people seem to think.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

Damn, just as I thought I would yawn my way through another Mac/Intel thread I run across this little gem. Please, Morty I'm dying to laugh my ass off. Go ahead and try to prove that one...

Almost all relevant Linux applications run natively in OS X. There are loads of Mac applications that cannot run in Linux. A little basic math skills tell you that there thusly probably are more applications for OS X. Sure, there are quite a few Linux applications that are not open source and will not run in OS X, but most of these will run in OS X anyway (like Opera).

 

[1c3d0g]

I for one am EXTREMELY happy that Apple made this switch (about damn time too, PowerPC got spanked [H]ard by x86 hardware ), even though I hate Apple with a passion. This will relinquish at least some of the "higher than thou" attitude that is common with certain close-minded Apple-only fan boys. Now that we're all on the same architecture, it's pretty funny to see past articles benchmarking Apple against the PC, and the hilarious comments that ensued. Apple hardware r0xx0rz!!! No, PC hardware is 1337!!! Ultimately, this unification can only bring good things to the PC world.

Personaly, I was sad to see Sony's PS3 and Xbox 360 move to the PowerPC architecture, and feared that x86 might lose important game developers who'll target PowerPC only. Now, with Apple on "our" side, x86 has gained a very influential and powerful ally, who's able to talk developers into continuing to code games for x86. Because of this, the PC v.s. Console arena has changed dramatically IMHO. Me, I'm sticking with my guns and will remain firmly in the PC arena.

 

[h3llphyre]

By your logic, it also doesn't matter what hardware/OS you have in your desktopm, since that is also just a tool. Or do you mean it isn't a tool? A modern laptop is more than capable of most things you can throw at it. Sure, you might not want to render Advent Children on any laptop, but it's not like it'll choke and die as soon as you touch the Photoshop icon in your Dock (or taskbar).

As a "geek", there are plenty of applications that suck to use on a laptop. I utilize my laptop (as many other geeks do) mainly for web surfing, email, and other light tasks. I would never buy a laptop to replace my desktop, as I don't see the point. Sacrificing battery life or sheer processing power, is not worth it. Again, any engineer (geek) I've met with a powerbook, bought it to do similiar things that I do with my laptop. When it comes down to REAL work, they have an x86 desktop running either some variant of Windows or Linux.

And you feel that those "quite a few" are many enough for you to know how Mac users in general, everywhere, are? That's impressive.

Yes, I've run into a LOT. I've been to college, I had friends at other colleges that I visited often. I've worked for quite a few sizable tech companies, even more small ones. I've run into a LOT of people. Unlike most geeks, I am quite social, therefor, I can make generalizations rather well and they are usually pretty accurate.

I don't think it'll be quite that hard. First of all, Macs will probably because cheaper because of this, second, they're not really that expensive. Go look what a high-end x86 workstation costs. The PowerMacs aren't really more expensive. It's not hard to find x86 workstations comparable to PowerMacs that cost more. Really, the price premium isn't as high as people seem to think.

If you are NOT a geek, Macs aren't all that bad, on the high end. If you are a geek, you see the premium smack you in the face, as there is no "piece meal" option. I've peiced together a few "high end workstations", I've ordered a few from Dell, and I can tell you, for the same price, you are getting a LOT more machine, going with an x86 box. At the end of the day, the performance/price hasn't been in Apple's favor for quite a long time.

 

[h3llphyre]

Personaly, I was sad to see Sony's PS3 and Xbox 360 move to the PowerPC architecture, and feared that x86 might lose important game developers who'll target PowerPC only. Now, with Apple on "our" side, x86 has gained a very influential and powerful ally, who's able to talk developers into continuing to code games for x86. Because of this, the PC v.s. Console arena has changed dramatically IMHO. Me, I'm sticking with my guns and will remain firmly in the PC arena.

I wouldn't really call the CPU in the PS3 a PowerPC. Sure, it has a similiar core, but it isn't the same thing. Sony has never been one to use "normal" processors in their consoles.

I'm just surprised that Apple went with Intel. People can say "supply supply supply" all they want, as an excuse for not going with AMD, but Apple doesn't use enough processors, for it to be an issue. I am willing to bet, that HP/Compaq ship more AMD units then Apple will sell in a one year period (once they shift to x86). It's not like AMD wouldn't ramp up (as they have in the past effectively) if Apple started growing at a decent clip.

 

[1c3d0g]

True, I oversimplified the Cell processor's architecture.

But I'm still saying supply + price (Intel is a champion with pricecuts - just look at how they keep Dell happy; content, but always on a leash). Those were probably the most important business reasons to go with Intel. Like people said before me, you can have the best technology in the world (AMD), but if you can't make someone's business viable by issuing price cuts, they'll go with a competitor with inferior technology (Intel) who can lower prices to achieve financial success. Blame that mentality on money-hungry stock holders and corporate greed.

 

[h3llphyre]

True, I oversimplified the Cell processor's architecture.

But I'm still saying supply + price (Intel is a champion with pricecuts - just look at how they keep Dell happy; content, but always on a leash). Those were probably the most important business reasons to go with Intel. Like people said before me, you can have the best technology in the world (AMD), but if you can't make someone's business viable by issuing price cuts, they'll go with a competitor with inferior technology (Intel) who can lower prices to achieve financial success. Blame that mentality on money-hungry stock holders and corporate greed.

The "per 1000" prices from Intel are still higher then AMD. Unless Intel gives super duper prices to Dell and other such large vendors, I highly doubt this is the case. I just think Jobs was dropped on his head a few too many times when he was a child.

 

[jarman]

Almost all relevant Linux applications run natively in OS X. There are loads of Mac applications that cannot run in Linux. A little basic math skills tell you that there thusly probably are more applications for OS X. Sure, there are quite a few Linux applications that are not open source and will not run in OS X, but most of these will run in OS X anyway (like Opera).

You are making some broad assumptions with terms like "relevant" and "natively". Also, how are you going to account for performance differences between the OSX kernel and the 2.6 GNU Kernel? If you can assume that just because there is *nix commonality between the OSes that you can port all of Linux's software to OSX, then you should also make the assumption that you can port many of the Microsoft apps to Linux through Cedega APIs, and Wine, then port all of the OSX apps using PearPC (yes, it's very slow, but it works).

 

[Yassarian]

True, I oversimplified the Cell processor's architecture.

But I'm still saying supply + price (Intel is a champion with pricecuts - just look at how they keep Dell happy; content, but always on a leash). Those were probably the most important business reasons to go with Intel. Like people said before me, you can have the best technology in the world (AMD), but if you can't make someone's business viable by issuing price cuts, they'll go with a competitor with inferior technology (Intel) who can lower prices to achieve financial success. Blame that mentality on money-hungry stock holders and corporate greed.

You make it sound as if AMD has been in this position forever -- remember that AMD was a virtual goner when their Athlon came out as a last-ditch effort. Intel has *vastly* more financial clout and marketing muscle than AMD, not to mention market share. While they erred on thrusting forward with netburst, it certainly doesn't mean Intel will have inferior technology going forward. I'm sure Apple is more interested in what Intel can do in the FUTURE, verses what Intel can do right NOW.

Frankly I could care less about their hardware -- I'm just interested in seeing if osx can be run on ANY x86 machines -- wouldn't mind running it on my AMD64.

cheers,

yass

 

[esr2]

Whatever Apple does, they need to build a significantly better machine than everyone else. They need to be able to justify the price premium that they're going to charge for it. That or when they lower their prices, make it a more realistic decision when choosing between an Apple and regular PC hardware.

Yup because apple is all about G5’s and not OSX… oh… wait… no… maybe if apple started shipping XP otherwise this makes no sense.

Someone will probably be able to figure out how to run OS X on a regular PC. Assuming it's a BIOS flash that will do the trick, I'm guessing that that hardware will no longer be able to run Windows and that PC running OS X won't be nearly as good or efficient as running OS X on the hardware that it's intended for.

Thank god everyone uses the exact same BIOS on every motherboard out there, boy this is going to be super easy, alright everyone just flash every bios with this single little fix, and wha la, that little option for “OSX = YES” will be on every BIOS… erm…. No, this makes no sense.

Apple users are accustomed to spending a lot of money on hardware. No one likes spending a lot of money on hardware, but if you're stuck with Apples, you don't have much of a choice.

Right, but apple is increasing in their market share of computers where as the PCs aren’t moving really at all, more people are spending more, apples will always cost more.

In this transition period, it might be smarter for Apple in the long run to make sure that Windows can run on their machines as well as OS X. If their goal is to sell hardware, they need to build a machine that can do both without much hassle. I don't think Microsoft will aid them in this.

Oddly, Windows has always been apple’s competitor, period. So no, I don’t think they’re worried about running XP on their boxes… apple has and will continue to say they are primarily concerned with OSX and whatever will allow them to continue to develop OSX and keep it running competitive in the future. You’ve missed the point, the point isn’t to allow XP to run on apple hardware, the point is to allow OSX to run faster.

If their goal is slowly transition into being a software/OS company, then they can do that as well. The trick is now not to piss off the people who have invested in Apples. And again, Microsoft will be not be happy about this either. OS X represents a real and credible threat to Windows and is just the kick in the ass Microsoft needs to improve their product.

I’m not pissed, a two year period sounds fair .

All in all, now there will be competition and improvement now that the all the players are on the same field. This will become an OS/Bios war now that the hardware is common. Hopefully we will wind up with better operating systems and the ability to CHOOSE.

erm no, I’m still waiting for anyone to provide a credible argument for why apple would release OSX in the wild on systems who’s components they have no control over. Apple’s as much concerned with having a stable OS, with a relatively limited internal component base, as they are with having a fast OSX… and as we ALL saw when XP came out and average user started to install it whilly nilly on anything, such approaches don’t work well for a native X86 os let alone OSX.

-esr

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

Apple even announced that if the user wanted to with the x86 systems, they could run windows if they so desire.

 

[valve1138]

Apple even announced that if the user wanted to with the x86 systems, they could run windows if they so desire.

That to me is uber sexy. I could have just one box and get all my shit done.

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

That to me is uber sexy. I could have just one box and get all my shit done.

I agree. Buy an apple and have the sweetness of OSX (which will not with with just any PC, because if It did, it would be the end of apple) and the flexability to run windows at full speed not emulated for those such things that you need it for.

I will buy a Mac then. Dual Boot Longhorn and OS 10.5 Hopefully its built on a strong Dual Core Pentium M platform and you will be all set!

 

[Nasty_Savage]

I honestly don't understand why anyone would want to run Windows on these computers anyway.

Think about it, we have Wine and Transgaming's Cedega. I've used both in Linux and had some luck with both. I had Interenet Explorer 6 running! Imagine what you can do with a closed hardware, based on an Open Source OS on x86!

Because its not all about games. There are a ton of crapatastic windows only applications that lazy programmers develop that either REQUIRE Internet Explorer on a Windows OS or the Windows Operating system itself. Citrix is an expensive clunky stopgap, but if there was a Dual Boot solution and even an app that can launch Windows from with OSX on Intel, its a more appealing solution then paying tons of money on a Citrix server farm and licensing to dish the app out only to have the piece shit hang/freeze/fail to print when you need it the most. Sterling example of this is shitty government institutions who hire half assed programmers. THe funniest thing is Magic Total Service Desk runs only on Internet Explorer 5.x and above on windows but the jackass customizes it with a powerbook.

 

[extragoode]

I have always liked Mac hardware, but not their software; I'm more of a Linux guy myself. Not for any reason besides I don't like microsoft and I like to still be able to tweak things. Their hardware was never worth the premium to me. Maybe it will be now, because the premium should be lower. If it's not, and/or Apple can't differentiate themselves very much from places like Alienware, then they're done for.

Personally, the biggest thing to look forward to now is for someone to make a really nice laptop since the ThinkPad was sold to China.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

You are making some broad assumptions with terms like "relevant" and "natively".

Perhaps, but what application is it that you want to run that is available for PPC Linux but not OS X? Or that will be available for x86 Linux and not x86 Mac?

Also, how are you going to account for performance differences between the OSX kernel and the 2.6 GNU Kernel?

The "2.6GNU kernel?" Yeah, Linux is the kernel. Anyway, care to post a link comparing OS X (on PPC, obviously) to Linux on the same setup? Anandtech didn't test that, much to my dismay.

If you can assume that just because there is *nix commonality between the OSes that you can port all of Linux's software to OSX, then you should also make the assumption that you can port many of the Microsoft apps to Linux through Cedega APIs, and Wine, then port all of the OSX apps using PearPC (yes, it's very slow, but it works).

That comparison is completely backwards. The thing is, OS X is POSIX compliant, just like FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. That means most POSIX software will run on it. I don't know enough about Wine or Cedega to comment on them, but what does PearPC have to do with anything? It's hardware emulation, not an API.

I'm just surprised that Apple went with Intel. People can say "supply supply supply" all they want, as an excuse for not going with AMD, but Apple doesn't use enough processors, for it to be an issue. I am willing to bet, that HP/Compaq ship more AMD units then Apple will sell in a one year period (once they shift to x86). It's not like AMD wouldn't ramp up (as they have in the past effectively) if Apple started growing at a decent clip.

I think the answer is simple. They prefer the direction Intel is going (performance per watt). The Opterons kick ass, but at over 100 watts per processor, they're really no better than the G5.

I'm sure Apple is more interested in what Intel can do in the FUTURE, verses what Intel can do right NOW.

My sentiments exactly.

That to me is uber sexy. I could have just one box and get all my shit done.

Hell yes. Hopefully, there will be a well-working version of Wine on OS X in short order and I can use the Windows version of Lightwave instead of the OS X version, and get less craptacular viewport performance.
Edit: err, well, I suppose NewTek will double their efforts in porting to Xcode now, so that would dramatically increase viewport performance regardless... but still!

Not for any reason besides I don't like microsoft and I like to still be able to tweak things.

I would just like to point out that OS X is very tweakable. It just takes a little more effort than it does in Linux.

 

[Sheff]

erm no, I’m still waiting for anyone to provide a credible argument for why apple would release OSX in the wild on systems who’s components they have no control over. Apple’s as much concerned with having a stable OS, with a relatively limited internal component base, as they are with having a fast OSX… and as we ALL saw when XP came out and average user started to install it whilly nilly on anything, such approaches don’t work well for a native X86 os let alone OSX. -esr

I don't think Apple will release OS X for the PC without knowing that it will work period, end of story. In doing so, then they embark on a path of being primarily about the OS rather than the hardware. It's clear that that's not what they want to do. Going down that OS route might be more lucrative in the long run than hardware will be.

Thank god everyone uses the exact same BIOS on every motherboard out there, boy this is going to be super easy, alright everyone just flash every bios with this single little fix, and wha la, that little option for “OSX = YES” will be on every BIOS… erm…. No, this makes no sense.

I never said that flashing PC bios to run OS X would be easy. I think this is a more likely scenario than a custom Mac chip to make sure that OS X only runs on Apple hardware and not anything else.

You’ve missed the point, the point isn’t to allow XP to run on apple hardware, the point is to allow OSX to run faster.

No I haven't missed the point. Clearly this was the reason for the switch to Intel, that and Apple's dissatisfaction with IBM. But now that it's happening, there will be people who will try to run each OS on the other platform.

Apple won't officially make sure that OS X can run on any POS PC, but I don't they will actively discourage it. Look at Windows XP 64 bit. No drivers. If you cannot get your hardware to work with it, there's no point in using it. But it has to be released in order to be supported. If enough customers complain about a lack of drivers, it motivates that company to meeting the customer's needs. If that company fails to meet that need, then the customer can go elsewhere. You didn't have to wait two years for Apples to make progress, you could have chosen to switch to a PC. I have waited longer than that for updates to apps that I use because the alternatives were not worth switching.

I won't upgrade to 64 bit until I know I have working drivers for all my devices. Either that or set up machines to dual boot. The same would go for OS X. The only compelling reason to switch from Windows to OS X on the same computer would be if OS X were more reliable or if a vital program I needed to use was only available on OS X.

There were times where I considered buying an Apple. The thing that held me back wasn't so much the cost of hardware, but rather the cost of buying OS X versions of software I already own as well as abandoning vital software that is unavailable on OS X.

Now that OS X and XP will be running on more similar platforms, it might become possible for developers to bundle both versions of software in the same package. It might mean that applications that were only on the PC will now migrate to OS X as well.

I want reliability in my OS. That's more important that which OS I'm running or on what platform.

 

[wetware interface]

i see a different situation than anyone has so far mentioned in detail.

mac is going to be an oem'd franchise option in the future.
apple tried opening up the mac architechture in the past and then competing in the same marketplace only to be outdone by their competitors. they then pulled the licensing of their products and remained the only mac hardware manufacturer.
they have learned from their mistake. there will not be an apple and oem manufacturer. there will be only apple as a license granter and dictator of what hardware a franchised oem can put together. apple has partners doing this now which is why i believe the mac is headed in this direction. the hp ipod is the proof of concept for franchising arangements with large oem's to build apple hardware and then pay apple a licensing fee for the right to use their platform.
osx will be a strong reason for large oem's to build apple hardware and pay the license fee to build x86 macs. there will be a chip added to the mobo or a piece hardcoded into the silicon of the bios chip or north/south bridges that the installer will rely on to version check against before proceeding with install and also probably integratedinto the kernal as well to prevent copying to non-apple licensed hardware.

apple doesn't make a lot of money on hardware, they have a high margin but low retail presence. licensing to oems will provide far more sales as osx will then go into far more machines increasing revenue as well as lower margins but far higher sales and no hardware manufacturing of their own to have to deal with overhead wise.

and also the reason for dumping ppc in favor of intel is simply due to ibms forward looking business model. they have been dumping all their branches of the company that rely on ever increasing performance factors and concentrating on the portions that rely on steady returns from set r&d goals. their lack of willingness to ramp ppc is one prime example of this. ibm is primarily a large mainframe/multinode/mini computer firm now. they dumped off their p.c. line and hard drive division to compete in a market space that has high return on investment and doesn't require constant performance enhancements to remain competitive.
in the super computer/mainframe segment you add more nodes which are clones of each other. you develope one basic node and a backbone and simply sell more nodes for performance and when you have a new backbone you upgrade that and sell more nodes yet. no constant r&d budget to get a faster cpu that you already created. you use higher yields and better manufacturing processes to increase chip count not chip speed as you don't have to play a game of one-up-manship to keep competitive.


this is ibms forward strategy and apple knows it. which leaves them in a huge bind as ibm can not be relied on in future for apple to stay competitive against dell and the likes. it has already started to happen. anyone who thinks ppc is faster at demanding apps is deluded by marketing hype and skewed benchmarking pratices to acheive favorable results. the dual g5 power mac is a decent performing machine for photoshop and video editing. but a dual xeon workstation will outperform it in most benchmarks of photoshop that are run independantly yet apple claims they have a faster machine based on phtoshop benchmarks they did in house. marketing hype. the power mac g5 is a decent machine. it's not a particularly great value for money but if you like the case asthetic of mac and the os then you pay more for the choice of a better looking machine with a different os. apple can't rely on that decision anymore however. they cannot deliver a faster laptop and their laptop sales have lagged far back of the three large oem's who are enjoying great laptop growth. and also about apple sales increases. 40% growth in 10% of a market vs. 10% growth in 80% of the market. which is the bigger growth? that's right the p.c. sector not the apple sector. take marketing hyperbole and really look at it people.

 

[dan johnson]

Apple should offer a line of mactel ATX motherboards.

that would be SUH-weet

 

[[email protected]]

Okay...I own 3 Macs...a Powerbook, a G5, and Mini Mac. Also built two PCs, Athlon 2800 and a Athlon 64. I like Macs because the OS is great..runs smooth and does some pretty nifty things. Like Windows XP because no matter what you say..it has never crashed for me...NOT ONCE.

This move for Apple is a double edged sword...on the one hand you have the "bogus" claims made by Apple that the G5 tears PCs in most real world tests...I have always known that is BS just seeing how both systems play DOOM3 for example. (Both my Mac and Athlon have X800 cards in them) This move for Apple is not only a wise choice but a much needed one....this scenario has played over and over again...where Apple's chip friends have a hard time either delivering quantity or speed bumps in any reasonable time frame. Back in the early part of 2000 Apple had to put two processors in one G4 to make it seem like the user was getting a deal...even though the processor speed never went up above 450Mhz for almost a year +. (On a side note...the dual processor thing in a Mac is kinda silly...because only a small sampling of the highend graphic apps can sense and use the extra chip) The same thing is happening now with IBM they are having a hard time breaking 3Ghz...so Apple has jumped ship....lets face it...IBM has been slowly circling the drain for some time now...where Intel does NOTHING but chips...so they have the obvious technical advantage. I think this will help Apple in the long run maintain a closer edge with its PC counterparts...it will be interesting to see how people will eventually compare oranges to oranges...and we will be the winners...because once the platform is the same..the software companies (Microsoft and Apple) will spend more time in streamlining their OSes and fixing the flaws...trying to outshine each other...and we users will win that battle no matter who wins the war.

As for Apple for the next two years....well it be interesting to see how much of a decline their sales get hit by.....the switch although a good thing is going to hit Apple hard...who is going to buy a Mac now....even though the developers are being told to make universal binaries that will support both "platforms" and their will be support for the older chips for a time...people dont back losers...so once again who is gonna buy a mac now....just looking online and here...its obvious that Apple is going to be hurting in the sales department for the next year...honestly though there is no nice way to do this transition...its gonna be rough....cant do it overnight...but two years still seems like a long time....I wont lie either I feel more than jaded that i have 3 obsoleted machines in my home....luckily I bought them 1 year (except mini) and they are slated to be replaced in 2006, but alot of people just clicked on order "minutes" before the announcement......those are the consumers who are gonna be the hardest ones to win back....

looking forward i wonder what they are gonna call them....they arent Power Macintoshes...and not G5 or anything like that....i guess they will go back to saying they are Macintosh......

who knows...

I think Apple will have to do some pretty amazing things to stay healthy til their new machines are ready...

 

[[email protected]]

one more thing...for many years...Apples have enjoyed higher than normal resale value on ebay for a long time...I last August sold a Dual G4 1.42 Gig machine that I bought for 2700 for 1700 and had it for 2 years...

Obviously this announcement took Mac resale value and tanked it majorly...old Macs are going be selling cheap on ebay from now til they release the Intel macs...maybe after the intel macs saturate the market...it will go again...but for now....

Ebay: BITTER APPLE USER'S DUMPING GROUND...

Since my G5 will have no resale value next year...I am going to use it as a planter...

 

[dan johnson]

As for Apple for the next two years....well it be interesting to see how much of a decline their sales get hit by.....the switch although a good thing is going to hit Apple hard...who is going to buy a Mac now....even though the developers are being told to make universal binaries that will support both "platforms" and their will be support for the older chips for a time...people dont back losers...so once again who is gonna buy a mac now....just looking online and here...its obvious that Apple is going to be hurting in the sales department for the next year...honestly though there is no nice way to do this transition...its gonna be rough....cant do it overnight...but two years still seems like a long time....I wont lie either I feel more than jaded that i have 3 obsoleted machines in my home....luckily I bought them 1 year (except mini) and they are slated to be replaced in 2006, but alot of people just clicked on order "minutes" before the announcement......those are the consumers who are gonna be the hardest ones to win back....

I'd still buy one, 3-4 years is a long time. What do you expect, for everyone to wait until 2007?

Your machines are not obsolete, but if you want to get technical you could say they were obsolete the moment you bought them. Just the nature of the industry, PC or Mac. Hell, I guess my car is obsolete now too.

 

[dan johnson]

Since my G5 will have no resale value next year...I am going to use it as a planter...

You're right. PM me, and I'll give you a dollar for it right now.

 

[[email protected]]

Its not 3-4 years...its 1 - 2 for the transition... many people who were going to buy arent going to buy for now...its not an opinion its a fact...some will buy because they need it for work..or their current machines are too old...but the next year will be leaner than others....

PM me in a year..and we will talk...

R

 

[dan johnson]

Its 1 - 2 years for the transition, and 3 - 4 years for support. Maybe longer for support, just look at how long OS 9 hung around post-OS X.

 

[[email protected]]

Lets say you had a Mac that was 2 years old...would you buy now? Or wait for next year? Knowing what you know?

 

[Archer75]

Lets say you had a Mac that was 2 years old...would you buy now? Or wait for next year? Knowing what you know?

Well it's still going to be supported for many years. xcode 2.1 makes it very easy to create universal binaries for x86 and PPC. Literally with a single click of the mouse. So software will be compatible with both for a long time.

 

[[email protected]]

No one is denying that it will be supported...my point is that people will have the tendancy to wait for the machines....rather than buy what apple is offering now.

R

 

[Thud]

one more thing...for many years...Apples have enjoyed higher than normal resale value on ebay for a long time...I last August sold a Dual G4 1.42 Gig machine that I bought for 2700 for 1700 and had it for 2 years...

Obviously this announcement took Mac resale value and tanked it majorly...old Macs are going be selling cheap on ebay from now til they release the Intel macs...maybe after the intel macs saturate the market...it will go again...but for now....

Ebay: BITTER APPLE USER'S DUMPING GROUND...

Since my G5 will have no resale value next year...I am going to use it as a planter...

Maybe the PPC based macs will be higher in demand in a couple years?
You know, because real macs have PPC chips.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

I don't think it will hurt Mac resale value all that much. Like Thud says, maybe PPC Macs will be coveted by hardcore fans in the future?

Anyway, I am still buying the next revision iBook, regardless of whether it's a Celeron M or a G4. It's not like the PPCs will automagically break as soon as the Intel Macs are released. PPC will see support for a good number of years.

On a side note...the dual processor thing in a Mac is kinda silly...because only a small sampling of the highend graphic apps can sense and use the extra chip

You have obviously never used a dual-processor PowerMac running OS X.

 

[[email protected]]

Actually my G5 is a dualie...and it seems no faster doing general tasks than the first single processor G5 that I owned.

 

[h3llphyre]

Thank god everyone uses the exact same BIOS on every motherboard out there, boy this is going to be super easy, alright everyone just flash every bios with this single little fix, and wha la, that little option for “OSX = YES” will be on every BIOS… erm…. No, this makes no sense.

This is easier to avoid then people think... Very very simple. As someone else has already stated... Intel can put in a custom CPUID that says "Mac Intel". Now, the BIOS can look at the processor and check for that CPUID. Good luck changing that. Think reflashing the BIOS will be a simple fix. How about if Apple locks out the ability to boot from just ANY media. What if it checks for special media, and only allows you to boot from Apple supplied media? Whats your option now? Take the BIOS chip out and replace with another chip, or burn it manually with a chip burner? Easy enough. Solder the BIOS chip to the board.

There... safe and secure, from your average Joe. It will take someone with some skill to mod the system to work outside of Apple's way.

 

[Black Morty Rackham]

Not to mention the OS X EULA says that you can only install it on Apple hardware. Nobody listens to EULAs, I suppose, but that will probably keep corporations from running OS X on generic boxes.

 

[Oldwolf]

I was discussing this with my dad last night and he said it'll be a win-win situation money wise.

Apple gets to save money by using off the shelf cpu's that already exist and work, instead of having to work with IBM to design & test a new cpu every generation.

And Intel wins, in that Apple is a new market that just opened up to them.

I can only see both companies stocks rising because of this.

 

[h3llphyre]

I was discussing this with my dad last night and he said it'll be a win-win situation money wise.

Apple gets to save money by using off the shelf cpu's that already exist and work, instead of having to work with IBM to design & test a new cpu every generation.

And Intel wins, in that Apple is a new market that just opened up to them.

I can only see both companies stocks rising because of this.

Lets do some simple math...

Apple sold roughly 1M units (Macs) in the first quarter of this year. Intel expects to shit 207M CPUs this year... so, lets say Apple ships 4M, hell, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say 5M.

So, Apple will account for less then 3% of Intel's shipped processors. Dell sold 8.7M in the first quarter, not including servers, which account for another 500,000 (some of which are dual processor systems). HP shipped 7.1M in the same period, some of which were AMD powered units. Honestly, Apple is a small fry in this pond and it will be interesting to see how well they manage to do, up against Dell, once their "advantage" is gone.

 

[Selecter]

Their "ADVANTAGE" is OS X.

If Dell doesnt sell OS X, I wont buy a Dell. Neither will any other Mac user.

Forget the FUD. It's the combination of superior hardware and OS X. The damn CPU matters not.

 

[Thud]

Forget the FUD. It's the combination of superior hardware and OS X.

Apple is just using commodity hardware like everybody else. The only difference WAS the CPU they used. Look inside any G5 mac and do you see Apple hard drives? Apple video cards? No... you see western digital or seagate or something, and nVidia or ATI graphics cards, the exact same components that are in Dells, HP's, etc. There's nothing inherently better about the hardware in a Mac.

The OS is what really makes the Mac. The OS works better with the hardware that Apple chooses to use because they use a limited set of hardware, which means more predictability and (in theory) better drivers.