Apple is switching to Intel, its official

Post by **dlh** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:24 pm

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

Nooooooo

Post by **dlh** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:27 pm

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/ ... 06corp.htm another press release and live updates of wwdc http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:38 pm

I was surprised... And if it would be best for us, why don't even give us any reasons? (I'm sure there are, but tell them!) What's wrong with the PPC? Why x86? Why Intel? Would they move to software like NeXT? I don't think the keynote stream will provide much more clarity once it's up and possible to actually watch the thing after two days (due to the huge load). Most I heard until now is just marketing...

Post by **Lucifer** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:45 pm

Jonathan wrote:I was surprised... And if it would be best for us, why don't even give us any reasons? (I'm sure there are, but tell them!) What's wrong with the PPC? Why x86? Why Intel? Would they move to software like NeXT? I don't think the keynote stream will provide much more clarity once it's up and possible to actually watch the thing after two days (due to the huge load). Most I heard until now is just marketing...

1. IBM hasn't been able to keep Apple supplied (which probably means IBM wanted to jack up the price of the processor and Apple couldn't keep up their bargain strategy)

2. Sony will be using the "g5" for their own system

3. Microsoft will be using the "g5" for the new xbox (or maybe it's a newer generation. I'm willing to bet Microsoft did more evil to force Apple to switch)

Why is this a good thing?

Because it means that it will be official, the only thing that makes APple different than everyone else is "style", where "style" == "reasons to build false egos and behave like asses"

Post by **dlh** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:45 pm

Yes, no real details, except the recompile for intel will not be that painful for cocoa apps.

Post by **dlh** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:53 pm

Virtual PC running windows, no more emulatioin needed.

I kinda doubt microsoft will want to release that. They haven't even released VPC to work on the G5, I think?

The ultimate developers box.

Post by **dlh** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:16 pm

Lucifer wrote:
Jonathan wrote:I was surprised... And if it would be best for us, why don't even give us any reasons? (I'm sure there are, but tell them!) What's wrong with the PPC? Why x86? Why Intel? Would they move to software like NeXT? I don't think the keynote stream will provide much more clarity once it's up and possible to actually watch the thing after two days (due to the huge load). Most I heard until now is just marketing...
1. IBM hasn't been able to keep Apple supplied (which probably means IBM wanted to jack up the price of the processor and Apple couldn't keep up their bargain strategy)

2. Sony will be using the "g5" for their own system

3. Microsoft will be using the "g5" for the new xbox (or maybe it's a newer generation. I'm willing to bet Microsoft did more evil to force Apple to switch)

Why is this a good thing?

Because it means that it will be official, the only thing that makes APple different than everyone else is "style", where "style" == "reasons to build false egos and behave like asses"

PSP3 uses the cell processer, not PPC970s.

Your style point is confusing... So OS X is only style, not functionality. Yeah right.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:41 pm

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

I hope the servers are not overloaded as always.

Post by **Lucifer** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:50 am

nemostultae wrote: Your style point is confusing... So OS X is only style, not functionality. Yeah right.

Heh, no, it's just 25 years of dealing with Apple fanboy elitism makes me want to rub this into somebody, so you guys got dumped. Just wait till I next see my sister-in-law, she's got the Apple elitism thing down to a tee, and it's all about look and nothing at all about function.

Besides that, it's disappointing, to say the least. The PPC architecture is superior to the x86 architecture, and it's really disappointing that a good processor battle never really happened in PPC, at least, not the same way it did in x86. So we have fast, shitty processors. If PPC could have had the level of competition, then we'd have fast, excellent processors.

It was in my long term plan to look at switching to PPC, but without Apple making PPC computers, who is?

Sabarai · Post by **Sabarai** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:32 pm

MUAHAHAHA GO INTEL GO

Seeker · Post by **Seeker** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:00 pm

All I can do is give a lil chuckle when I read this and wonder about running XP or Longhorn in dual boot with OS X.

Hmmmmm.

Your_mom · Post by **Your_mom** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:50 am

http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=arc ... 2005-06-08

hehe

andrea · Post by **andrea** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:18 pm

I think a lot of the reasons for the switch are the powerbooks. Everyone wants new faster powerbooks and it SEEMS like PPC wasn't able to accomplish this, while the Pentium M and centrino rocks.
When I bought my PB 2 years ago PC users were drooling when saw my battery life, then centrino arrived and now you can buy a 17" dell with more than 4-5 hours of life.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:20 pm

andrea wrote:Everyone wants new faster powerbooks and it SEEMS like PPC wasn't able to accomplish this, while the Pentium M and centrino rocks.

Don't mix architectures and implementations... It's true that no PPC implementation accomplished that though.

andrea · Post by **andrea** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:46 pm

Jonathan wrote:
andrea wrote:Everyone wants new faster powerbooks and it SEEMS like PPC wasn't able to accomplish this, while the Pentium M and centrino rocks.
Don't mix architectures and implementations... It's true that no PPC implementation accomplished that though.

Well, Pentium M is part of centrino... And we have to admit that the centrino rocks. It has EVERYTHING (good processor, network, wifi, etc), consumes little energy and now it is also well tested. Why should Apple start from there?