but it didn't. Apple was a small fish to IBM, their attentions were else where.
Apple did what it felt it had to, hopefully we won't regret that. BYW, it's not too late for IBM to kiss and make up.

Didn't make 3 ghz last year nor this year nor did they make a portable chip. Don't use the G4 chip as an excuse. It has nothing to do with it.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Didn't make 3 ghz last year nor this year nor did they make a portable chip. Don't use the G4 chip as an excuse. It has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, but they could have, darn it! They could have been a contender!

With universal binaries, there is no reason why Apple can't continue to have PPC machines. If IBM pulls a rabbit out of its hat (or wherever that rabbit is hiding), then Apple could still have PPC machines side by side with the Intel ones. The OS and the apps would support both architectures.

Quote

jimothy wrote:
Yeah, but they could have, darn it! They could have been a contender!

...Instead of a bum, which is what they are.

Apple was not a small fish when it came to chips. Not only did Apple purchase large numbers of chips, but they also helped to make the Power chips (enterprise-class) a much more common name. For any of us to make assumptions is really not right. I cannot say that I agree with the decision, because the roadmap for the Power chip is incredibly bright. I could see it as a cost thing, which has been speculated by more than a few people, or maybe it was about having that Intel name next to Apple's that Steve thinks will win. The point is, we don't know and maybe never will. Jobs has never been forthcoming about his decisions. We can all sit and argue whether it was a good decision or a bad one, but the fact is we cannot change it - for better or worse. The sad part is that once again the developers have to spend their time trying to be compatible, rather than improving their products. The question remains how long before they simply get tired of spending their time building and rebuilding the same thing just to work on the Mac platform, when they could be working on the features and ideas they got into what they do for?

I will say one thing, they had better have killer machines after all of this. No more promises and empty deliveries. If these machines are not SIGNIFICANTLY better, then this whole switch was nothing more than a publicity stunt, which could have been better spent actually making their products better.

Here's hoping that both companies will keep the door open for further development of the PPC line. The Intel Macs should make Apple more competitive in the consumer desktop and laptop PC markets, but there's very reason to justify the continuance of PPC in the high end graphics and prosumer markets.

...unless Intel has an angle that borders on sci-fi – quantum/optical processor or something that approaches one

IBM didn't see it coming. Talk about the head in the sand mentality. Really, they didn't know it was happening, even the day of the announcement.

Caught totally off guard.

Now, I'm still very skeptical about the move to Intel. I personally think AMD's chips are better. And the short run is already proving to be troublesome. Sales are dropping on systems since the announcement, and not just on PowerMacs. If other universities are like ours, the decision has been made...hold off for now. My Mac is already 4 years old. It can last a few more. My last one lasted 8 years. (hmm, great for me, bad for Apple)

Mmmmm... dual-core G5... so much thermal energy waste... mmm...

They COULD have!!!! Over two years later!!!!

A G5 for notebooks would have cost a fair amount of money to bring to market and I have a feeling that IBM wanted Apple to pay a good chunk of the costs. For me the main factor in the Intel deal is that R&D costs for a new chip will be spread over a very large number of Macs and PCs, making it far cheaper than IBM can offer. Apple also offers Inter a lot of chip engineering knowledge which is probably part of the long term deal.

Personally I could care less what chip is in my Macs. As long as they are Macs and run OS X the brand of the processor inside is as unimportant as the brand of RAM. As long as it is decent quality I'm happy. That is what IBM lost sight of.

Once Apple move to Intel based systems, not only do they get a better shot at having other components like graphics cards translate directly to the Mac, but they could conceivably sell the same Hardware in Mac Windows and Linux configurations, potentially opening a lot of corporate doors that are closed to Apple HW (& SW) today. This also raises the possibility of licenxing the MacOS to vendors with a very low retail presence (like DELL), who could really drive MacOS adoption in the enterprise market. Interpreted agressively, the move to Intel could be the opening salvo in a war with Microsoft, which in reality Apple has been losing badly for a decade or more.

Personally, I can't wait to see PC's and Macs go head to head...when the switch to x86 is over and the dust has settled, there are going to be an enormous amount of tinkerers and thinktanks pitting these two machines together. Once these puppies have the same engines, there will finally be irrefutable proof of how supperior Apple and it's OSX is to that POS we call Windows...

OH HAPPY DAY!!!

Don't forget that because of chip supply problems Apple went an entire quarter with no iMacs ... their main consumer machine. So I'm sure Steve was not at all happy with that.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple was not a small fish when it came to chips.

Maybe they weren't, but they were about to be.

Apple ships maybe one million computers in a good quarter. Even with a few of those being dual-processor, Apple probably doesn't buy more than 5 million Power PC cpus a year.

Now we find a situation where IBM's PowerPC cpus were going to go into ALL THREE next generation consoles- the PlayStation 3, the Xbox 360, and the Nintendo Revolution. Approximately 100 million consoles get sold every console generation (which is typically 5 years), so that works out to the console makers needs 20 million Power PC cpus a year.

Simply put, IBM didn't NEED Apple anymore, though they were happy to have them remain a customer so long as Jobs didn't make any special demands. Apparently he did, they said no, and the rest is history. C'est la vie.

I been tellin folks that's the game plan all along. Think how many
Apple nuts would have a reason to buy two compters instead of
just one. It's a smart move...

… was that the "pro" laptops had a processor which was both outdated and slower than the consumer desktop machines …
How can you keep your laptop business when its evolution has been set on "idle" for nearly 3 years ???
I suppose that when SJ promised a 3GHz G5, he had been given assurances of availability in or about the given time frame he indicated and, of course, of availability of laptop-G5s in a corresponding cycle. 2 full years later, not only haven't any of these expected CPUs appeared, but the top-of-the line 2.7 needs a car radiator to keep it cool !!! That's very UNcool (bad pun intended …) on the part of IBM. Meanwhile, I doubt IBM contacted Apple when it made a deal with Sony to develop the Cell … or when it signed a contract with Microsoft for the XBox … Learning of these developments after the fact when you have been plagued by delays and unkept promises during the whole production stage of the 970 must have been a bitter pill to swallow for Apple management … who was wise enough to have contingency plans in case PPC proved to have no future …
For the only future it has, for the moment, is on paper … unless there are a few prototypes in existence, but prototypes don't run on today's PowerBooks, which are–actually I should say should be–the best-selling products in the whole line-up.
The introduction of the mini was a trait of genius, in the sense that a low-priced modestly-powered but a bit outdated machine could compensate for the slack in the pro and consumer lines of portables, which it seems to be achieving for the moment. It's rather disturbing, though, that, as slick and innovative in other ways as it is, the best-selling Mac nowadays is an underpowered inexpensive little jewel: I love it, but not as much as I would a 2-GHz 15" G5 PowerBook—even if my new 1.5 GHz G4 is really neat (and HOT !) …
As a stockholder, I'm glad that the iPod is still king of the hill …

Folks, it has little to do with chips.

OSX is finally positioned as a fully capable OS much more secure, but only slightly more competitive than windows, but still not compelling to make windows enterprise users change.

That's about to change.

The only way into the enterprise is to allow Mac and Windows coexist on the same hardware. There are too many Windows only applications to ever make it reasonable for an enterprise to make such a change.

Longhorn, however changes everything. You know it's a complete rewrite, will not come out fully functional (remember early OSX) and it will have compatability headaches galore.

There will be lot's of rewrites of legacy windows only apps going on in a couple of years. Making OSX natively on the same box as windows / longhorn natively, will cause those rewrites to be ported in a manner that supports both os's. Smartly run organizations will take this opportunity to demand flexibility and options that don't exist today.

Now, M$ will be forced to innovate at the same rate as Apple or see the effect quickly.

Quote

kenaustus wrote:

Personally I could care less what chip is in my Macs. As long as they are Macs and run OS X the brand of the processor inside is as unimportant as the brand of RAM. As long as it is decent quality I'm happy. That is what IBM lost sight of.

amen.

Could have and would have yet they didn't. They talk and talk and yet there was no G5 3 gig chip and no G5 chip for the powerbooks. How long was Apple supposed to wait? One year is not acceptable.

Reading that article adds to my belief that Apple did the right thing going to intel - As many of you have pointed out, IBM left Apple in the lurch big time. While I wouldn't mind seeing the 2 lines coexist(intel and ppc), I doubt it will, unless IBM decides it's worth something having Apple as a customer, which so far it appears they have not.

A few months ago one of the rumours sites ran a story about Apple running
prototypes with IBM equivalent G3 processors...rather curious that Apple were trying to find a workaround, apparently for the heat issues if the answers, according to IBM, had been staring them in the face all that time.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
A few months ago one of the rumours sites ran a story about Apple running
prototypes with IBM equivalent G3 processors...rather curious that Apple were trying to find a workaround, apparently for the heat issues if the answers, according to IBM, had been staring them in the face all that time.

Why would Apple step backward to G3 processors?

They were, supposedly, high end G3 equivalent processors running at reduced speeds, that originated from another branch of the IBM Power family. The article seemed to imply that if they could be adapted for laptop use they would have been able to outperform the current (2004-2005) Freescale line-up.

But, unless they did some other changes, G3 does not support Altivec, which was one of the big changes from G3 to G4 (and G5) and one of the reasons for the change up the scale.

unfortunately the original story has disappeared from the macosrumours
archives (around march/april 2005) so there's no way of checking back on it...

Quote

Intruder wrote:
But, unless they did some other changes, G3 does not support Altivec, which was one of the big changes from G3 to G4 (and G5) and one of the reasons for the change up the scale.

well Intel ain't got no Altivec either

overall, i think after the initial shock, about a month later, most people realise its a good move going to Intel.

the fact that IBM is still sitting on its ass stammering with the could've would've might've routine, just clarifies the situation for everybody. well done steve.




PS where's RC on this thread? maybe his mom sent him to summer camp... hope the wolves go easy on him

Quote

Anonymous wrote:


well Intel ain't got no Altivec either

Yet.