true. it's obvious Apple put a lot of consideration into this. if they had dual OS X systems running all along they could have done this before if it was a fly by night choice.

we can all see how the IBM chips have just not been meeting their expectations. they are not as fast as they should be, and even at slower speeds they have not been producing them fast enough to meet Apple's needs. this was also supposed to be a choice about the future. today's chips may be fine, but the 5 year plan may not look so close. i don't know anything about Intel roadmaps versus IBM.... but i am sure info will make it to Mac news sites.

Having switched 4 years ago, I am sometimes amazed by the brainless writing SOME mac journalists and users produce, SOMETIMES, so this piece is refreshing, though a bit over the top. As a matter of fact, I sold my cube last week and bought a new 20" iMac. No matter how great the Macintel machines will be, I am kind of pissed off: 1) I would definitely have waited another year had I known this was going to happen 2) in 4 years, my iMac will not nearly fetch as good a price as my cube did, because it will be in a technology dead-end. Not nice.

... a complete waste of time - reading that steaming pile of ...

It's spelled "intelligentsia" not "intelligencia".

Quote

Guest wrote:
If you look at the recent explanation of why one should buy a PowerMac in the "apple store website" you might have seen a lengthy description of why the G5 was better than all the PC competition, featuring several images and perhaps even a QT movie. I haven't checked if this is still there, but is was on Tuesday. What gives with this shoddy logic and presentation? Do they take us for idiots?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, yes and they did not update the page either. It's quite sad that they have reason to believe this will work with enough people even if it's so 'in-your-face'. It's also sad that those wanting to jump ship have pretty much only Windows to look at.

Mr. Swearengen - I sure could use a job..

I think you're giving Mac heads too much credit on their ability to purchase software. Lets face it, if people are going out to buy as much software as you imply in this article, no one would buy a Mac.

The average user does not buy software once a year, much less once a month. Most users are like my parents, they buy a computer and some form of office suite that it will run on. My Mother has had the same computer for 5 years because, "What else am I going to use it for?"

People surf the net, send email, and on occasion do their bills. That's hardly reason to go out and buy the latest greatest software each year.

The only people I know who go out and buy enough new software to need to worry about compatibility are gamers, and I've never met a Mac gamer.

if the hardware is going to be x86 and they already have a *nix based build (for OS X on PPC) it would probably be easier for them to switch the build to Linux then to Windows.

the question then comes down to if there will be a Linux distro that's user friendly enough to use at that time.

The other thing that the publishing industry could do is to create their own Linux distro, eliminating almost all of the OS cost as well as being able to support x86 and PPC hardware with essentially the same software (if they choose to)

any way you cut it users will be left out in the cold.

A mouse with one button, or two?

or some Apple-sponsored app will ultimately fix the Classic problem.

Kheit makes some good points. Points I've thought about ever since the announcement was made. I'm a PC user thinking about including an Apple computer in my collection in the near future. Not anymore. Now I can wait (even 3 years, this isn't about performance/virus/malware concerns) for the switch. Once the switch is complete I predict I'll either be able to have a dual/triple boot machine on my hands; there is even a small chance some enterprising turk will figure out how to run OS X on regular x86 hardware. If the latter happens I'm not spending however many thousands of dollars to try out OS X, or even the hundred or so to buy it stand alone, I'll download it, play with it, and boot back to my primary OS with that curiosity satisfied.

http://www.fatkidsong.com

I am a freelance architectural designer and have to keep up-to-date in many different software packages, from web and graphics stuff from Macromedia and Adobe, to architectural and rendering products from Nemetschek and Auto.des.sys.

My problem is that if I have to move to a new system I will lose a tremendous amount of performance if I rely on translation through Rosetta (I've seen guesses of performance hits in the range of 40 -60 %) and don't want to buy new software, as well. If I want to get totally upgraded, replacing software alone could run me upwards of 10000 USD, new. I don't know if there will be any PPC - Intel upgrade cost relief such as a "philanthropic" developer that decides to eat new programming and development costs for my benefit.

And if I get my new machine with an intel processor, who says that the developer will have a de-bugged and fully-tested version ready for use when I am? I don't want to go through the type of halting transition that I weathered with some programs going to OS X all over again - after only a couple of years hiatus.

So I'm down on this move. The costs will trickle down to the user. They always do. Like the analysts say, long term, it's a good move, but short term, Ouch!

John,
You raise lots of points -- all of them debatable but not worthy of anything more. The fact is Apple is making this switch because the PPC platform is out of gas. PPC itself is moving towards embedded systems which is a growing market unlike Apple's 3% portion of global PC sales. If Apple is to push performance and continue to evolve the Mac it needs a competitive platform. I actually like the idea of future MacOS to Windows comparisions on the same hardware. Perhaps this will finally end the "my PC is better" wagging that we're all so tired of hearing.

This transition will leave some folks behind as every transition does on all desktop platforms. So what? Ignore the benchmarks, the systems will be as fast a current G4/G5 offerings at time of release in 2006. All of us Mac users will need to buy new hardware for Christmas next year. Again, so?

Take a deep breath, take a sip from your double latte, and click your one mouse button. Still feels okay? I knew it would.

"After all, it's reported that Steve Jobs' demo machine sported four such Pentium 4 processors."

What an idiot. Do 10 minutes of research before you start ranting. There is no such thing as a Quad Pentium 4 system. Someone misread a Pentium 4 CPU to read as 4 CPUs.

This stupidity alone invalidates the rest of the rant.

Dude, you have no freaking idea what you are talking about.

Yet another I told you so. Hope you guys didn't unload your Apple stock yet, there's a lot more downside to go. Mactel will be known as the Edsel of the 21st century, a pricey PC, not good for PC or Mac users.

Quote

acefury wrote:
Doesn't it seem odd that RC and John Kheit have never been seen in the same place at the same time? Very strange.

And that he uses several of the same terms, for example "lemmings". He's most likely RC.

and I reserve the right to hold it against him.

1. Software vendors will abandon support for PPC machines as soon as it makes business sense to do so.

Of course, but here's the thing : in the very, very, very vast majority of cases, it won't make sense. Comparing the situation to NeXT is a bit silly ( unless you'd like to compare numbers of installed users, see my point yet? ). If someone decides to stop supporting PPC, it means their product has somehow become Intel-specific ( how? ) and they have a small PPC install base, _and_ don't want the existing PPC customers. That should be pretty rare, really. I'd like to see the numbers of NeXT vendors that dropped 68k support and kept Intel support, anyway; I don't think that number is as high as this guy claims.

2. Software vendors will charge you money for Intel (or PPC) versions of software when it makes business sense to do so.

They'll happen either as upgrades or as new versions of software. You'd pay for those anyway. Yes, people buying Intel macs and wanting native performance will end up buying lots of new software. Duh. Guess what happens with every OS switch? Of course, if performance is acceptable, you can probably put off that software purchase for quite a while... initial reports show Rosetta getting pretty decent performance, so this could be less of an issue. Even if it is, is it a reason to not buy a Mac today? It sounds like more of a reason to not buy an Intel Mac if you already own a PPC Mac.

3. Apple has shown it drops support for old products regularly because it makes business sense to do so.

Like every other company on the planet? Yet, with the tools in place to make builds for PPC a single checkbox away, it should be some time before simply using that check box doesn't make business sense. Let's see... when exactly did NeXT stop supporting 68k hardware, since that's what he's comparing this to? Was there ever an NeXTStep for Intel release without a matching 68k release? Ok, I know... there weren't many of the first, but it was pretty easy for them to keep 68k support, and they did.

4. Macs tended to have a far longer life-span than the average PC.

Yea... and this changes how ? Right now, a dual G5 is right up there with a top-of-the-line PC ( well, except maybe for the graphics card, maybe ) and will still compare to that same PC... his prediction is that in 2 years today's PCs will be obsolete? Wow. Stunning.

5. The new Intel machines promise to be much faster than current machines.

Huh. That's the reason for the switch right there in a nutshell, isn't it?

6. People do not buy computers only for how it will serve them today, but for how capable it will be in serving them for their desired term of use.

uh... as compared to _other_ computers available to buy _today_. If I _can_ put off buying a computer, I'm going to; tomorrow will always provide faster computers at lower prices. If I can't ( say, I'm a student starting college this fall... or a business which just hired a new employee... or I just need a computer to handle my digital photos ), well, I'm likely to buy one now rather than wait a year. Better ones will be here in the future, but that's not terribly relevant today. If I want to run OS X, this doesn't deter me from buying a PPC mac unless I can wait anyway. In which case, I was going to maybe wait anyway for a year. For that relatively small group of users that can wait for a year, sure, Apple will parlay those users into pent-up demand for their first Intel machines. That's somehow bad for Apple?

7. Potentially no Classic support.

I thought he was looking for reasons why people won't buy more PPCs? If you want Classic support, you'll run out and stockpile PPC Macs. Believe me, though... few people want it. This publishing industry he's talking about don't represent that many computers... and it does represent a business that sets up systems and never, ever replaces them unless they break. There are plenty of hungry programmers willing to replace their Classic systems if they're willing to hire us, but most likely, they're buying old sawtooth macs on ebay and running OS 9 anyway. Customers like that Apple doesn't need- and there really aren't many of them.

8. Dual booting.

If that's a big reason for you to buy a computer, then yea, you might want to wait...again, IF YOU CAN. If you can't, and you want to run OS X, well... guess what you'll buy?

Summary: ignore the attorney. His points don't even make sense ( i.e. Classic support going away is a reason FOR some users to buy PPCs ), and he otherwise just doesn't grasp the issues involved and how this hardware switch is fundamentally different from the NeXT hardware switch. Not to say things won't be, uh, 'interesting' for Apple over the next couple of years, but... what's with the non-technical pundits predicting Apple's demise over this ? It really is *much* less of a big deal than the switch to OS X was.

Yes you are absolutely right!

Let me start by saying I'm typing this on a G4 imac, sitting next to an x86 Gentoo box, which are my home systems while I have to work on a WinXP laptop during the day. The linux and mac boxes each have their pluses. The WinXp box I use for internal IE only web pages and Microsoft Office/Project.

I was all set to buy the next release of the ibook for a replacement to my girlfriend's dead win98 laptop. Now what do I do? Face it, this announcement is saying the G4 sucks compared to the current Pentium M. The G5 is irrelevent to the arguement for the moment. So is Apple going to come out with one of these new Pentium M laptops in the next couple of months? Doesn't sound like it. Do they expect me to: a. buy a current ibook or slightly upgraded one knowing they're abandoning the platform? b: wait the 6 months to a year it sounds like it's going to be before this vaporware comes out?

Sorry, I like Apple, but that's insulting. If I had to run Windows only software, like I do at work, then the answer would be WinXP. Luckily, since it isn't, guess I'll be teaching the girlfriend how to use KDE.

You can say the Apple user interface and user experience dealing with hardware support are better, and you'd be right as far as I'm concerned. But it's not enough better than several of the linux distros anymore to put up with this bs.

For me, Apple has < 2 months to come out with this Pentium ibook or Powerbook before I give up on them for the near future, and possibly forever.

Just my two cents.

Quote

jdb1867 wrote:
"After all, it's reported that Steve Jobs' demo machine sported four such Pentium 4 processors."

What an idiot. Do 10 minutes of research before you start ranting. There is no such thing as a Quad Pentium 4 system. Someone misread a Pentium 4 CPU to read as 4 CPUs.

This stupidity alone invalidates the rest of the rant.

Dude, you have no freaking idea what you are talking about.

The Intel Xeon uses a Pentium4 core. If Steve had a machine running a dual Xeon (a commmon machine in the Intel world) with each Xeon being dual core, that would be 4 Pentium4 "processors". I have every reason to believe Apple has already tested on this sort of machine. Once you get your OS working on one mainstream Intel platform running it on another is simple. We may even see quad-core machines in 2006, so the dual processor machine of today would show up as having 8 cores/processors. Apple on Intel has a brilliant future providing Apple doesn't screw it up.

I think I will get me the biggest and baddest iMac that exists at this time. It will serve me well for the next 3 to 4 years (and maybe much longer). By then the worst bugs will be ironed out of the new Mintel lines of machines and I'll buy one of those. Of course, when my new machine hits my doorstep, something better will be announced shortly thereafter. But that's always been the case.

At work (a school) we just got a bunch of 20" iMacs (3 labs) with 3 servers and an xRaid. We'll simply use them for 3 years and think nothing of it. After that we'll replace them with Mintel machines and think nothing of it.

In both cases the initial transitional phase will be skipped, which is great timing.

On the consumer side things are looking great from where I stand; better machines are on the way.
I can understand that the developer community has a rough road ahead, but I will gladly support them, as always, by paying for the upgrades that maintain my software.

I'm cool.

"I wonder if the Atlantic ocean has as vast a collection of spineless jellyfish as seemingly comprises significant portions of the Macintosh user base and its ass-kissing punditry."

Well, you started off with an ad hominem attack, so I didn't bother to read any further. Congrats! You're a jackass. Yay!

Oh, and John Carmack has spanked you completely over on Slashdot. Do try to be less ignorant.

But not every Macolyte cringed at the Intel news. I think it's awesome. I love my Mac but I've always thought that Windows boxes were just plain snappier and more responsive. My pal showed me Doom 3 on his dual G5 and it was a slideshow compared to a lesser PC. I can't wait to get that dual-core Pentium M PowerBook come 2k6 or 7. Gonna be PIMP yo.

The prospects for sales of PowerMacs and PowerBooks were already grim. Everyone was already waiting for a G5 powerbook, where is it, where is it? Everyone was already waiting for a 3Ghz G5 PowerMac, where is it, where is it? The product lines that will be effected by the switch to Intel are already in the doldrums. Sales were going to be poor anyway. What better time to make the transition then now? The story makes many good points. Still, this was a good time to make the change and Intel was the right choice.

Also, I think many Mac users think interms of *5* years as the useful life of a Mac, not 2 or 3.

By the way, it would be really nice if all you "Guests" would subscribe so one doesn't have to go down and click on all of the "View" links in such a long thread. nudge, nudge.

If the list is reasons not to buy a PPC mac, then flaws in the upcoming Intel macs (i.e. no classic support) don't have any bearing on whether one should buy a PPC mac now.

<i>1) Of course vendors will drop support when it makes sense. So what? They would do that with a PPC platform as well. How many Wintel vendors still support win98 apps?</i>

All of them.

-- a Win98 user

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm very disappointed with Apple. I am very worried about transition costs to the new systems, considering I've invested quite a bit into the PPCs I own and am very happy with their performance.

I also feel that I was misled with false promises to buy my first Macintosh about 5 years ago. ....

You are pathetic, please switch to Windows as obviously using a Mac was about the PowerPC and since Apple ain't doing that anymore you better switch now...

Then you can live with the truthfulness of MS marketing. They can tell you how lovely things are and to not worry when they screw you over... because I can assure you that MS is no less artful in telling their users what they want to hear. If you use computers and haven't gotten use to the fact that changes come, then better yet maybe you should use paper and pen.

As far as this column goes... Apple was going to lose sales no matter what, if the G5 wasn't getting an update from IBM and FreeScale was no where to be seen, then the next PPC systems would be more of the same a minor speed bump here and maybe a quad CPU (which honestly, won't be a bad system to have at all).

Once that came out, everyone would no the jig was up. Then the analysts would be pronouncing the end of Apple anyways. Apple would have to then deal with Intel or AMD in desparation... so what then, Apple sales go completely in the tank. Seems to me they are brilliantly executing at a crucial moment.

For those who use macs to get their jobs done, buy what you need to do your work. If you don't need to buy, then yes, wait until the first Intel systems come out. So in the conclusion here, is use your system... they're darn good systems... don't like Apple anymore then go to Windows, where I am sure you'll find all the happiness you desire.

I'm surprised if Classic support really ends up being such a hard thing to do ... I remember the days when a Pentium 75 running Windows 95 and a Mac emulator totally beat the pants off the newest mac with PowerPC 601 75 megahertz running Mac OS 7.5.x at running most apps which were still native 68K ... I would think that Classic was still never completely PowerPC native and x86 processors can emulate a 68k pretty well

Quote

1. Software vendors will abandon support for PPC machines as soon as it makes business sense to do so. 

Fair enough, but there's no reason to believe that the software that's currently available with (or for) the PPC-based machine you buy today, will somehow be less usable 4 or even 5 years down the road. Perhaps longer. Witness the industries still relying on OS9 and older hardware - well beyond the 5 year mark already. What's the turnaround for the personal computer these days anyway? By the way, I noticed you mentioned the publishing industry later on.

Quote

2. Software vendors will charge you money for Intel (or PPC) versions of software when it makes business sense to do so.

In most cases this is what I consider "world of duh".

The rest is just fluff IMNSHO (as Bryan will tell you .

The bottom line is... In most instances, the system someone buys today will certainly be usable 4 or 5 years down the road - as long as it continues to do the things it was purchased to do at the onset. In a related example I guess you can say that at least Steve Jobs gives his frogs time to jump out of a pot of already-boiling water, rather than cook and lock them in by bringing the water temperature up slowly.

As for the folks still on classic... Here we are in 2005 (going into 2006), Tiger is upon us, it's been over 5 years (and they knew it was coming) and they *still* haven't migrated? Hell, if other industries took that long to re-tool they'd be obviated long ago. On the other hand, if their equipment is still functioning (software doesn't go bad or ware out to my knowledge), then all is fine. Anything else regarding what *might* happen is just wild speculation and hasty generalization. Let's wait and see what transpires.

--
Ed

Good article. As a System Architect, I taken note at one point when someone ask Steve Jobs will Mac OS X ever runs on Intel, he said "It's not designed to just run on one platform", I know he mean eventually he will go where the money will go. Further, most Linux OS people will be able to tell you, that porting between platform that supports the same sets of libraries, API and using the same Compiler (e.g. GCC) will means more of a rework than rewrite. BUT, any Linux user can tell you, you cant just copy a binary from a PPC Linux to x86 Linux just like that (Except Java/.NET).

So I agree completely that whoever buy a big ticket Mac now is going to feel sore in just 12-18 months time. Take an off shot, Sony Ericsson came out with K700I about 2 months ago, and few weeks ago they rushed out K750I, guess what happened, people try to sell off their K700I right away and it dropped price by 40%. We always want better options, and so far every indication says that a Macintel is going to wipe the G5s off the chart.

Likely, Steven jobs will come out with something completely different from the current Intel based design. The Mac will not look like a normal PC (I bet it's closer to a first media/communication centric PC). Money is king and eventually they will leave the old community and head for the new one (consumers). The market is so much bigger (demostrated by ipod).

Hmmm, just went I am about to take a leap of faith to Apple....oh well, wait and see time.

Quote

Guest wrote:
"I wonder if the Atlantic ocean has as vast a collection of spineless jellyfish as seemingly comprises significant portions of the Macintosh user base and its ass-kissing punditry."

Well, you started off with an ad hominem attack, so I didn't bother to read any further. Congrats! You're a jackass. Yay!

Oh, and John Carmack has spanked you completely over on Slashdot. Do try to be less ignorant.

If you read Carmack's comment, he's basically miffed at the comments yet basically agrees with the comments. Namely, it sucks to develop games for the PPC and it's not worth the time to invest and make it work well.

Lefty's can't help but take political shots. You just have to forgive him and ignore the "junk" at the beginning of his article.

So Mac users aren't allowed to defend their choices without being called names by people like you. You are such an interesting, brilliant and well informed person. No doubt you are also very important. I'm sure that all those bad Mac advocates are crying in their sleep after reading your utterly rational and wonderfully informative article. Unfortunately, without your help, Mac users do take an endless bashing from people who have never even used a Mac. Additionally they live with the constant possibility that something good in their life, a wonderful product, could go away. They also believe that Mr. Jobs is largely responsible for that product and they appreciate what he does. Maybe the problem is that you feel they should be more greatful to people like you who consider themselves to be the light of reason in all things computer. You obviously think that the Mac would be better off without those people. You have some illusion that that is somehow the barrier to the purchase of Macs by people that you consider to be well behaved. Well you are wrong. People buy PC's because it is convenient and because they don't care about computers. Buying and using a Mac requires a slightly different level of involvement just because there are so few of them. Won't it be a wonderful day when Mr. Jobs, his dedicated supporters, and the Mac are gone. Who will you hate then ? Who's going to help you to get a useable computer then ? What ? You'll complain to Microsoft or write a letter to your congressman because your word processor won't work unless you upgrade your PowerPoint and pay for your security update to make PowerPoint work. There are no words for people like you. You no doubt see yourself as a rational person and I have no doubt the you are when it comes to some things.

In case you hadn't noticed there is this other company called Advanced Micro Devices that is also manifestly debunking the megahertz myth. They are driving Intel nuts with there below 3GHz processors.
Ironically, atributing the assertion of the megahertz myth to ignorant and slavish dedication to the preachings of Mr. Jobs is itself a manifestation of ignorance. Yes, you are correct, some things do run faster on processor X than processor Y. Thats about like saying that the ocean is a place filled with wet stuff. Arguing about the speed difference between a G5 and a Pentium today is for people with problems that have nothing to do with the use of computers. G5's are indeed very fast processors today but my G5 is liquid cooled and runs at well below the speed that IBM promised. They couldn't meet thier own goals and to come within a country mile of their goal they had to put a radiator on the thing. Their prospects for keeping up with Intel in the long haul do not look good. Whence all the hostility ? Didn't you listen. Didn't you get it that its about the long term and the road map ? Maybe IBM is too focused on the new game machine market to take care of Apple. In any case I believe Apple was left with little choice. Of course people want Steve Jobs to be right because they might lose something important if he's wrong. What's wrong with that. Whats wrong with spending a little to support something better. Windows users are always spending money to support Microsoft without even the belief that they are really supporting something better. Why is it that people using the machine with 95% of the market feel so incredibly insecure that they are threatened by a machine that only has 2% of the market. Why all the hostility toward Mac users when there is enough of that to go around the planet several times from people who can't think but know that they fear and hate anything different. If you are a Mac user then please stop using Macs. Go get a PC and live with your just deserts.

You are correct in recollecting the transition of NeXTStep to intel. There is one big difference. NeXT did not keep it off of generic PC hardware. If Apple doesn't keep OS X off of generic PC hardware then I think that they are lost. Certainly there will be hacks that do it but as long as this is not a mainstream thing then there shouldn't be a problem.

you know..I've always taken the phrase "devil's advocate" to just mean "let's take a look at this from another perspective and see if we can understand those we disagree with".

I've never thought of it as meaning "I'm better than you and here's why you're wrong and stupid"

Personally, I think the PPC /IS/ a better processor. If it was at all feasible to stick with it, I'd be jumping up and down wondering why apple is switching.

realistically they haven't been able to meet demands. nobody is capable (or willing) to make this superior architecture shine like it should.

at the same time..I understand why apple has to switch.

does this make me a mindless drone following steve's every move? NO!

does it make me a flip flopper? NO!

I will still argue that PPC is the better platform, and no, I don't believe smoke was being blown up my ass when 2 years ago it was demonstrated the PPC was a better architecture than the P4.

the fact is..the G5 of today is essentially just an overclocked version of the one demonstrated a few years ago.....where the P4 has made some pretty drastic improvements.

what it means is....after looking at the situation with new facts in hand...if Apple wants to be around in 2 years they need to make a drastic decision. Move to another new niche processor just for the "ooh..it has a better brain" factor, or realize it's the build quality and OS that make up the true meat of the mac.

am I happy about it? no. will I make the switch when apple does...hell yes.

mainly because I don't really care what's inside..as long as Apple can continue to make systems stable enough that I never have to look in there.

It's the OS that makes the Mac. The really cool, custom guts are just the icing on the cake.

As long as apple maintains cool things like Target disk mode, OS X, ilife, iwork, final cut, logic audio, drag and drop from just about anywhere, excellent plug and play, and excellent tech support, I'm hooked.

so apple is losing it's cool processor. it's only 1 of the many things that make the mac unique.

now if you'll excuse me, I have some kool-aid to drink.

you know..I've always taken the phrase "devil's advocate" to just mean "let's take a look at this from another perspective and see if we can understand those we disagree with".

I've never thought of it as meaning "I'm better than you and here's why you're wrong and stupid"

Personally, I think the PPC /IS/ a better processor. If it was at all feasible to stick with it, I'd be jumping up and down wondering why apple is switching.

realistically they haven't been able to meet demands. nobody is capable (or willing) to make this superior architecture shine like it should.

at the same time..I understand why apple has to switch.

does this make me a mindless drone following steve's every move? NO!

does it make me a flip flopper? NO!

I will still argue that PPC is the better platform, and no, I don't believe smoke was being blown up my ass when 2 years ago it was demonstrated the PPC was a better architecture than the P4.

the fact is..the G5 of today is essentially just an overclocked version of the one demonstrated a few years ago.....where the P4 has made some pretty drastic improvements.

what it means is....after looking at the situation with new facts in hand...if Apple wants to be around in 2 years they need to make a drastic decision. Move to another new niche processor just for the "ooh..it has a better brain" factor, or realize it's the build quality and OS that make up the true meat of the mac.

am I happy about it? no. will I make the switch when apple does...hell yes.

mainly because I don't really care what's inside..as long as Apple can continue to make systems stable enough that I never have to look in there.

It's the OS that makes the Mac. The really cool, custom guts are just the icing on the cake.

As long as apple maintains cool things like Target disk mode, OS X, ilife, iwork, final cut, logic audio, drag and drop from just about anywhere, excellent plug and play, and excellent tech support, I'm hooked.

so apple is losing it's cool processor. it's only 1 of the many things that make the mac unique.

now if you'll excuse me, I have some kool-aid to drink.

surfing the internet, re-charging iPods, but no-one was buying except me (and I was buying cross-platform software). I've been in that store about 4 times before since it opened, and was always amazed that the queue for cash registers was about 30 deep. If Apple have not planned for this plummeting in sales, they are in for a rude awakening... That Apple store is a prime piece of real estate, and that is just money draining away for the next year or two.

if you absolutely MUST have classic for a publishing app...you probably don't need classic at all..what you need is a native OS 9 boot machine.

Apple moved to OS X 5 years ago...it's time to move on. either stockpile old machines that will run the OS you need for your antiquated (though costly) press.....or upgrade your press.

if you really MUST have this level of support..there are piles and piles of used macs available for very cheap...buy some now and stick them in storage.

if you absolutely MUST have classic..then the program you are using was probably designed for a G3 or earlier, and will really see very little speed increase by sticking it in a 3+ghz machine of any variety.

as someone who worked in this mysterious "high end publishing business" I can tell you most of what you are saying applies to older, smaller print houses that can't afford to upgrade to a new press or software to drive it.

I can also tell you some of these are running off machines that pre-date the powerpc...and can't be upgraded for reasons far greater than the lack of classic support on new machines. most of these machines run os 7, and classic support is irrelevant.

so really, sorry. it's time to move on. either stick with what you have (and works) or upgrade your legacy software and equipment.

Apple support their systems much longer than most companies....but everyone has to draw a line somewhere.

honestly...when support is dropped for a system..it is because it really can't cut it anymore. not because Apple designed in obsolescence. a good case in point..I have a Powerbook G3. I can tell now it is barely able to run Tiger. I honestly don't expect it to be supported by the next generation of the OS.

I'm OK with that. I don't feel ENTITLED to any new updates. This machine was designed for OS 9..and it's been ticking along in OS X for 5 years. I expect it to last maybe 2 more. what more could you POSSIBLY ask from a computer company?

This machine has more than met my expectations.

I've gone through 3 desktop windows machines, and 2 Dell Laptops in the time I've owned my 2 power macs.

And that's all I have to say, really.

You tedious cultists, get over yourselves.

Kheit: "The entire lot of BOZOs reminds me of another self-justifying group of Americans that will approve anything their party does, no matter what"

Me: Ah yes, the Democrats!

Kheit: "...(apparently its leadership believes it's reasonable to frame all discourse as us versus the-rest-of-the-world;)"

Me: Yes these oposition leaders do this in spite of the President clearly framing his discourses in terms of Us vs. Muslim Extremist Terrorists (That's hardly the whole world, to my view!)

Kheit: "...but I digress."

Me: You sure as hell do. I was looking for an article on Mac pundits caving to a cult of personality. Perhaps you could reserve your "witty" remarks for somewhere they would be appreciated, like a political rally.

Steve Jobs is the greatest salesman since Richard Nixon.

Wow,
What a complete turnaround. Nary a week ago most of you here were giving a million reasons why Apple will never abandon PPC. You preached the superiority of PPC over x86, now this.

As it may have been, Apple really didn't have any choice but to go with the inferior x86 because IBM headed in a different direction from Apple. Apple won't sell a huge number or Intel chips. What happens if Intel decides to change their roadmap? I guess either way I really feel for Apple.

Quote

RealityCheck wrote:
Yet another I told you so. Hope you guys didn't unload your Apple stock yet, there's a lot more downside to go. Mactel will be known as the Edsel of the 21st century, a pricey PC, not good for PC or Mac users.

For those that take 5 seconds to do some research, you can determine that this drop was due to news concerning Apple's music store. Check the facts in this Reuter's article

One would think that at some point, RC would get tired of being wrong. At this point, he has yet to score a single "I told you so."

Hey, i've been a Mac user since 1995, I switched from Windoze, I LOVE my Mac, and consider myself part of the cult. That being said, Mac users do tend to follow the party line quite a lot. I've finally been convinced about this whole intel thing, although it took five days to get over it. Steve Jobs knows best, right? Again, I LOVE my Mac.

Real journalism isn't about spouting the party line, but about showing us things that we don't want to see, or that those in power want hidden. It's why our country is heading downhill, and fast. Maybe us Mac users should take a good hard look at ourselves.

Whatever happens, this is the first step in Steve's plan to take on Micro$oft. I think Steve knows what he's doing. Bill wont even see whats comming until it hits.

Also, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. Two sides of the same coin, ya dig?

Our blue screen of death comes in 5 fruity flavors.

I'm buying a new iMac G5 in August of this year. As long as we have OSX the processor really doesn't make a hole lot of difference. I would have liked to see the PowerPC go farther but apparently IBM is full of promises but nothing else. So the decision has been made and now we go forward. When Apple does bring out the new machines I'm sure none of us will be disappointed. Apple still makes the best computers on the market bar none. They still have the best operating system bar none. Windows users can whine and moan and complain about us Mac users all they want. But the facts remain that Windows is insecure and buggy at best. OSX has no viruses to date and no one has been able to break through it's security. I can go online and not worry about being attacked in the first 20 minutes that I'm on the web. I don't have to run 3 different spyware programs every week to delete all the spyware from my Mac. OSX can't get spyware either. So say what you will the facts are the facts.

I'm still not really happy about it, and in fact I am still wondering about my Mac using future. I WILL buy another PowerPC-based Mac before Apple pulls the plug on their existence. At least this way, I can use that for about 3-5 years while thinking about either switching to another reliable platform (Windows need not apply), or just suck it up and go with the impure Mac (with Intel Inside). And folks, I wouldn't hold your breath that Microsoft will ensure that Windows works on these Macintels, Apple will still design its own mobo and chipset (as always).

How dumb am I to want my computer to work everyday when I login? How dumb am I to want my computer to be safe from spyware? How dumb am I to want my computer to work without getting infected by trojans, and hackers who could delete my data or send it out to people I don't even know? How dumb am I to NOT want to spend half of my valuable time trying to protect myself instead of enjoying what I want to do on my computer?

Windows users do all these dumb things everyday and are in denial that there computers are more of a pain to use then it's worth. Then they go on the Mac sites and say stupid things like Apple will be out of business. Or were dumb?

So I'm a Mac user and I don't think I'm very dumb for wanting a safe, fun, easy to use computer experience and that's what Apple gives me.

Better think again who's dumb.

Why are you disappointed with Apple? Your systems were fast when you bought them (the Cube is several years old now, an 800 MHz PB is at least 3 yrs old now as well). You say you are happy with their performance. They didn't slow down any just because of the Intel announcement.

You can use them for several more years if you want to. They just won't be the fastest thing available (they already aren't) You will be able to use all of the software you already have and most of the software released for the next couple of years. Eventually, you will find some software that you won't be able to run without upgrading your computer - then you may need to get another one. But this would be true regardless of whether the new chip is Intel or IBM or Motorola - technology moves on, you can't expect your computer to be the fastest forever no matter what. Its not realistic.

as it happens, I bought an Apple on Friday before the Switch announcement just because I wanted a Power PC platform. I really don't care what kind of Unix-based system I'm running and regret to have moved away from i86 as the future for affordable PPC desktop computers suddenly seems to be not so bright.

Just a frustrated programmer