Will You Stick with Apple, After the Switch? 362
caseykoons writes "While I understand the /. crowd is likely to be biased, I am curious. Has Apple's decision to switch to Intel Chips lost the company some of its old supporters? I have used Macs since I grew up, was a loyal 'Mac Evangelist' back in the '90's, but the company's decision and the recent connection to Trust Computing have had me wondering if I will stick with the old Apple from now on. What are your thoughts?"
It's all about OSX.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you bought your iBook and then formatted and put Debian on it, you will still be able to get your ppc fix. Other than that, you probably bought it for OS X.
I was a little shocked at first too because I like OpenFirmware. I like forth. I also like cheaper faster Mac's and the results of OS X on intel are promising [slashdot.org].
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But, of course, they aren't. A lot of the price difference also comes from the fact that Apple just makes their computers using more expensive designs. For example, look at the industrial design any Apple computer, and compare it to any of the PCs that give the platform a reputation for being so cheap, and you'll notice a lot of differences in the way they are constructed. Practically everything about the Macs smacks of expensive.
Plus, keep in mind that when you buy a Mac, you're heavily subsidizing the cost of developing MacOS and all its apps. I don't believe for a moment that they could possibly break even selling that thing for $130 a pop, given Apple's miniscule market share.
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, so Apple buying G5 Proc's in bulk pays less than we do for Intel procesors retail. I bet they will be paying even less buying the Intel procs in bulk.
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two reasons why this is fairly much a moot point:
(1) How many Mac users CARE about the hardware? I have a Samsung monitor, an old Gateway keyboard, and a logitech mouse. Most of my storage is on external FireWire drives. My personal exposure to the BOX is only when I move it. OS X is what makes a Mac so great... who cares what it is running on... and
(b) How do most people even KNOW what CPU their machine is running? How many user
Re:Some of us actually HAVE written asslemby... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why on earth do you care about how clean the assembly language is for a particular chip? Do you care about how clean the microcode is in the computer in your car? Do you care about what goes on inside your TV or VCR? The vast majority of people buy a computer for the applications they can run on it, and never do any programming at all. Of the minority that do program, the vast majority are never exposed to anything but high level languages.
If you're writing the code generator for a compiler, I can see as you might care. But even there, there are larger issues. Apple is switching to Intel chips because Intel is achieving more performance for a given power/heat budget than the PPCs. Intel has economy of scale on its side as well. The end result is better for the user of the computer.
Sure, I agree that Intel's instruction set is not that pleasant to deal with, but seriously dude, get some perspective.
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple sells a computing experience - distinctive hardware, distinctive softwa
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:4, Informative)
Apple: 6502, 65c02, 65c816
Macintosh: 68000, 68020, 68030, 68040
PowerMac: 601, 604, G3, G4, G5
That's two major changes in the past (three if you count the Mac OS X compatibility break between the 604 and G3). Should I have counted the processors used in the Newton and iPod? Or NeXT?
Mactel: Pentium 4
And there ends the run of the 6's/G's that harkened back to the original Apple I price of $666.66, unless Jobs gets Intel to relabel the processors for Apple for the production model.
And shouldn't such a major processor change also entail a model name change?
Re:It's all about OSX.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an ADC Select developer, and have one of the P4 'G5' boxes on my desk...I see no signifigant speed differences one way or another on native apps. Photoshop and the Altivec-intence apps are a LITTLE sluggish, but nothing that a native build won't fix.
Rosetta is a real nice little
Now keep in mind, this is all just the quickie/development/transition box. I'd expect that the production boxes will have a better processor in them and should make for a seemless user experience.
For whatever reason people are boycotting a Intel, I'd say it's a bit foolish to pre-judge what will/wont be available for another 8-10mos.
What makes a Mac a Mac? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What makes a Mac a Mac? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What makes a Mac a Mac? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What makes a Mac a Mac? (Score:2)
Re:What makes a Mac a Mac? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I don't care. I switched for OS X, the increasing crappiness of MacOS 8/9 in the face of Windows 2K-XP was the reason I left in the first place. They are starting to do most everything right now, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel is fine with me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Intel is fine with me (Score:2)
Re:Intel is fine with me (Score:2)
You're right that it's not much different than now, it's all about peoples hopes getting raised, and then smashed like a G5 vs Intel benchmark, er wait...
Software... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software... (Score:3, Insightful)
OSX is cool, but having to buy all of the other apps again or run them in emulation is pretty damn lame if you ask me!
Re:Software... (Score:2)
Safari
Firefox
Mail.app
iTunes
iPhoto
iTer
Python
Ruby
Apache
vim
Adobe Acrobat Reader
Oh, I suppose I might have to buy Word. Or, since I'm buying a new computer, I can just use iWork which should be included on the new machine. Or, I suppose I could just use AbiWord or OpenOffice.org.
Re:Software... (Score:4, Informative)
But you did get a lot of cool features. I don't remember too many complaints, more a mad thundering rush of credit cards escaping wallets and being taken out for a spin.
D
Re:Software... (Score:3, Insightful)
- You have to pay for point releases of the operating systems to stay current. Microsoft still supports six year old operating systems with frequent and free patches. Solaris still provides free updates for Solaris 2.6
Only if you read the versioning that way. I tend to look at them like this: 10.x.y, where 10 is the product (Mac OS 10), X is the major version, and Y is the minor version. The updates you get with each X release are certainly worth the cost. The Y updates are free.
Besides, Windows XP
Yeah why not? (Score:2)
Why does this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why does this make a difference? (Score:2)
Users will not know any more difference between the change
from G5 to Intel than they noticed in the switch from G4 to G5.
When the PowerPC came out, the 680x0 was obsolete,
When the G4 came out, the G3 was obsolete,
When the G5 came out, the G4 was obsolete,
When the Intel chip comes out, users will adopt
that chip as surely as if it were called a G6.
The soul of the Mac is not the processor, but the OS.
OSX has been compiled on multiple-processors since
it was a converted from NeXTstep. They needed to get
everyon
Barkeep! More Kool Aid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mac user since July 5th, 1988
I've gone through System 6, System 7, OS 8.1/8.6, pretty much skipped OS 9, and then from 10.0.4 on up to 10.4.2. That has carried me across 8mhz 68000s, some 68020s, a IIfx (I still pine for that machine), various 030s and 040s, a handful of PPC601 upgrade cards, eventually to native PPC machines (some of those with 486 cards in them!), all the way to my current 533mhz G4 tower and G3 iBook.
So what was the question? Whether or not I'm gonna ditch the Mac because of a processor change?
Re:Barkeep! More Kool Aid! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the question was: "Are you going to jump to some paranoid conclusion that Apple is going the way of locked-down, 'Trusted Computing,' the the most evil thing on earth, and stop using Apple computers- even without having any data whatsoever on whether or not Apple will be going that direction?"
And to that I answer: hell no. I mean, what kind of tool makes that decision now? Some sort of freaky INTJ? If Apple announces that in their new Intel Macs that you will have to have a fancy, expensive certificate to write and run new code on their OS and CPUs, to be signed- ala trusted computing style- then maybe I'll dump Apple. But I really doubt that sort of shit is going to happen, at least not now. But people love to jump to weirdo conclusions here.
Re:Barkeep! More Kool Aid! (Score:2)
Loss of Backward Compatibility: A Real Issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Over the course of 20 years with the platform I have a lot of old code, little apps, archives, tools, and old software. I've got programs ranging from a version of Quicken from a few years back that I never bothered to upgrade, to a lot of documents that requ
For now, yes. (Score:2)
In the short term, yes. I've ridden out the previous two transitions and I'll ride this one out too. I'm willing to wait and see how things develop before I make any decisions.
Realistically though, what other option will there be? If the Mac goes fully into the Trusted Computing model, the Windows option will certainly have too. As a graphic designer by career, without any of the major design apps being ported to Linux, there's really no option there. As a musician recreationally, without any of the major
Re:For now, yes. (Score:2)
Re:For now, yes. (Score:2)
I'll admit, having two computers running can be really helpful at times, but the expense of keeping two systems up-to-date is one I'd love to eliminate.
I really only use the Windows system for games and checking my HTML/CSS/JS when I'm doing web design, everything else I do on the Mac. It's nice to be able to play a game for a bit on the PC, then quickly switch over to the Mac to check e-mial, surf the web, work on some music, whatever, then quickly switch right back when I'm ready for a gaming break again
Let me see... (Score:5, Insightful)
When Apple starts affecting my freedom to use my computer the way I want, or otherwise fucking up the user experience, I'll ditch them.
Apple caused it (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that Apple is just doing what is necessary to ensure that they deliver a top-notch product to their customers, which is a fairly rare thing today. As far as I'm concerned, bravo to Apple for being aggressive enough to make such a decision.
not directly (Score:5, Insightful)
Has Apple's decision to switch to Intel Chips lost the company some of its old supporters?
That decision alone won't directly affect very many people's decision. In the end Apple may lose some customers, if the transition is too difficult for the software developers, or if the Intel chips can't perform as well, or if the rate of piracy goes up. But directly, who cares what company makes the chip? A few zealots, maybe, but the vast majority of the world doesn't make this type of distinction.
What "recent connection to Trusted Computing?" (Score:5, Informative)
Also, I don't know anyone who runs anything but OS X on their Macs and Apple's Schiller has stated many times that you'll be able to run Windows XP on your machine (but they won't support it) so I don't see how TC makes any difference to me. I don't care about Linux (that's why I run OS X).
Re:What "recent connection to Trusted Computing?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What "recent connection to Trusted Computing?" (Score:2)
And I'll probably replace my Compaq IBMPCClone linux desktop with an Apple just as soon as linux boots on it. Since Windows is known/expected to boot, linux should to, even if I have to wait two days from the release date.
Then I might stand a chance of being able to change a hard drive without having to pull the battery due to corrupted CMOS from the busted IDE autodetection code. Quality computer, quality OS. That's happiness.
And just as soon as Appl
Palm has already eaten their seed corn... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that Palm has anything left to save at this point. The Lifedrive is a lunatic device, and now they're talking about Linux? What's left of Palm that would be worth subsuming?
It's the OS, stupid! (Score:2)
the answer depends (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:the answer depends (Score:2)
Agreed. I've used macs for about 18 years now (since I was 3), but I will not buy an x86 mac if it's going to participate in the upcoming DRM nightmare that awaits PC users.
Other than that, I'm pleased Apple's switching. Maybe we can get some cheaper 3rd party stuff like video cards. I still remember paying $150 for a Voodoo2 when the Voodoo3 3000 came out, not to mention the years of the ATi clusterfsck.
Not to mention, I've said for years x86 chip
Re:the answer depends (Score:2)
Maybe I'm naive, but I doubt that Jobs would take Apple into a DRM nightmare. (Unless "DRM nightmare" means "any DRM" to you.) Recall that Jobs negotiated hard with the record labels and got the OK for iTunes, whose DRM seems pretty reasonable and unobtrusive to everyone except zealots.
My guess: some iTunes-level DRM that most users will be able to live with.
Re:the answer depends (Score:2)
Well, we all grow up at some point in time; that's where the 'boy' in fanboy comes from, right?
Although the thought of saying that a particular CPU is a 'gem' would take on a whole new meaning with a diamond CPU.
Won't matter to many (Score:5, Insightful)
An Apple Mac does its best to help you do your stuff done, and gets out of your way otherwise.
This is why many people love their Macs. As long as that doesn't change, we won't care what's on the inside.
Re:Won't matter to many (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Won't matter to many (Score:2)
darwin awards for dumb computer decisions? (Score:2)
I'll be switching to Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm tired of playing "Pimp My OS" with Linux and I hate working with Windows.
The CPU switch does make me more comfortable with the future of the system though. PPC is like Matrox video cards, every few years they release a new version that is the best thing on the planet, then two months later it's slow compared to everything else.
This last generation of PPC didn't seem to live up to expectations very well, but with x86 the CPU is no longer a problem.
I may simply buy a cheap used G5 once the Intel hype kicks in. Apple seems like it has a future for the first time in many years.
Re:I'll be switching to Apple (Score:2)
The G5 increased in speed by 34% between the time Apple announced the Powermac G5 and the time they announced they were switching.
The Pentium 4 increased in speed by 26% over the same period.
Moore's Law is dead. The G5 had the bad luck to show up just in time for the wake.
Quite The Opposite... (Score:2)
Now, with Mac on Intel, I hope to be able to run Windows on mac hardware. That way I can enjoy OS X for my web, email and productivity stuff, but still have access to Windows for all my gaming needs. Sure, Apple won't support it and sure, it'll be a bit of a Hobbyist hack, but I can deal with that just to get a laptop that looks nice a
Why a Mac is a Mac (Score:2)
When the Mac first came out, it got rave reviews for being a nice interface and easy to use. It helped start the desktop publishing revolution with its graphics. But nobody really cared about
I'm of two minds (Score:2)
However -- since they bought some wonderful chips called the StrongARMs off Digital, and have since produced the Xscale line of chips, it's entirely possible that they've learned a thing or two about chip design.
Intel have only ever done one thing right -- marketing. They have pushed the mind share of
Re:I'm of two minds (Score:2)
You have no clue what you are talking about. How the hell can processor architecture influence hardware reliability? The only people who know what it even looks like is Intel, compiler writers, and OS programmers. Nobody else needs to deal with the instruction set. The only real downside is th
Re:I'm of two minds (Score:2)
Compiler writers and OS programmers would love to use machines with a more elegant processor architecture, obviously. It's just too bad that most of the elegant processor architectures (PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, SPARC) have been relegated to niche markets or have been kille
Re:I'm of two minds (Score:2)
as opposed to what? you?
How the hell can processor architecture influence hardware reliability?
Cost. pure and simple. when the chips are cheap, the rest of the architecture must also be cheap as chips, if you'll excuse the pun. When everything is so cheap, hardware fails at a stupidly high rate.
The only people who know what it even looks like is Intel, compiler writers, and OS programmers. Nobody else needs to deal with the instruction set. The only real d
Re:I'm of two minds (Score:2)
Very well put.
I'd like to add to that, the fact that the x86 line is still carrying the design-baggage oe being backward compatible with stone-age designs (8088, et al) vs the PowerPC which was a modification of a processor (POWER) that was originally designed for multitasking operating systems (AIX, etc.). It started "life" as a very modern 32-bit CPU, so there's very little "legacy" to support, hampering the architecture.
A much better strategy for Apple would be (IMHO):
Rather than go through the trouble
Re:I'm of two minds (Score:2)
I think this poses an interesting conundrum.
It could be argued that this is just what has held Intel back.
I Don't Know (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not really a Mac user, although I do own a Mac SE and a Performa 6220 (both machines I received about a year ago). I have always liked NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP, and I have always lusted over a Mac with Mac OS X. Mac OS X is magnitudes better than Windows and *nix, IMO. The software available for Mac OS X is also wonderful and very easy to use. And the development environment is something to envy for.
However, a major part of the reason why I liked Macs a lot is because Macs aren't your everyday boring Intel x86 PCs. I completely despise the x86 PC platform and I think it is cheap utter crap. There is nothing elegant about x86 architecture, BIOS, legacy ports, and all of that utter crap that should have been replaced a decade ago. Compare that to PowerPC/Motorola 68k architecture, Open Firmware, USB/Firewire, and all of that other nice stuff Apple adopted over the years. Unfortunately, due to market issues (people wanting cheap machines instead of great machines), the MIPS and Alpha platforms are dead, Apple is now switching to x86 (which will kill the PowerPC), and the SPARC is still staying alive. The Power Mac G5 is of workstation quality. You got the best processors (two PowerPC G5s) and the best operating system (Mac OS X). Now in 2007 the Power Mac will lose what makes that Mac a Power Mac. I just hate seeing elegant platforms die.
With that being said, I hope that Apple releases Mac OS X for regular x86 computers. That would be the best thing that would ever happen for the x86 PC platform, since the only choices we have for operating systems are *nix and Windows. The x86 PC platform needs a better operating system, and Mac OS X will fill that void. Unfortunately, that would probably never happen, since that would completely cannibalize Apple's hardware sales and would lead to mass piracy. As for me buying a Mac, I don't think I'll buy an x86 Mac, but I might pick up a Power Mac G5 in a few years once they become cheaper.
Still, I wish that somebody would build new workstation-quality computers that had an elegant 64-bit RISC architecture, kind of like the Power Mac G5. Sure, a cheap $300 Dell is perfect for Joe Average who needs to check his mail, play his multimedia files, type some documents, and surf the Web. However, what about scientists, engineers, researchers, and other people who need a workstation to do their jobs? Everybody is focusing on Joe Average, but nobody is focusing on scientists, engineers, and researchers. Plus, we need more choices in the computer market. In 2007, we'll be completely stuck with the x86...forever. That completely scares me. We need more choices, soon. I don't want an Intel and AMD monopoly, where there is very little innovation. I want to see a mixture of different chips like we have seen back in the 1990s. Remember Alpha, SPARC, PowerPC, Motorola 68k, and PA-RISC? I wish that we had this diversity in chipsets again.
Re:I Don't Know (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I Don't Know (Score:2)
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'll stick with the Mac, as it is still the best choice available, but Apple's switch to Intel took the wind right out of my sails and it hasn't come back.
A.
Cheap 64 bit RISC workstation from EBay (Score:3)
Just for the hell of it I bought my very own 64 bit RISC workstation on EBay, a Sun Ultra 5 (360 MHz UltraSPARC IIi, 512 MB). With Debian Linux it's entirely serviceable, with interactive response like a fast Pentium II box.
It works fine for all the usual applications. It even has PCI slots, one of which has a cheapie 3rd party USB card in it. Which works just fine. This isn't a good box for playing DVDs, but for what I paid for it, I'm not complaining.
I like the fact that it is immune to both Window
Mac is Mac (Score:2)
CPU vs OS... (Score:2)
How many people have asked what CPU does the ipod run on? Most people probably don't care, they just think it looks and works really cool, and that's about it.
What about p
I'm actually MORE likely to buy Apple now (Score:2)
Of course not (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not going to stick with Apple! I'll switch to... er... to... er... I'll buy an x86 machine that will run all x86 OSes except for OS X, instead of an x86 machine that will run all x86 OSes. Just to spite them.
Re:Of course not (Score:2)
Thanks for proving my point. There will now be an x86 monopoly on computers starting in 2007. No alternatives, no choices, and nowhere to run when Intel/AMD pull off their Trusted Computing schemes (they're both part of the Trusted Computing Group).
This is really sad, because the worst architecture ended up beating out some very nice ones (PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha, PA-RISC), and when there is no competition between chipsets, there will be no more innovation in processor design.
(sigh)
A hit from the crackpipe? (Score:5, Funny)
So lets look at the options here:
A) I'm skipping out on a lifetime of mac loyalty and I'm going to run a PC
B) I'm skipping out on a lifetime of mac loyalty and I'm going to run *NIX even though it's UI is terrible.
C) I give up, I'm going to use an etch a sketch and an abacus.
D) Ok, I guess I'll stick with a mac.
Re:A hit from the crackpipe? (Score:2)
So you're still using OS 9, eh?
And what's the alternative? (Score:2)
Before switching to OS X, I was a longtime Linux user, running it for 11 years as the primary OS on my home system (1994-2004). I finally tired of the lack of consistent user interface behavior and tight integration between the applications I used, which is o
Extremely weird question (Score:2)
This is an extremely weird question. Why should I switch away from the Mac now that they finally become faster?
And besides, what non-Intel-compatible PC should I switch to? It's not like there was large amount of options availbable. SPARC?
Yep (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll stay with the Mac after the transition. Hopefully it will make things better. If not, I doubt it will make things worse. As another poster said, I could care less about the hardware (I like it, but it's not a dealbreaker). I want OS X (and to a lesser extent, iLife). That's what will keep me with the Mac.
I do like the switch in some ways. It means there will be no reason to release graphics cards and other hardware for Macs 6-12 months later (if at all). Since the underlying chips are the same, it's only the drivers that would stop you. That mean more hardware, more competition, and therefor better prifces.
It should also help with ports of programs (like games) from Windows. You loose the hardware excuse, there is no platform endieness issues, etc. As long as you write something portable (OpenGL, for example) porting shouldn't be that hard. And for those who don't, I fully expect someone like TransGaming to make something to let me run them on my new hypothetical Mac anyways.
As for DRM, that doesn't really worry me. I certanly trust Apple far FAR more than I trust MS in that department. And if worse comes to worse, I can always go back to Linux.
yes (Score:2)
Seriously though, the only reason I don't already have a mac is cost, and I will be switching after the switch.
I'm sticking with Apple (Score:2)
I think what will happen is that Apple will lose some people. Some of which will be quite vocal about it.
Yup. (Score:2)
Another sticker. (Score:2)
But I'll stick after the Intel transition. The reason I moved to Mac, when you get right down to it, is that I have always found Mac OS to be a pleasant and relatively secure environment. It's consistent and and easy to find things.
When I use Windows -- and I'm typing this on an XP machine -- I'm always struck by how each application
Why would I switch? (Score:2, Informative)
Is a substantial amount of this going to change when the CPU changes? Not likely. I've been running Darwin on a PC for some time now, just to get a feel for it and all seems well in all regards (OK, it's no
Speaking for happily cluess Mac users everywhere - (Score:2)
Can't wait! (Score:3)
Does that thing have a Hemi? (Score:2)
Who cares?
I grew up playing with jumper switches and waited with anticipation for new issues of Computer Shopper and the like to come out so I could find the best price on drive cables and other crap I don't care about any more.
Point is, PowerPC architecture or x86, if it gives the best price-to-speed-to-wattage-to-size-to-dependabilit y , then sign me up. It no longer matters - not sure it ever did - that it's an Intel processor or AMD. RISC, AltiVec, whatever. To some degr
Staying with... (Score:2)
My last Apple system was my beloved Apple
Unfortunately, when it died, I moved on.
Now I'll have a machine I can run Mac OS X, Windows, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and a few other operating systems on. It's a developers dream for me!
(Yes, I actually develop or have developed for all of those platforms except Mac OS).
Survey: Switch attracts 6X more than it repels (Score:2, Informative)
So according to this survey (and
was a NeXTSTEP user so... (Score:2)
Uhm, so what OS will you move to? (Score:2)
Are you going to move to Windows?! HAHAHAHA!?!
You must be kidding.
As for the Linux option, I don't consider Linux Desktop ready to compete with Apple, yet.
Hell, I'm switching *to* Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
I. Want. Something. That. Just. Works.
So I'm making the switch to Mac.
I don't give a flying fart for what's inside the box, just so long as it works. I want to plug stuff in and have it work. I want to install software and have it work. I want to do my work, without having to work on making stuff work.
Windows has never made that possible. Wintel hardware has never made that possible. Linux certainly hasn't made that possible.
So I'm hoping OSX does the trick. It certainly can't be any worse.
Notebooks.... (Score:2)
Thanks for the input. (Score:2, Interesting)
My main concern with the switch was the DRM issue, but those who have touched on it here seem to think that Apple will handle the issue in a way that preserves the security and integrity of the system. Maybe I shouldn't, but
Reverse switch with a half-twist (Score:5, Interesting)
Shucks, I'll have to reboot to play games, until VirtualPC or another suitable product [transgaming.com] works well enough on Intel Macs.
Deferred Decision (Score:2)
That said, I am making do with my PowerBook and my 1.6 GHz single processor G5 and will be for a while to come. When
Of course. (Score:2)
Yes will stick (Score:2, Informative)
I've got a better one. (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll Likely Stick With Apple (Score:2)
Not so much for the OS, which I think is highly overrated, but for the hardware. The hardware is also highly overrated, but it looks far nicer than and costs roughly the same as the equivalents from Sony, Dell, Toshiba, etc.
Re:"Does the Pope wear a funny hat?" (Score:2)
Re:OS X (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No freakin' way. (Score:2, Insightful)
Same with me. The Mac was the last bastion of hope for those who wanted to avoid the x86 platform without having to pay thousands of dollars for a Sun workstation. The Mac was a blend of elegant hardware (PowerPC and OpenFirmware) and elegant software (Mac OS X). There was nothing crappy about a Mac with OS X. It was something to lust after.
And in 2007, that elegance will be gone. Choice will be gone. There will be an x86 monopoly on computers (except for the SPARC, and who knows how long that will s
"elegant" (Score:2, Insightful)
See, there's often a difference between what a company sells and what consumers actually get when they purchase the product. Apple Computer, Inc. has "sold" slightly exotic, "technically superior," performance-oriented hardware for years, regardless of where the company's products have actually stood vis-à-vis the PC on the performance ladder. Or, to put it differently, the "RISC" PowerPC architecture has been a core part of the Apple brand and the overall "mythology" of the Mac pl
Re:No freakin' way. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure you can run Linux or *bsd on your intel machine, but you can on a ppc machine too. That's not the point of having an apple computer. The x86 darwin port is not the same as the OSX x86 port.
Re:No freakin' way. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, in general I find that when looking at compiler generated assembly I find things that I would have done differently (that is, better). But the downside is writing assembly that works is a pain in the butt. And this is where the compiler kicks a human's ass. I have found compiler bugs where the compiler spits out the wrong assembly, but 99.99% of the time it produces assembly that corresponds to your source code. And since C is at an ever so slightly higher level of abstraction from assembly you are guaranteed to write better code in C.
Only fools write first in assembly any more. Assembly should be reserved for things that absolutely can not be done in C, like interrupt routine wrappers and extremely speed critical inner loops. Otherwise you are just making an unmaintainable mess for no reason.
So, if by "good" you mean the tightest, fastest, most optimized code possible, then you are generally right. A really good human can generally outdo a compiler. But even then not 100% of the time. Now, if by "good" you mean code that is maintainable and bug free then no, a human writing assembly cannot even begin to compete with a compiler writing assembly from human generated C.
-David