Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple)

Will You Stick with Apple, After the Switch? 362

Posted by Cliff from the ode-to-the-ppc dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will You Stick with Apple, After the Switch? More

Will You Stick with Apple, After the Switch?

Comments Filter:

  • It's all about OSX.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vlad_Drak ( 20809 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:49PM (#13098720)
    ..and it will still be all that it is today. The only people leaving would be the ignorant ones.
    • bingo. now if he was one of the guys over at ppcnerds, I might understand.

      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)

        by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Tuesday July 19, 2005 @12:14AM (#13100851)
        I'm not so sure that the switch will result in a cheaper Mac. MAYBE $100 or $200 cheaper on average, but PPC chips can't be that much more expensive.

        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.
    • I can't believe people are having this argument so much.

      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
    • Yes - all about the OS. Really, it's been beaten to death in the Mac press, but here're my 2 cents: Given that Apple will doubtless keep exercising control over the internal hardware (I don't see just any ol' commodity expansion crap being supported on the Intel Macs), and given that Apple will continue with their spiffy industrial design, and given that they'll keep on trucking with OS X, well, the processor isn't a big deal.

      Apple sells a computing experience - distinctive hardware, distinctive softwa

  • What makes a Mac a Mac? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SteveX ( 5640 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:50PM (#13098730) Homepage
    It's not the processor.

  • Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spock the Baptist ( 455355 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:50PM (#13098735) Journal
    I'll be sticking with Apple. Recall that IBM was the object of Apple's animus in the Big Brother ad in 1984. If Apple made nice with IBM, I really don't see the problem with making nice with Intel.
  • I plan to actually buy an Apple after the switch happens. I'm more annoyed at the "lock out" chip to prevent OSX from running on anything but Apple's lineup of Intel stuff, but for the most part, I can't wait to go Mac
    • This is different than the OS X that doesn't run on anything but Apple's lineup of PowerPOC stuff how?
      • because when people here of Mac OS X on Intel, people's first thought is "now I can finally build my own". Then they hear of the lock-out chip and it's kind of a let-down.

        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)

    by adamjaskie ( 310474 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:51PM (#13098760) Homepage
    I like their software. Their hardware will still be nice. Not as different, but still nice, even if it is still overpriced. But their OS won't change. It will still be a nice, easy to use OS with Unix underpinnings. That is why I bought my iBook, not because it has a G4 processor.

    • Re:Software... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by duffbeer703 ( 177751 )
      I hope you like buying their software again!

      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!
      • 95% of the software I use on the Mac I don't need to buy again...

        Safari
        Firefox
        Mail.app
        iTunes
        iPhoto
        iTerm
        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.
  • I don't plan on trading in my dual G4 anytime soon anyway. I would make sure the new system I do upgrade to has more power obviously, but its the OS Apps, and general hardware I switched for, not the CPU.

  • Why does this make a difference? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rnxrx ( 813533 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:52PM (#13098772)
    There has been an unbelievable amount of hype around this change. I guess I'm not sure why so many people seem to have some sort of religious attachment to the CPU. The vast majority of folks (even many developers) never interact in any meaningful way with the CPU itself (e.g. assembly) that would really differ in moving from PPC to Intel. There will be emulation for a while and this will be less than optimal but for the most part this shouldn't have much effect on most users and from a functional point of view will barely be a blip on the radar in 2-3 years.

    • 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
  • Computer user since December 25, 1982

    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)

      by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <`revaaron' `at' `hotmail.com'> on Monday July 18, 2005 @09:47PM (#13100128) Homepage
      So what was the question? Whether or not I'm gonna ditch the Mac because of a processor change?

      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. :)
    • 6502 1 MHz 16K RAM Apple II. The most amazing thing I had ever seen in my life (to that point). I remember getting a floppy disk was a big deal (singles cost $2 if I remember correctly). I'm guessing it was around 1982 as well, maybe 1983. A bit fuzzy 22 years later...
    • There is one problem that I see looming. I'm a long term Mac user and have done a lot of development on the platform for 68K MacOS = 7, PowerPC MacOS through 9, and MacOS X, everything from drivers to GUI applications, HyperCard, C, C++, AppleScript...

      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

  • 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

    • Actually, I really like KVM switches and two towers under the desk for development tasks. My preference would be Debian on one and I something for the commercial apps on the other, basically Mac or Windows. On the server I can run a no-frills install linux server, not even x-windows, and on the other machine I use editing tools with built-in ftp features to move stuff to the server. This means the server is stable, free of crashes from anything except major errors on my part, and I can test to my heart's

      • 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)

    by darkov ( 261309 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:55PM (#13098800)
    The new Apple hardware will be stylish, perform well, run the best combination of usability and power on the market and be compatible with the other 95% of the computing world. You'd have to be an ideological moron to give all this up because of a "connection" with something that's a bit on the nose. But those sorts of people are few and are already running Linux (but they call it GNU/Linux).

    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)

    by Zebbie ( 706596 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:56PM (#13098807)
    From my experience much of the Intel hatred in the Mac crowd was caused by Apple themselves with their anti-Intel campaigns (remember the toasted bunny suit?). In my mind these ads were targeted towards the not-so-knowledgeable crowd who thought Apple and Intel were directly competing companies (which they obviously aren't, Intel being a chipmaker and Apple being a computer-maker). Mac-thusiasts who bash Intel are almost certainly just repeating the same messages that Apple fed to them several years ago.

    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)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:57PM (#13098831) Journal

    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)

    by mTor ( 18585 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:57PM (#13098834)
    You're just repeating unsubstantiated rumors. Please, provide us with some evidence that Apple will fully implement TC.

    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)

      by sevinkey ( 448480 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:07PM (#13098938)
      In fact, I would venture to say that Apple will definitely not fully implement trusted computing. From what I hear from Microsoft, the roadblocks to getting Microsoft DRM v2 (WMRM9/10) onto OS X has been Apple, because of their moral opposition to strong DRM.
    • I don't care about Linux (that's why I run OS X).

      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
      • And just as soon as Apple subsumes Palm they'll have my whole personal-computing niche sewn up.

        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?
  • When I switched to an Apple laptop, and made my company add Apple Desktops to our mostly Linux and Solaris environment, it's the operating system, not the hardware platform that interested us the most: Unix back-end, source compatibility for all our applications, and support for office applications. Previously, we had people switch from machine to machine depending on which application they need. OS X has not removed the need for Windows, but it has much reduced it.

  • the answer depends (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @06:59PM (#13098843) Homepage Journal
    If it's DRM'ed 9 ways from Sunday then I maybe wouldn't. If it's just a Macintosh with an Intel chip, though, why the hell not? 9 out of 10 blindfolded lab rats can't tell the difference between PPC and x86 without cracking the case. It's not like free-vs.-non-free, (DRM aside, which they could have done with PPC if they really wanted to) it's just one vendor's chip or another. Unless you're an irrational fanboy, it shouldn't matter if it's PPC, Intel, AMD, SPARC, silicon, diamond, neural net, or whatever. It's just a chip in a box you like, running an OS you like, running the apps you like.
    • If it's DRM'ed 9 ways from Sunday then I maybe wouldn't.

      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
      • but I will not buy an x86 mac if it's going to participate in the upcoming DRM nightmare that awaits PC users

        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.
    • Unless you're an irrational fanboy, it shouldn't matter if it's PPC, Intel, AMD, SPARC, silicon, diamond, neural net, or whatever.

      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)

    by Sir Holo ( 531007 ) * on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:02PM (#13098877)
    A computer is a tool. You use it to get stuff done.

    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.
  • How dumb would it be to abandon a favored OS because it would no longer run on a less economical and nonstandard hardware platform!

  • I'll be switching to Apple (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FullCircle ( 643323 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:03PM (#13098897)
    Not so much because of the CPU, but because I like the OS. I have been planning this for some time now.

    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.
    • 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.

      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.
  • ...I've never owned a Mac. I've been lusting after their laptops for a while now, but the one thing that's kept me back is the inability to run enough games to keep me happy.

    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
  • People buy Macs not because of what chip it's running on, but because of the user experience. Sure, the PPC chip was great for bragging rights when it first came out, but that was only one of the things that supposedly made the Mac better (and unfortunately, the promises of the RISC chip didn't live up to the hype).

    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
  • Historically, the x86 line has always been inferior to everything else on the market -- in many ways, such as power consumption, heat emission, and their ISA (instruction set architecture, not the ISA slots).

    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
    • Because of overall machine architecture. Crappy architecture breeds crappy hardware design. Crappy hardware design means hardware craps out more often. Crapped out hardware leads to a frustrating user experience.

      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

      • 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 that compilers are harder to write, but who cares about that?

        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

      • You have no clue what you are talking about.

        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

    • 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
      • I would have loved to have been able to switch to a better design like the Alpha or PowerPC, but the boards are so rare that the prices are outrageous (for a personal system). If more companies produced them, the cost would be driven down by the competition as well as brought down by the increase in production of the CPUs (which is one of the reasons I've seen listed for the switch - x86 is cheaper).

        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)

    by linguae ( 763922 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:26PM (#13099126)

    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)

      by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:54PM (#13099340)
      I can pretty much guarantee that Apple will create the most legacy-free x86 you've ever seen... they were the first ones to switch to USB for everything, they were the first ones to drop the floppy, and they were the first ones to offer wireless internet and CD-burners as standard equipment. Apple likes being current, and they have no problem dropping obsolete components.
    • "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."

      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.
  • It wouldn't matter if it only ran on Bill Gates underware soaked in electrolytes, I will us a Mac. Scrape the intel inside sticker off and it won't be any different then before.
  • I doubt a lot of mac users will really care what the CPU is ( Intel / AMD/ IBM, Sun ) vs how it really performs and cost. If Apple can keep its performance the same as with the current CPU, does it really matter what CPU it is? Some people may hate intel CPU. Probably because they associate Intel = MS or Linux and don't like either.

    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

  • While I'm sure the Mac platform will still have some markup in it, the fact that the machines will be on par performance wise with their PC cousins and the liklihood of high speed emulation of the Win32API/DirectX in OSX itself or the ability to just switch over to WIndows - I can say with certainty that I am more anxious about Macs than I have ever been. While my Dual-G5 at work is certainly an excellent machine, I expect that I will actually get more out of the Intel Macs in terms of being able to reuse h

  • Of course not (Score:3, Funny)

    by Linus Torvaalds ( 876626 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:43PM (#13099250)

    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.

    • 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)

    by frenchs ( 42465 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:44PM (#13099262) Homepage
    So if your looking to jump off the Apple boat because you don't like TC, what are you going to post to Slashdot on? A Windows Box?

    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.

  • Well, even if the platform shift turns out to not be as good as we'd like, what's the alternative? I think that many, if not most, Mac users have chosen the OS X platform for specific reasons which weren't addressed adequately by competing platforms.

    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

  • 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)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday July 18, 2005 @07:59PM (#13099385) Homepage
    I switched in February.

    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.

  • Because, after the switch, I will be out of college. In Theory, I will then have "money" to "spend" on nice computers besides this 800Mhz Thinkpad.

    Seriously though, the only reason I don't already have a mac is cost, and I will be switching after the switch.

  • In fact, I just moved from a 17" Powerbook (1 GHz) to a new Power Mac G5 (dual 2GHz). Even if Apple died tomorrow my stuff will continue to work over its lifetime. This way I don't have to worry about the CPU migration until it is all over and we start seeing the second generation of Mactel hardware.

    I think what will happen is that Apple will lose some people. Some of which will be quite vocal about it. ;-) I think that in the long run Apple will pick up even more customers than they lose. Apple is r

  • Yup. (Score:2)

    by mh101 ( 620659 )
    When I bought myself a PowerMac last summer, I did not do it because it had a PowerPC chip under the hood. I bought it for the OS and iLife, it had excellent performance, and to finally use my iPod to its full potential.

  • PPC was one of the things that made Mac seem special. I think the G5 is a great chip, and I really like my dual PowerMac. It chews through a/v tasks with reckless abandon.

    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)

    by nerdsv650 ( 175205 )
    Why would I switch away form Apple? The answer lies in why I switched to Macs in the first place. Terrific integration between well designed hardware and an OS which is robust, performant, familiar (I'm a BSD user since BSD 2.8), available (mostly) in source, pretty, and most importantly, just works.

    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
  • - what is this chip thing you keep talking about? I turn the computer on, and hey, it just works...heck if I know what's inside the little bugger.

  • Can't wait! (Score:3)

    by chochos ( 700687 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @08:38PM (#13099677) Homepage Journal
    Man, I can't wait to get my hands on a 17" PB with an intel processor that will go twice or thrice as fast as my current PB. I'll be selling this one right away, which shouldn't be a problem, and getting one of those because man are they going to be fast... I use my Mac mostly for java development and the usual web surfing, mail viewing, Instant messaging... also for VoIP, organizing my photos, making the occasional DVD, ripping CD's for my iPod, recording and playing music with GarageBand... none of that stuff is going to change at all. The switch to intel, to me, only means a faster powerbook.
  • Intel Inside? Hemi Hiden Here?

    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? More like switching to ;)

    My last Apple system was my beloved Apple //C+

    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).
  • Forbes.com [forbes.com] had an article about a comprehensive consumer survey conducted by S.G. Cowen & Co. in June. 1,443 households were surveyed.

    "Some pundits had speculated that Apple would lose Mac market share while it transitions from IBM's PowerPC chip to Intel's Pentium. But 16% of the responders said the decision by Steve Jobs' team to switch to Intel made them more likely to consider buying Macs. Only 2.7% said they were "less likely" to buy a Mac because of the switch."

    So according to this survey (and

  • I guess 68K -> Intel -> PowerPC -> Intel isn't so bad. Besides, it will be nice to get CPU's from a company that actually wants to sell chips to PC makers instead of embedded system makers.
  • Ok, so if you jump from the best ship around, where do you go?

    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)

    by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @09:09PM (#13099888) Homepage
    I've had it with the hodge-podge accumulation of hacks of a Wintel-based computers and the excrecable Windows craptastical OS.

    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.
  • I chose an IBM Thinkpad over an Apple Powerbook because of how much bang I could get for my buck. If Apple had already been on Pentium-M, for a similar price, I'd have been happy to purchase from them instead. Not paying the Windows tax & dual-booting OS X with my primary OS (Linux) would have been great.
  • I apologise to those who thought my submission was inappropriate. I was mostly curious about the security implications of the switch. Personally I don't see much a difference between the chips and I agree to many of the comments regarding the increased versatility of the new computers.

    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)

    by gabe ( 6734 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @09:44PM (#13100103) Homepage Journal
    As I am a Mac user who owns a PC explicitly for the purpose of gaming, I am quite happy with the switch. Soon I'll be able to ditch my PC, and have a dual-booting Mac instead. I'll keep a Windows partition around as a gaming platform.

    Shucks, I'll have to reboot to play games, until VirtualPC or another suitable product [transgaming.com] works well enough on Intel Macs.
  • For whatever reason, I like having a RISC chip. In keeping with the philosophy that there is elegance in simplicity and that software enginneering is all about managing complexity, I can't see why someone would choose a CISC chip over a RISC chip. I am not an architecture zealot, but fewer instructions means fewer opportunities for errors. I am all for minimizing opportunities for error.

    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

  • I've been waiting for Apple to do this for years-although I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't rather Apple go with AMD. Now if we can just get Job's head out of his ass on the one-button-mouse issue I'll be happy!

  • Yes will stick (Score:2, Informative)

    by DVant ( 792111 )
    I run a media production studio in Melbourne and we have a healthy mix of hardware. We Have a couple of generic Windows Boxes for day-to-day work, a debian based server, two G5 workstations and a powerbook. The reason I have always used Apple is the Hardware/Software integration and the (albeit recent: 4-years or so) quality software. Most of our visualization for film and TV work is done on the G5's without a hitch, but thats down to tight SW/HW integration and nothing more. Apple don't tend to give a to
  • Will you stick to PC's, after the switch?

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Force needed to accelerate 2.2lbs of cookies = 1 Fig-newton to 1 meter per second

Close