PDA

View Full Version : mac to go x86



Fausto
06-06-2005, 01:10 PM
“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “

There, we win! :)

Para
06-06-2005, 02:15 PM
One platform to rule them all?

...although last time we checked the PC hardware was slowly shifting from x86 to x86-64 :)

archiea
06-06-2005, 04:30 PM
How does NT feel about this? Rewritting the mac version of LW yet again.... The next year is gonna mean extra work for Mac developers...

My skitso response:

:( :D :( :D

KillMe
06-06-2005, 04:45 PM
doesn't that mean a mac will simply be another pc with a different operating system?

ricochet
06-06-2005, 08:08 PM
Essentially, yes. But that's really what it is now. Just swap out the mb & cpu, load compatible OS & software & emulators & you have a pc. All the other components are pretty much the same.

wacom
06-06-2005, 09:19 PM
It's the software that counts!

Para
06-06-2005, 09:57 PM
doesn't that mean a mac will simply be another pc with a different operating system?

Yes. That also means it SHOULD be easier to port software from platform to another and finally NewTek could spend some time to satisfy even the small number of Linux users while they're at it.

Ade
06-06-2005, 10:16 PM
“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “

There, we win! :)
I think the war was more the OS'es... Interesting turn of events, being a person who was there when mac was 80% market, I can now see it happening again.

Why would anyone want to continue using an OS thats a copy when they can get the real thing now....With no spyware.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 02:18 AM
Hey, cool, this should make it much easier to write an emulator to run OSX on cheap hardware ;)

I do wonder why they didn't go for AMD though, since they seem to have the better x86 design at the moment (especially when looking at multi processing).

Cheers,
Mike

Para
06-07-2005, 02:37 AM
Hey, cool, this should make it much easier to write an emulator to run OSX on cheap hardware ;)

I do wonder why they didn't go for AMD though, since they seem to have the better x86 design at the moment (especially when looking at multi processing).

Cheers,
Mike

Intel's chips are more secure (overheat protection and that kind of things) and Intel can manufacture a lot more of 'em than AMD can do theirs.

And I don't think an emulator is needed anymore, just a crackpatch that removes the hardware checks :)

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 02:46 AM
Intel's chips are more secure (overheat protection and that kind of things) and Intel can manufacture a lot more of 'em than AMD can do theirs.

Sorry, but your first assumption was true three years ago, but since the Athlon64s/Opterons AMD have very much caught up in those areas. More so, the newer processors run much cooler and use less energy than intel cpus too (Cool'n'Quiet etc...).
Then there are the other advantages like the memory controllers (even more so on a multi-CPU system) etc...
The only really decent processors on the market now by intel are the mobile Pentium Ms.


And I don't think an emulator is needed anymore, just a crackpatch that removes the hardware checks :)
Well, and emulator that emulates the mac specific hardware I guess (I don't assume Apple will use of the shelf chipsets for example).

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 02:56 AM
The reason they went with Intel instead of AMD is simple. Intel can build more chips and are more reliable. They do not want another IBM/Motorola/Freescale debacle.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 03:26 AM
The reason they went with Intel instead of AMD is simple. Intel can build more chips and are more reliable. They do not want another IBM/Motorola/Freescale debacle.
Build more chips ... true. Realiable ... that is debatable, they've missed the mark in the past few years as much as IBM have, if not more so (anyone seen the 4GHz P4s?). Tejas died, the first 90nm chips were/are abyssmal, now they're quickly jumping on the dual core train...
I do suspect that they can offer better prices though. Still a shame. Imagine an OSX machine on an Opteron dual core nForce4 platform...

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 04:33 AM
That's not Intel being unreliable, that's Netburst being downright horrible. Intel's first 90nm chips were abyssmal because the Prescott Pentium 4 is a huge beast running at insane clock speeds. Like I said, it's Netburst's fault. ;) Their 90nm P-Ms are great.

Oh, and Apple going Intel does not necessarily mean they're never going to use AMD chips.

Either way, the switch isn't really about what has happened in the last two years, but rather what they think will happen in the coming years. The G5 went from 2 to 2.7GHz in the same time the P4 went from 3 to 3.8GHz, meaning the G5 when the last revision was released actually performed better compared to concurrent x86 PCs than the first revision G5s did. However, it is plain to see that IBM are not devoted to Apple. They prefer to play with Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and themselves. There are dual-core P4s available now, there will be dual-core P-Ms in not too long. When is the dual-core G5 coming out? Probably never.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 04:38 AM
That's not Intel being unreliable, that's Netburst being downright horrible. Intel's first 90nm chips were abyssmal because the Prescott Pentium 4 is a huge beast running at insane clock speeds. Like I said, it's Netburst's fault. ;) Their 90nm P-Ms are great.

Oh, the P-Ms are beautiful, no doubt about it. However, they don't have the performance we need for our area (3D). And they weren't designed by the main design team either (which wasted time on netburst as well as Tejas). And it is the company that is responsible for those decisions, isn't it? ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Fausto
06-07-2005, 04:41 AM
I think the war was more the OS'es... Interesting turn of events, being a person who was there when mac was 80% market, I can now see it happening again.

Why would anyone want to continue using an OS thats a copy when they can get the real thing now....With no spyware.


How convenient, war of the OS's.

Here's my counter prediction, apple will continue to lose market share. It's figured to be just under 2% currently; it will drop below 1% in the near future. Sales of tower G5's and legacy G4's will slow to a trickle, who is going to invest in purchasing a G5 now, you'd have to be a total boob to buy a dead end product.

Apple will show increased revenue for their service based business, itunes, .web a decrease in their iPod sales, because their quality isn't there, and a decrease in their hardware sales. They'll survive it, because they have deep pockets, relatively speaking, but apple stock will take a hit, and they'll spend hundreds of millions on reengineering.

Apple have already said that OSX will not be open to run on any OTHER PC platform, only apple branded Intel based PC's. *this just cuts me up* This you have to understand is the clearest example that apple are aware they're going to take a sales hit. If apple allowed OSX to run on any PC, on a Dell for instance, they'd lose serious revenue for a much longer period of time, perhaps even to the point where they'd disappear, at least as far as computer sales are concerned. I still believe that apple is heading toward becoming a consumer electronics company.

Intel isn’t stupid, what percentage of CPU sales will apple represent to them? I'll answer it this way, IBM didn't even feel it when they heard that apple are going to be dismantling their business relationship with them. IBM has won contracts to supply microprocessors for the next generation video game consoles, from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft.

In the broad scheme, apple is a very small player. Here's how the numbers support this. Microsoft earns more in operating system sales each quarter than apple have earned from all their businesses from their inception.

mattclary
06-07-2005, 06:21 AM
Microsoft earns more in operating system sales each quarter than apple have earned from all their businesses from their inception.

I think Apple would be smart to ditch hardware all together, or at least sell the OS to anyone who wants it. A LOT of people (myself included) would probably buy OS X if you could run it on your own hardware. A lot of businesses might consider it since (right now) it is less prone to viruses. There has got to be less overhead selling an OS than an OS and the hardware to run it.

You know, this really reveals a dirty little secret about the long standing OS war. It's not about the OS at all. I'd love to try OS X.

nthused
06-07-2005, 07:06 AM
I think Apple would be smart to ditch hardware all together, or at least sell the OS to anyone who wants it. A LOT of people (myself included) would probably buy OS X if you could run it on your own hardware. A lot of businesses might consider it since (right now) it is less prone to viruses. There has got to be less overhead selling an OS than an OS and the hardware to run it.

You know, this really reveals a dirty little secret about the long standing OS war. It's not about the OS at all. I'd love to try OS X.

Here too. I'm really looking forward to this - finally a beautifully designed OS that will run on x86 machines - without me having to be intimate with code. Sign me up now.

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 07:11 AM
Oh, the P-Ms are beautiful, no doubt about it. However, they don't have the performance we need for our area (3D). And they weren't designed by the main design team either (which wasted time on netburst as well as Tejas). And it is the company that is responsible for those decisions, isn't it? ;)
Cheers,
Mike
Why does the P-M perform worse than the P4 at 3D rendering? Is it just the fact that SSE2 is the same regardless and the P-M runs at a lower clock speeds?




Here's my counter prediction, apple will continue to lose market share.
By most accounts I've seen, Apple's market share is actually growing, and is higher than 1-2%.





I think Apple would be smart to ditch hardware all together, or at least sell the OS to anyone who wants it. A LOT of people (myself included) would probably buy OS X if you could run it on your own hardware. A lot of businesses might consider it since (right now) it is less prone to viruses. There has got to be less overhead selling an OS than an OS and the hardware to run it.
There are several problems with that. For example, OS X still requires the Mac ROM. There are probably ways around this, but it would take some engineering. OS X also requires open firmware, which no x86 motherboards other than Apple's own will have. Again, this is probably something that could be solved, with more work...

However, there are larger issues. First of all, Apple make most of their money on hardware. Why sell a copy of OS X when you can sell a whole computer instead and make more money?

Second, there is the "design." A Mac isn't a Mac unless it's well designed from head to toe. This is not just about appearances, either, but also how the innards are laid out, the airflow, sound design, etc. If anyone could run Mac OS X on something other than a Mac, Apple would lose a great deal of their standing as a designer company.

Thirdly, and this is a big freakin' issue, there is the problem of hardware diversity. For OS X to run on any x86 computer with any hardware in it, they'll need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing drivers, bribing hardware companies to make drivers for them, etc etc etc, and it would still be a lot less stable than it is today. Have you ever used XP on a poorly built PC? It sucks. It crashes all the time, runs slowly, etc. Compare it to how it runs on a well built PC... It's like comparing ME to XP.

Lightwolf
06-07-2005, 07:15 AM
Why does the P-M perform worse than the P4 at 3D rendering? Is it just the fact that SSE2 is the same regardless and the P-M runs at a lower clock speeds?
Nope, not only that. Basically the P-M is a souped up Pentium III core. It does have a very good power/performance ratio (even when 3D rendering, good bang for the watt so to say ;) ) and while it does very well against higher clocked P4s in office benches, it really goes to its knees once fp performance is an issue. I assume it is a combination of fp/SSE2 performance.
Also, looking at a price/performance ratio you can do a lot better. From early benches it seems that the dual core Athlon64 will be a fairly decent contender in both areas (not too power hungry, very fast and not that expensive compared to a higher priced dual box).
Cheers,
Mike

LSlugger
06-07-2005, 07:19 AM
OS X also requires open firmware, which no x86 motherboards other than Apple's own will have.

Actually, IA32 Mac OS will not use Open Firmware, according to the Universal Binary Programming Guidelines (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/). However, that doesn't rule out the possibility of "trusted" computing.

mattclary
06-07-2005, 07:27 AM
A Mac isn't a Mac unless it's well designed from head to toe.

See, that's the elitist snobbery I was talking about (in another thread). ;)

All I want is a computer that does what I want it too, if I want an object d' art, I'll buy a piece of sculpture.

I think Apple has good OS, let them compete in the OS arena. As long as they restrict their OS to their hardware, they will always be a bit player.

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 08:04 AM
See, that's the elitist snobbery I was talking about (in another thread).
So you don't think part of the iMac's (for example) success is thanks to the fact that isn't butt-ugly and really small, unlike almost all other computers? I'd say their design is definitely partly the reason for their continued existance.




I think Apple has good OS, let them compete in the OS arena. As long as they restrict their OS to their hardware, they will always be a bit player.
Well, maybe they don't want to become the new Microsoft? Like I've said multiple times, it's much better to be "big enough" for software to get ported and still small enough to avoid attacks. Apple knows this. There is also the problem with running on generic boxes that they need a LOT more hardware support. When even Microsoft can't support all hardware, what hope does Apple have?

mattclary
06-07-2005, 08:21 AM
So you don't think part of the iMac's (for example) success is thanks to the fact that isn't butt-ugly and really small, unlike almost all other computers? I'd say their design is definitely partly the reason for their continued existance. ?
OK, I'll give you that one. ;)





Well, maybe they don't want to become the new Microsoft? Like I've said multiple times, it's much better to be "big enough" for software to get ported and still small enough to avoid attacks. Apple knows this. There is also the problem with running on generic boxes that they need a LOT more hardware support. When even Microsoft can't support all hardware, what hope does Apple have?

I WON'T give you this one however. TELL me that Steve Jobs wouldn't love to kick the sh*t out of Bill Gates. ;) Anyone who says they don't want to win is someone knows they can't win anyway.

wacom
06-07-2005, 10:24 AM
I think Apple wouldn't be smart the entirley get out of the HardWare market. I think they should let OSX run on any x86, but they should make those sexy boxes still. So many people buy Macs simply because they are more attractive, and if Apple can make a Mac Mini for 1/2 the cost...well I can see a lot of people buying it!

I think they should get the best of both worlds...

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 11:11 AM
I WON'T give you this one however. TELL me that Steve Jobs wouldn't love to kick the sh*t out of Bill Gates. Anyone who says they don't want to win is someone knows they can't win anyway.
I'm not sure they can win. I am, however, sure that it would be a huge risk to take that battle. The instant Mac became a real compeditor to Windows, Microsoft would stop developing software for Mac OS, and with no Office, they cannot win it.



And I still haven't heard any suggestions on how they would solve the hardware diversity problem.

iaef
06-07-2005, 11:14 AM
Hey! Does this means that XCode will compile viruses for both platforms? yahoo!! :D

Well, I believe that this makes NT life maybe a little bit better on certain areas for development. I believe that there will be more common ground for fp functions to work on both platforms without much recompiling. I believe that programming for both platforms certainly won't be much different. And besides this, intel optimized compilers will work quite well on both platforms :D. This might leave more time for developing further LW64. But maybe on the other hand it can take more programming effort to continue supporting old Gx chip series... just like when the 16 to 32 bit jump, which is part of the reasons that forced ugly decisions on the Windows platform as we know today. But on the other hand (hey! don't look at me like that, I grow 3 hands when needed ;) ) there is the fact that there is a new culture entering the intel arena, which might (or might not) benefit intel, which is that Mac owners don't give a dime about "compatibility issues". That is, ask any Mac owner, buying a new Mac, about what things they worry about when changing into another Mac or another MacOS, and they will all say that if that means to bauy again a new Macromedia or Adobe suite, they will do just that. In the Windows world, everybody is scared (not only worried) about having their old programs still running when they upgrade from an 486 to a double core Pentium4. :p

Anyhow, I believe this changes introduced by Apple will be beneficious to us all. Let's hope this won't complicate development roadmap on NT (hey! I am having devilish ideas about using my VT[2] card on a new intel based Mac heheheh!).

iaef
06-07-2005, 11:21 AM
I'm not sure they can win. I am, however, sure that it would be a huge risk to take that battle. The instant Mac became a real compeditor to Windows, Microsoft would stop developing software for Mac OS, and with no Office, they cannot win it.

Well, about this one, I think that Office for Mac is on a hold for indefinite time. Microsoft said that there will be no more Internet Explorer for MacOS, since Apple was playing unfairly, and that maybe they will give permission for another Office version to come out for Mac at an undeterminded time.


And I still haven't heard any suggestions on how they would solve the hardware diversity problem.

mmm... I have one big suggestion that might change the world as we know it today... :D let's say that if there is "open sofware", why not make "open hardware" that is free (as in free beer!!!!!!) yipee! :D ;) There might be internet repositories where you could download your latest hardware version.

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 11:28 AM
Well, about this one, I think that Office for Mac is on a hold for indefinite time. Microsoft said that there will be no more Internet Explorer for MacOS, since Apple was playing unfairly, and that maybe they will give permission for another Office version to come out for Mac at an undeterminded time.
Office is defintely not on hold. The reason they canned IE was that it was easier than to keep developing it. It's not like they made a real amount of money on it anyway, and they couldn't make it compeditive with Safari. Office for Mac, on the other hand, is raking in money for MS. Sure, it may be a small amount compared to the Windows version, but still enough to warrant developing it, as long as Apple is not a real threat.

mattclary
06-07-2005, 11:47 AM
And I still haven't heard any suggestions on how they would solve the hardware diversity problem.

Let it be up to the hardware vendor to write the driver. Having a gazillion drivers built into the OS is a relatively new thing, and most vendors write their own drivers anyway and let MS certify them. I agree with Wacom, I don't think they should completely stop making computers, they should just sell theri OS to run on other hardware. Let it be up to the vendors to support the drivers if you want your hardware to run with the OS. Takes all the pressure off of Apple.

Let's face it, the only reason Apple won't do this is because they are as greedy as MS and feel this is the way to maximize their profit. I feel they are wrong though, and would see an increase in market share and profits.

iaef
06-07-2005, 12:20 PM
Let it be up to the hardware vendor to write the driver. Having a gazillion drivers built into the OS is a relatively new thing, and most vendors write their own drivers anyway and let MS certify them. I agree with Wacom, I don't think they should completely stop making computers, they should just sell theri OS to run on other hardware. Let it be up to the vendors to support the drivers if you want your hardware to run with the OS. Takes all the pressure off of Apple.

Let's face it, the only reason Apple won't do this is because they are as greedy as MS and feel this is the way to maximize their profit. I feel they are wrong though, and would see an increase in market share and profits.

I agree that greediness is an important factor, but mainly I believe that this is more a "quality" decision. If Apple can't assure that every Mac experience comes out in the same manner to each and every user, then they would loose the quality factor. So maybe Macs will be cheaper with their intel strategy, but maybe not. Let's remember that Mac users buy they computers not because of their functionality, but more because of how owning a Mac makes them feel, so maybe this is also a strong factor to take such decisions.

mattclary
06-07-2005, 12:45 PM
I believe that this is more a "quality" decision

I really don't buy that.




but more because of how owning a Mac makes them feel

Agreed. They feel better than the unwashed masses. :rolleyes: I get the feeling that everyone arguing against licensing the OS on other hardware is afraid they won't be special anymore....

parm
06-07-2005, 01:49 PM
I think Apple would be smart to ditch hardware all together, or at least sell the OS to anyone who wants it. A LOT of people (myself included) would probably buy OS X if you could run it on your own hardware. A lot of businesses might consider it since (right now) it is less prone to viruses. There has got to be less overhead selling an OS than an OS and the hardware to run it.

You know, this really reveals a dirty little secret about the long standing OS war. It's not about the OS at all. I'd love to try OS X.

Frankly, it seems inevitable that in the long term Apple will open up for sale the Mac OS to anyone who wants it. Why would a business with any accumen deny itself the revinue?

In the short to medium term however, it would be madness to announce such an intention. Existing customers such as myself would immediately start building dual opterons on KW8es in biscuit tins, or whatever, run 64 bit Windows with 64 bit Lightwave till next June and then stick Leopard on there.

Once their product ranges are established, with all the flair for product design Apple have repeatedly demonstrated. It might well be a different story. After all we all know that Skoda, VW and Audi are all the same, hands up who wants a Skoda !

I'd still like to see LW and OS X on a Sony Vaio.

Parm

mattclary
06-07-2005, 01:57 PM
After all we all know that Skoda, VW and Audi are all the same

Just as a turbo-charged V-8 hemi powered Dodge Ram is the same as a BMW. I know which one I will use when I want to get some work done. ;)

We can play analogies all day. ;)

Captain Obvious
06-07-2005, 02:03 PM
Just as a turbo-charged V-8 powered piece of <bleep> that's all rusted up is the same as a nice car with the same engine. I know which one I will use when I want to get some work done. ;)

We can play analogies all day. ;)
There, fixed that for you. ;)

mattclary
06-07-2005, 02:15 PM
You Mac guys... :p

MiniFireDragon
06-07-2005, 02:19 PM
IIGS!... IIGS!... IIGS!...


Oh wait, I forgot they canceled that years ago for the new Mac. Hey wait a minute... isn't that when they started to plummet? Hey folks! we are no longer supporting the IIGS, so please buy our New Mac and all your software over again! I guess now it will be Hey folks! We are no longer producing the Mac, so please buy our new Intel Mac, and don't forget, you'll need to buy all new software (again)! Hmmm.... I guess they'll never learn.


As for Intel vs AMD. Intel only has a 64bit processor because of the lawsuit some years back between AMD and Intel that AMD lost. Otherwise Intel would be stuck the the Ira... Ita... what ever that pos was called.

Fausto
06-07-2005, 03:08 PM
But on the other hand (hey! don't look at me like that, I grow 3 hands when needed ;) ) there is the fact that there is a new culture entering the intel arena, which might (or might not) benefit intel, which is that Mac owners don't give a dime about "compatibility issues". That is, ask any Mac owner, buying a new Mac, about what things they worry about when changing into another Mac or another MacOS, and they will all say that if that means to bauy again a new Macromedia or Adobe suite, they will do just that. In the Windows world, everybody is scared (not only worried) about having their old programs still running when they upgrade from an 486 to a double core Pentium4. :p



Wow, how uninformed are you? This is easily the most convoluted, pail of dribble I've stared at in a long time. You know nothing about the Windows world, absolutely nothing. You have no clue what we deal with or not. I have a PC clone, home built dual athlon, running XP that hasn't been restarted in 8 months, it just works.

Oh by the way, your computer is going to be a full on x86 PC whether you like it or not.. Which by the way I predicted would happen over 5 years ago. Apple has a tenuous hold of just under 2% of the desktop market, this new direction will see them play catch up for maybe 5 years, then they'll get out of the computer hardware business all together. At present, apples most profitable business is iPod related, this includes itunes.. This will be the growth area for the next few years, NOT computers.

marble_sheep
06-07-2005, 03:14 PM
Agreed. They feel better than the unwashed masses. :rolleyes: I get the feeling that everyone arguing against licensing the OS on other hardware is afraid they won't be special anymore....

Actually, I think you are wrong in your assumption. Granted, I can't speak for every Mac user on the planet, but... neither can you. So... here's the things I've observed about Mac users that I work with -- They love the OS. Well, this is obvious then... the real reason Mac users are worried about licensing the OS out to other manufacturers is because of a fear that the OS (and the company) will become like Windows. Sure, some people love Windows. And some people love OS X. And some people like both or neither. Are any of those people more right than the others? So, if Mac users want OS X to stay OS X, they fear that a shift in business strategy will change whatever makes Apple what it is. Is that misguided? Maybe, but it's not necessarily out of a "I'm more special than you" attitude. Well... not any more so than Windows die-hards. ;) I've NEVER met a Mac user who said, "man I really love my PowerPC processor but I just really wish I could put Windows on here instead!"

If I had to guess, I would say the main reason Apple is maintaining a closed hardware model is simply because they do not have the resources to fight a dragon the size of Microsoft. Can you honestly say that if Apple released OS X to work on every vanilla PC box out there, that Microsoft would just sit back and say, "hey, cool, we have some worthwhile competition now. Welcome to the Big Time, Steve!" Nope. Nope. Nope. Bill hates Steve and would love to have an excuse to stomp little Apple out once and for all.

So, maybe in the future when Apple is able to stand up against Microsoft, they will openly allow their OS on generic PC's. But right now they can't afford to lose what little revenue they gain from their hardware, and they certainly and most of all can't afford to fight MS.

Fausto
06-07-2005, 03:21 PM
So, maybe in the future when Apple is able to stand up against Microsoft, they will openly allow their OS on generic PC's. But right now they can't afford to lose what little revenue they gain from their hardware, and they certainly and most of all can't afford to fight MS.

EXACTLY! well put.

By the way, apple stock dropped today by 3.64%

policarpo
06-07-2005, 03:30 PM
Apple wants to be the next SONY of personal electronics in the experience economy.. :)

iaef
06-07-2005, 04:21 PM
Wow, how uninformed are you? This is easily the most convoluted, pail of dribble I've stared at in a long time. You know nothing about the Windows world, absolutely nothing. You have no clue what we deal with or not. I have a PC clone, home built dual athlon, running XP that hasn't been restarted in 8 months, it just works.

Oh by the way, your computer is going to be a full on x86 PC whether you like it or not.. Which by the way I predicted would happen over 5 years ago. Apple has a tenuous hold of just under 2% of the desktop market, this new direction will see them play catch up for maybe 5 years, then they'll get out of the computer hardware business all together. At present, apples most profitable business is iPod related, this includes itunes.. This will be the growth area for the next few years, NOT computers.

Sorry Fausto if I got misunderstood. I was defending or attacking not Mac or Windows position. I was just trying to say (With a little of sarcasm. Hope this time I got it right):
- Windows never took off as fast as it could have because enterprises forced it to stay too long on 16 bits compatibility.
- Latinamerican market still has a strong need for 16 bit computing, by instance.
- Mac users found that changing technologies is better done fast (like IIgs to Mac or Classic to X), even though maybe all Macromedia suite (or maybe some more pieces of software) had to be bought again to work neatly on the new OS. They simply got the pain fast in and out.
-Windows users (not personal users, but enterprise users) argue too much about investment and even slowed now the 32 to 64 bit transition.
-I love the actual state of PCs, even though I came to it to continue using LW from my old Amiga computer.
-I know PC's are reliable, I use a lot of them myself. I know Mac crashes as often as Windows does (cause I also use a lot of Macs, G5 dual), but it is more the perception of users that make them to be "reliable". I am not saying that neither crashes oftenly, maybe once a year, but they do sooner or later on dynamic environments.
-Users will always tend to be fans of whatever they use because of human nature.
-Apple, some online news sources say, has slightly less than 3% of market share, and are expecting to grow into 4% with iPod converted users and intel Macs.
-Lightwave is the best thing in 3D to happen to Mac and Windows users. :D

Well, hope this one gets rid of confusion.

Fausto
06-07-2005, 04:29 PM
that's definately clearer, thanks for taking the time, who knows I may buy one of the new mctel boxes, just for 5hits and giggles..

Para
06-08-2005, 07:28 AM
Apple wants to be the next SONY of personal electronics in the experience economy.. :)

In my eyes Sony has been losing for the last couple years. It's odd how other people manage to always connect Apple to other things that are negative in my eyes without knowing it :o

wacom
06-08-2005, 02:34 PM
My lame crystal ball says:

First OSX x86 boxes are only made by Apple, with limits put on them so it's harder to hack.

Next, OSX is sold to CPU makers (DELL, HP, SONY, Compaq etc.) under the condition that they must make systems that are based on very specific guide lines. IE- they can only choose from a handful of hardware combinations. This insures that Apple doesn't have to support endlessly making drivers, and giving support for people trying to put some cheap part into their system.

It's essential that they put these limits on- if they want to keep their simple install/use edge.


How many of you have been activly using both macs and PCs over the last seven years? Each platform has been GREATLY improved in that time- and both have any stability problems anymore (at least with the OS).

've been using a crapy dell now for a few years- and it has only needed to be restarted twice. I also work with OSX on G5s, and G3s and can honestly say they are about as stable. People who make claims that windows is so unstable are looking at windows 95, and ME- not the current platform built on NT. Either that or they know someone who runs XP on the worst computer from frys that is using old drivers or something. I remember working in OS.8 and rebooting my machine all the time- when you remove the rose colored glasses and look at everything pre OSX it doesn't look that good either. The grass is always greener, or less greener depending on where you stand...

parm
06-08-2005, 04:03 PM
Just as likely: Apple,(try), maintain it's stranglehold over the hardware/software tie in. But do not discourage installing windows on its hardware, thus opening up the possibility of a dual boot arrangement.

I'd go for that.

iaef
06-08-2005, 04:53 PM
I have bee reading that same thing. Apple might let Windows to boot up on their machines. This could be a great thing. IDC says that people on enterprise business only care for compatibility, but I think IT managers will have a very attractive platform on Macintosh because:
- they could acquire in coming years a single platform (for those enterprises where there is a 5% of MacOS that raises support costs).
- humans tend to buy equipment with add-ons they might or might not use (like a cell phone with a voodoo doll incorporated) just because it is cool. So maybe a lot of individual users might consider acquiring a Mac just because it can run MacOS also. :)
- bulk purchases and support costs might be attractive, and IT managers would have the opportunity to "enable" their whole platform with "MacOS possibility" while maintaining compatibility (just to always have the choice to change and make pressure over vendors).
- having "MacOS enabled" machines, many won't resist the temptation to give MacOS "a try".

I believe that this might be a possibility, an interesting one. If Apple lets Windows run on their machines, I might jump into their wagon, which might eventually lend me to MacOS.

parm
06-08-2005, 05:09 PM
This article might be of interest:

http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1386

Ade
06-08-2005, 08:17 PM
Apple said they wont stop windows booting on thei macs BUT will stop mac osx on clones..

js33
06-08-2005, 09:50 PM
Well that will force previously Windows only PC users to buy Mac/PC hardware if they want to try OSX. As long as the machines aren't priced too high, over a comparable Windows only machine, most users will opt for the Apple/PC, MacIntel.

Cheers,
JS

Fausto
06-08-2005, 10:23 PM
As long as the machines aren't priced too high, over a comparable Windows only machine, most users will opt for the Apple/PC, MacIntel.


Why? I know I wouldn't buy a platform that has limited or at least reduced hardware options. I definitely wouldn't buy such hardware just to use a different operating system, when all my applications run beautifully on XP. No I'd be more likely to purchase an upgraded PC, running XP64, with dual core CPU's, any number of high-end graphics cards and a busload of Ram first.

I've experienced this many times, with various versions of Linux, OS2 and with BEOS, remember that OS? It was leaps and bounds ahead of windows and any offering from apple at the time, why did it not succeed? *Limited hardware and application support were major contributing reasons*

js33
06-08-2005, 10:58 PM
Yes the Apple machines would have to support the highend options so buyers wouldnt feel limited to lessor graphics cards. It seems like they could offer users the same choice in graphics cards as it should be easier to create drivers for the same hardware. It seems Apple will not only have to but forced to offer the same hardware choices as a PC only will have.

Since the hardware will be the same it seems like 3rd parties will have an easier time supporting OSX.

Cheers,
JS

Lamont
06-09-2005, 12:04 AM
I think it's cool, no matter what anyone says... freakin' a man!! Apple's on x86 is better than Depache Mode AND Unicorns!!

RonGC
06-09-2005, 11:31 AM
I'm wondering what this will do to the trade in value of the Mac.

I traded in my 5 year old Mac G4 desktop for a new G5. Now the G4 cost me $1400 Canadian new and they gave me $1000 Canadian for it on the trade in, so i had the G4 for the extremely high cost of $80 a year.

Kinda blows the Mac is more expensive view out of the water. Macs currently hold their trade in value very well.

Now with these new intel based machines will i get the same kind of trade value or will it be the $50 on ebay, and lucky to get that kind of deal, i see 5 year old PC's going for this type of price, or less, all the time.

Ron

TheDynamo
06-09-2005, 12:22 PM
I'm wondering what this will do to the trade in value of the Mac.

If apple follows it's perceived route of "high quality/high design" on it's products, the mac should never need to go down the road of those craptacular $50 pcs you see on E-bay. Those computers are $50 mainly because:

(silly description): The trained monkeys in computerland have learned how to convert poo into silicon and have been stuffing boxes full of converted poo for a while now, flooding the market. That's why some computers really do stink.

(real description): Imagine going through newegg.com and picking all the lowest cost components and throwing them into a nasty little beige box, that would be why they don't hold their value.

You're fine RonGC, there might be a minimal hit in price but not that drastic. Although I personally think that the best thing anyone can do to one of those Eggshell CRT monitors is convert it over to an aquarium.... that would be SOOOO cool.

-Dyn

mattclary
06-09-2005, 12:38 PM
Or, here's an idea: The PC is so pervasive and actually sees a quick increase in technology, that the old technology becomes almost worthless, even though it could still run rings around Mac hardware.

Luckily for you Mac groupies, you should start seeing some new technology coming out on a regular basis now that you will be in the x86 world.

RonGC
06-09-2005, 01:55 PM
Yeah i've seen some photos of home built CRT aquariums, they are cool LOL.

The plain fact is that The Mac is not the processor, it's the Design, Quality, value for the money and the Operating system. Why settle for a volkswagen when you can have the Rolls Royce.

I don't care if it's the fastest on the planet or what processor it has. just that it works without problems, will be built to usual Mac standards and that Apples quality Pro software runs on it. I make my living off my Mac on the video side of things. This may well be a better deal for the PC guys as they will be able to finally run Software like FinalcutPro.
:rolleyes:

Ron

mattclary
06-09-2005, 02:00 PM
Why settle for a volkswagen when you can have the Rolls Royce.

Standard Mac Acolyte mantra :rolleyes:

harlan
06-09-2005, 02:29 PM
People are really going overboard with the Intel & Apple arrangement. The new machines will be Apple computers just like they were when Apple went PowerPC, just like they were when Apple went G5, just like they would be if Apple went with a Cell processor. It's just a new proc. under the hood, essentially oblivious to the end user.

Sure, there'll probably be hacked versions of the OS that will allow you to run it on any off the shelf PC, but ultimately the switch itself is nothing different than if Apple decided to use a new PowerPC chip in the forthcoming Macs. The change does open up a new door for Apple, in that people will be able to run Windows on it thus making the purchase of an Apple box more inticing to the Windows user.

While the changeover does present some issues to the Developers, it won't be noticed by the end user except in terms of performance. Apple has made the transition as easy as possible for the developers, and a variety of developers have already ported their apps to the Universal Binary format while at the WWDC (ie: Wolfram, Maxon, Luxology, etc..). Most of these apps ported in a matter of hours - of course they are fairly portable platform-wise and were coded in XCode - unlike our beloved Lightwave. Hopefully NewTek is pushing along with the XCode version of Lightwave as a native XCode program ports to the Universal Binary code quite easily.

It's pretty impressive to see some of the benchmarks that are being done with one of the OSX/Intel developer boxes. While I'm not a fan of benchmarking, especially cross-platform benchmarking; the results of these test have been interesting. The benchmarking app they're using is a native PPC app being run under Rosetta in 10.4.1 Intel. Even though the benchmarking app itself is running in an emulated mode, the tests show better performance of the Universal Binary apps on the single proc. P4 vs. the Dual 2.7 G5 (the G5 holds its own quite well and stomps the P4 in a number of tests, but considering the fact that some of the apps on the P4 are running via Rosetta, I think the OSX/Intel future looks quite bright).

Keep in mind that the performance of these boxes will dramatically improve as the apps get optimized and the developers complete the transition to Universal Binaries. Also remember that Universal Binaries means that the apps run on both PPC & x86 platforms, so you're not losing anything by staying on PPC.

Also, don't forget that the developer boxes are simply designed to give the developer a completely barebones box to translate their code on. They're not remotely representative of the 'production' units Apple will release to the public. Rest assured that the Intel based PowerMac will be in no way less capable than the current 64bit G5 systems. Apple didn't just dream this transition up the night before the WWDC - they've been working on it for over 5 years - Apple sees this transition as both beneficial to the end user and profitable for the company.

Apple is not only innovative and creative, but they're vigilant in their desire to make the best products on the market. The PPC architecture no longer affords them that capability; even after evaluating the Cell processor, Apple concluded that going Intel would allow them to continue "thinking differently".

ciao,

mattclary
06-09-2005, 02:53 PM
This is a good article about the switch. It gives what I consider to be good insight into the psyche of the typical Mac user. pretty sure the writer is a Mac user, most of the guys at Ars are.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars/2

RonGC
06-09-2005, 02:53 PM
@ Harlan, like your insight on this topic. I have a lot of faith in Apple mainly because they are a creative, innovative and design conscious company. Their main user base are based in the creative side of the business realm, publishing, video production, graphics design, etc.

A high percentage of the user base are professionals who make a living off of Macs.

That is why there is so much concern on our parts, creative professionals do not like instability, it interferes with deadlines :)

Ron

james767
06-09-2005, 02:55 PM
Come to Papa! Come ON!

harlan
06-09-2005, 03:33 PM
That is why there is so much concern on our parts, creative professionals do not like instability, it interferes with deadlines :)

Ron

Well a positive note on the potential for instability is the fact that the Intel based version of OSX has undergone the exact same amount of development & optimization as the PPC version as they were developed simultaneously. As stable an OS as OSX is, I'd imagine, due to it's platform independence and 5 years worth of optimization on PPC & x86, that it will be just as stable on the x86 architecture.

Personally, I can't wait to be running OSX on a shiny new 2.66Ghz Dual-Core Pentium-M based PowerBook with a 667Mhz FSB, 2MB on chip level-2 Cache, & pushing data with the new SSE, FPU, & DMB instructions. :) weeeee......


I truly wish the FSB was 666Mhz though - how cool would that be. ;)

js33
06-09-2005, 04:02 PM
Come to Papa! Come ON!

Hehehehe. Steve just wanted to shake hands but Paul wanted a big sloppy love hug. :D That was an awkward moment.

Cheers,
JS

RonGC
06-09-2005, 04:04 PM
Well i certainly know that the application Motion could use the speed boost of faster CPU's.

I can see Job's point of view on that front, the video apps need the speed and ram, HDvideo most certainly.

Motion will benefit, and i believe will be developed into a top pro application, just as FCP and DVDstudio were.

On the other hand from what i've been reading on the net, for whatever worth it may be, getting Windows to run on the New Macs may not be all that easy as a simple OS install.

Ron

js33
06-09-2005, 04:06 PM
Since new motherboards and processors seem to come out every week on the PC side I wonder how upgradable a MacIntel will be? Obviously a laptop would not be upgradable much if at all but what about the PowerMacs? Will you be able to upgrade the processors, video cards, motherboards? I would like the ability to upgrade pieces rather than have to buy a new machine just to upgrade one part.
Will Apple "Think Different"? Will it seems they are now but I guess we will see how far it goes.


Cheers,
JS

Ztreem
06-09-2005, 05:44 PM
Why settle for a volkswagen when you can have the Rolls Royce.



Because it's cheaper and does the same thing. :p

If you want to use Lightwave why pay the double, just to have it delivered in a gold box and with no working plug-ins? :confused:

wacom
06-09-2005, 10:46 PM
Because it's cheaper and does the same thing. :p

If you want to use Lightwave why pay the double, just to have it delivered in a gold box and with no working plug-ins? :confused:

You better look out, I think the mac fan boys are going to toss a chair your way...

You do have a point though...I didn't fall into the dual G5 trap. Didn't most Mac users learn that with the G4's? I use my Macs for Adobe software since it still runs a little better on the mac (pound for pound anyway) and OSX is sexy. Why do I need two CPU's for 2D work? But for 3D? Who are they kidding...piss away your money! Just because it should be doesn't make it so...

So now we know what kind of macs are going to be running on the Pixar render farm...hehehehe.

RonGC
06-09-2005, 11:16 PM
Gentlemen, there is no trap with the G5. Maybe if all you do is lightwave renders then perhaps that is true, but believe me the extra horsepower is a big time saver when using FCP, DVDstudio and working with massive amounts of video.

I get full use of the G5 on video projects and get a lot more done in the same amount of time than i could with the G4.

Lightwave for me is just a great way to add animations and 3d interfaces for DVD's and video for my clients. It is just one of many applications used daily by me.

As for cost, i could by 6 MAc G5's for the price of just one of my video cameras, cost is relative ;)

Ron

parm
06-10-2005, 01:31 AM
For anyone who still thinks that Apple is a particularly expensive option. Have a Browse through this months 'Digit' Magazine if you can.

And take a look at their group test of 3d Workstations price range: £2 500 to £3 000 plus VAT, thats 17.5% in Britain.

They used the radiosity_BOX.lws file from the included content of LW 8.3, to compare processing speed.

Needless to say, no Macs in the line up. As the 2.7ghz G5 costs £1 701 plus VAT.

Interestingly though, elsewhere in the same mag. In a review of the 2.7 G5. They carry out the same rendering test. Had the Mac been in the workstation lineup it would have come in, second. Behind a very expensive workstation.

For rendering at least, it proved as good as or better than some much more expensive workstations.

archiea
06-10-2005, 05:13 AM
This is a good article about the switch. It gives what I consider to be good insight into the psyche of the typical Mac user. pretty sure the writer is a Mac user, most of the guys at Ars are.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars/2

Alot of speculation on whats going on... and some interesting reactions like those of Matt regarding the impression of snooty mac users from the PC user's perspective...

For, well, years now, mac users have worked on "inferior" hardware.. or slower hardware... So much of our benefit came from the software.. its ease of use.. its bundled software...

From what I saw from the keynote was a software demo of mac software, but this time it was from an Macintel.

So what does this mean?

Sometime in 2007, a mac user will go to an apple store and check out the new powerbook... nice sleek aluminum.. pretty... crisp display... clean design.. basically the same kind of quality product we've always seen... Sure it will be priced slightly higher than the dells or HP's... but it comes with OS-X.. the new leoperd build 10.5.2.. the new Ilife 07 some great extras... So basically.. its gonna be like buying a mac today.

The only difference..is that this mac user will be paying slightly more for a laptop that offers the same clock speed as an windows laptop, instead of one that is lagging by as much as a ghz as they do today...

See what I mean?

I admit that my first reaction to the news was images in my head of MACintels mixed among atrotious PC's...

http://www.alienware.com/
http://www.aerocool.com.tw/aerocool-files-v3/Images/case/jetmaster/Sr.jpg (what is this fast and furious PC?)
http://www.colorcases.com/News/Show/cod401b.JPG
http://images.tigerdirect.com/chieftec2/chieftecmain_02.gif (death star grille is in, didn't you hear?)
Hmmm, this seems familiar... http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/images/lianli_v1000.jpg

..But I think that would be a mistake.. I think it would be wise for apple to maintain the exclusiveness that it does today... Its like how Ford bought Jagwar but maintained the Jaguar dealer chain.. because you can't sell Jaguars at Ford dealerships where they sell trucks and Mustangs... Its out of the pricepoint and market. They kinda tried when the Thunderbirds came out.. They sold them at Ford dealerships when they would have sold better at Lincoln dealerships..

Same with Apple.. I think you will go into apple store and buy a Powermac (or macintel?), rather transperent to the CPU under the hood. think about it... Apple has prospered running their OS on slower hardware. Now they don't have to market GHZ myths, alti-vec crap, ... they jsut have to keep selling killer aps on some smart hardware. Pretty much what they have been doing...

And the windows folks are just going to have to buy a mac to run mac. PEriod.. I bought a PC to run windows.. no biggie.. If you want to run OS, get a mac... Problem is that alot of PC users are so used to .. how to put it... "aquiring" software. I know alot of PC users that have GIGs of pirated software they they don't even use.. they are like digital pack rats.. This mentality of "aquiring" software has become part of their philosphy regarding software.

Mac users are used to having to pay a bit more.. but they get a bit more.

the Flip side is what Harlan said.. you get a hacked copy of OS-X on a cheap PC and b*tch and moan as to why Mac software is so unstable.. Basically the worst parts of the Steve Jobs Bible.. Fawk that. If apple makes standard hardare, theres no chasing one's tail in trying to appease hardware variations... Pretty much what Microsoft has now... Do you mac users want that? Do you PC users want the same bios fumbling experince on a mac? ;)

js33
06-10-2005, 05:43 AM
Well I think you will see PCs start acting more like Macs going forward. They have been stable since the NT base. There are new BIOS chips coming that do away with the clunky looking startup screens and so forth. Also Mac users will benefit from being on the cutting edge of hardware technology. Although if you can't upgrade a Mac much some of that benefit will be lost.

Cheers,
JS

Para
06-10-2005, 08:00 AM
archiea: Are you trying to say with those pics that you think custom PC cases look ugly? If that's the case, I can agree to some extent: The commercial ones you posted are most commonly ugly and used only as a base to start building something really cool. For example some people build their own cases completely from scratch.

james767
06-10-2005, 09:29 AM
for me it wasn't about Macs being special but it was about PowerPC's having different architecture than Intel. Apple and IBM could have worked out a creative solution with hardware and software supporting each other. Maybe this wouldn't in the fastest thing on the planet but it would be specialized so certain software could run relatively problem free and used innovative hardware. Now everybody's using the same architecture more or less. if I can use an analogy is like having a barnyard full of sheep and rabbits. Now we've just gotten rid of the rabbits and now we only have sheep and slightly blue sheep. the development starts getting very narrow.


Alot of speculation on whats going on... and some interesting reactions like those of Matt regarding the impression of snooty mac users from the PC user's perspective...

For, well, years now, mac users have worked on "inferior" hardware.. or slower hardware... So much of our benefit came from the software.. its ease of use.. its bundled software...

From what I saw from the keynote was a software demo of mac software, but this time it was from an Macintel.

So what does this mean?

Sometime in 2007, a mac user will go to an apple store and check out the new powerbook... nice sleek aluminum.. pretty... crisp display... clean design.. basically the same kind of quality product we've always seen... Sure it will be priced slightly higher than the dells or HP's... but it comes with OS-X.. the new leoperd build 10.5.2.. the new Ilife 07 some great extras... So basically.. its gonna be like buying a mac today.

The only difference..is that this mac user will be paying slightly more for a laptop that offers the same clock speed as an windows laptop, instead of one that is lagging by as much as a ghz as they do today...

See what I mean?

I admit that my first reaction to the news was images in my head of MACintels mixed among atrotious PC's...

http://www.alienware.com/
http://www.aerocool.com.tw/aerocool-files-v3/Images/case/jetmaster/Sr.jpg (what is this fast and furious PC?)
http://www.colorcases.com/News/Show/cod401b.JPG
http://images.tigerdirect.com/chieftec2/chieftecmain_02.gif (death star grille is in, didn't you hear?)
Hmmm, this seems familiar... http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/images/lianli_v1000.jpg

..But I think that would be a mistake.. I think it would be wise for apple to maintain the exclusiveness that it does today... Its like how Ford bought Jagwar but maintained the Jaguar dealer chain.. because you can't sell Jaguars at Ford dealerships where they sell trucks and Mustangs... Its out of the pricepoint and market. They kinda tried when the Thunderbirds came out.. They sold them at Ford dealerships when they would have sold better at Lincoln dealerships..

Same with Apple.. I think you will go into apple store and buy a Powermac (or macintel?), rather transperent to the CPU under the hood. think about it... Apple has prospered running their OS on slower hardware. Now they don't have to market GHZ myths, alti-vec crap, ... they jsut have to keep selling killer aps on some smart hardware. Pretty much what they have been doing...

And the windows folks are just going to have to buy a mac to run mac. PEriod.. I bought a PC to run windows.. no biggie.. If you want to run OS, get a mac... Problem is that alot of PC users are so used to .. how to put it... "aquiring" software. I know alot of PC users that have GIGs of pirated software they they don't even use.. they are like digital pack rats.. This mentality of "aquiring" software has become part of their philosphy regarding software.

Mac users are used to having to pay a bit more.. but they get a bit more.

the Flip side is what Harlan said.. you get a hacked copy of OS-X on a cheap PC and b*tch and moan as to why Mac software is so unstable.. Basically the worst parts of the Steve Jobs Bible.. Fawk that. If apple makes standard hardare, theres no chasing one's tail in trying to appease hardware variations... Pretty much what Microsoft has now... Do you mac users want that? Do you PC users want the same bios fumbling experince on a mac? ;)

RonGC
06-10-2005, 10:48 AM
Now that truly is the scary thought, that everyone ends up the same. No real choice no real innovation. The good enough principal.

Bill gates" no computer user will need more than 64 MB of RAM" or more recently
"there is no real need for 64 bit computers". If we loose Apple we loose one of the driving forces for a lot of the rapid development and cutting edge of the computer industry.

Bill is not a visionary/innovator just a great marketer, maybe the best on the planet.

This is Apples strength, the ability to question where are we going and where should we be. They have a team of the best engineers and definitely the best designers who are given the mission of building innovate and well designed attention grabbing systems.

Look just how much press a company with only 2% of the industry market gets, they lead, every one else follows and copies. the end result all computer users benefit.

If anyone sneers at the concept of design being important, look at for example the fashion market. You can buy a shirt at Walmart for $20 or buy a similar shirt, same materials but a hot designers name on the label, bingo $100 or more. Brand names of cars are status symbols, what part of town you live in, **** even the type of running shoe you wear.

In our modern society design is God :)

Ron

james767
06-10-2005, 10:55 AM
that is a threat no real innovation. Right now Microsoft and Sony are battling it out for dominance over the videogame industry. Consumers and gamers will win because they are both trying to outdo each other. Who is Intel trying to outdo AMD?if AMD goes away and Intel has a monopoly on the personal computer market. Why bother throw money around. Slow and steady that's how Microsoft wants develop. But with Sony and Microsoft going at it you get real innovation and amazing technology. Imagine if there was no competition in the videogame Consul market what type of machine you think would be playing? :cool:



Now that truly is the scary thought, that everyone ends up the same. No real choice no real innovation. The good enough principal.

Bill gates" no computer user will need more than 64 MB of RAM" or more recently
"there is no real need for 64 bit computers". If we loose Apple we loose one of the driving forces for a lot of the rapid development and cutting edge of the computer industry.

Bill is not a visionary/innovator just a great marketer, maybe the best on the planet.

This is Apples strength, the ability to question where are we going and where should we be. They have a team of the best engineers and definitely the best designers who are given the mission of building innovate and well designed attention grabbing systems.

Look just how much press a company with only 2% of the industry market gets, they lead, every one else follows and copies. the end result all computer users benefit.

If anyone sneers at the concept of design being important, look at for example the fashion market. You can buy a shirt at Walmart for $20 or buy a similar shirt, same materials but a hot designers name on the label, bingo $100 or more. Brand names of cars are status symbols, what part of town you live in, **** even the type of running shoe you wear.

In our modern society design is God :)

Ron

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 11:13 AM
Now that truly is the scary thought, that everyone ends up the same. No real choice no real innovation. The good enough principal.
I doubt that this will happen sooner or later... There is always someone who is faster, hungrier, more innovative.


Bill gates" no computer user will need more than 64 MB of RAM" or more recently
"there is no real need for 64 bit computers". If we loose Apple we loose one of the driving forces for a lot of the rapid development and cutting edge of the computer industry.

Bill is not a visionary/innovator just a great marketer, maybe the best on the planet.
I think the same goes for Steve Jobs. Second hand visions and over-hyped products that (in many cases) don't deliver. 64-bit in Tiger? 3GHz G5s? crooked benchmarks etc...
Not that I'm a M$ fan, I'd prefer to do all my work on Linux (if I had _that_ choice), but in the end M$ gives me more options and stays out of my brain ;)
I just don't think Apple is any better than M$, they just use a different strategy to sell their hype.


This is Apples strength, the ability to question where are we going and where should we be. They have a team of the best engineers and definitely the best designers who are given the mission of building innovate and well designed attention grabbing systems.
Designers, yes. Engineers no. There have been and there are better technical solutions abound. However, Apple knows how to sell their engineering better.


Look just how much press a company with only 2% of the industry market gets, they lead, every one else follows and copies. the end result all computer users benefit.
Then again, vice versa, they follow and copy as well... How long did it take Apple to see DTV as a market for example?


If anyone sneers at the concept of design being important, look at for example the fashion market. You can buy a shirt at Walmart for $20 or buy a similar shirt, same materials but a hot designers name on the label, bingo $100 or more. Brand names of cars are status symbols, what part of town you live in, **** even the type of running shoe you wear.
For certain people that may surely hold true. But there is a difference between design and brands. Brands stand for so much more than design does. Other people might be willing to pay more for a brand not because of the design, but because of other qualities connected to the brand (whether those qualities stand up in practice remains open).
...Which brings us back to this discussion in a way... since the Apple brand just brings up different "emotions", depending on a lot of personal experience (so does M$ or any other brand, NT included).

In our modern society design is God :)
No, ringtones are ;)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
06-10-2005, 11:25 AM
Now that truly is the scary thought, that everyone ends up the same. No real choice

EGGGGSACTLY!!!! I want the choice to run the OS I want on the hardware I want. I should not be FORCED to run a piece of software on hardware only supplied by the author of the software.

mattclary
06-10-2005, 11:27 AM
If anyone sneers at the concept of design being important, look at for example the fashion market. You can buy a shirt at Walmart for $20 or buy a similar shirt, same materials but a hot designers name on the label, bingo $100 or more. Brand names of cars are status symbols, what part of town you live in, **** even the type of running shoe you wear.

Well said! I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not a status symbol or a piece of art.

nevmoor
06-10-2005, 01:18 PM
I have used both platforms and currently am on a MS platform. I used to miss the Apple ease of use,( eg hardware compatibility, transparent os, those 'hey that's not supposed to bet set that way so I fixed it for you stupid!!" style messages) but now that the latest versions of Windows have begun to do that I think the Mac has the "creative types" as their consumer base. I think that the new MacIntel products will still without a doubt be 'elite' hardware/software controlled boxes. I hope they are able to keep the OS as hack proof as it has been so far.

Just my computer-illiterate opinion.
I still wish I could afford a G(X) to this day and
If the MacIntel products stay creative, I still will.

Para
06-10-2005, 01:49 PM
Bill gates" no computer user will need more than 64 MB of RAM" or more recently
"there is no real need for 64 bit computers". If we loose Apple we loose one of the driving forces for a lot of the rapid development and cutting edge of the computer industry.

Bill is not a visionary/innovator just a great marketer, maybe the best on the planet.

This is Apples strength, the ability to question where are we going and where should we be.

I cut most of the crap out of your post to make this post shorter :)

Firstly, Gates didn't say that. It's a common widely-spred myth started by someone anonymous - could've even been a Mac user for all we really know about the origins of this myth.

If you think Apple's strength is to question where we are heading then tell me, has it ever really helped to try row upstream while the great water fall is getting nearer? Surely it's a valiant effort and may buy the poor guy in the boat some time but eventually he's going to fall. Apple going x86 is basically the same as mr. Jobs would be that guy in the boat and how he got so close to the water fall that he saw no other option but to go with the flow and fall with style and dignity while he still could.


It's not about the company, it's about the people. Anyone can be a fan but being a fanatic is dangerous especially for the company.

robewil
06-10-2005, 02:17 PM
It is pretty well substantiated that Bill Gates did say around 1981 (when the original IBM PC was introduced) that nobody would ever need more than 640K of RAM in a personal computer. 640K was 10 times the amount of RAM that was in a typical computer of that time.

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 02:43 PM
It is pretty well substantiated that Bill Gates did say around 1981 (when the original IBM PC was introduced) that nobody would ever need more than 640K of RAM in a personal computer. 640K was 10 times the amount of RAM that was in a typical computer of that time.
No doubt about it, but to put it into perspective, there were tons of misconceptions in the history of the computer (from pioneers saysing no more than 10 computers would ever be needed in the whole world) ... and lots of failings (anyone remember NeXT? BeOS?).
And it usually isn't the pioneers that make a technology workable and available to the masses (which is true just as much for Ford, Edison, etc...).
Cheers,
Mike

Para
06-10-2005, 02:52 PM
It is pretty well substantiated that Bill Gates did say around 1981 (when the original IBM PC was introduced) that nobody would ever need more than 640K of RAM in a personal computer. 640K was 10 times the amount of RAM that was in a typical computer of that time.

To quote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Wrongly_Attributed:

Wrongly attributed:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." and "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer."

riki
06-10-2005, 06:55 PM
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11809

js33
06-11-2005, 01:35 AM
Hmmm, Interesting. It could have some truth to it. But maybe it's not so much a matter of Intel buying Apple as it is a strong partnership to dethrone Microsoft. The part about Apple driving innovation faster to sell more chips certainly makes sense as MS OS only brings out new versions every 5 years or so, not counting patches and service packs. Also since MS went with PPC for the Xbox Jobs and Intel knew this was their chance to strike the giant while it has its back turned.

But like he mentions I also found it rather odd that Apple/Steve would so publically and early announce the transition knowing it would kill existsing Mac sales.

Intel must have made a deal with Apple to not worry about existing sales as we will cover you in the meantime and then together we will have enough clout and innovation to pull the rug out from under MS.

The future will be interesting.

Cheers,
JS

wacom
06-11-2005, 06:35 PM
I'm so sick and tired of people trying to talk prices when it comes to PCs vs. Macs. Yes, you can be a fool and go buy some fancy pants box, or for the same money buy three slightly slower boxes. Which one will render faster? Why is this even that big of a deal if you use a render farm, or network rendering?

There are some really well priced Macs at 2+Ghz, and some well priced speedy PC's as well, but as soon as you move up to the "best of the best, newest version" you are ALWAYS going to pay more than you should on ANY system. There are basicly several price point curves to computer Value, and the newest, latest, greatest systems never seem to be at the top of those curves.

Tell me which is more powerful for an average joe who thinks they might want to be a 3D app user? A crappy Dell 4700/3000 or a Mac Mini? Add to that that Dell constantly has deals where you get a free LCD with a 4700 for under $500 and this "value" statement changes almost weekly. One day the little Mini seems good, the next the Dell. These are the things that make blanket statements useless.

Besides, what Apple doesn't need is anymore college age women, or graphic artists buying their systems, they need the average joe to be turned on to a sexy machine, that runs what they need, and costs the same or LESS. Isn't that what sold the first Macs? They just don't have much control over the 3D market, or the average joe- no mater how you slice it, but I feel they would do best to try and get the joes into it rather than waste time marketing to 3D app users. Word of mouth and performace/price ratio's along with getting apps made on the system are MORE than enough to get professionals to give a Mac a look over. How they get there I have no idea!

Lightwolf
06-12-2005, 03:48 AM
I'm so sick and tired of people trying to talk prices when it comes to PCs vs. Macs.
That's why you need to look at price vs. performance and that varies a lot according to your needs.

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. I'm also sick and tired of people trying to talk prices when it comes to my work, but that's life ;)

parm
06-12-2005, 01:24 PM
Besides, what Apple doesn't need is anymore college age women, or graphic artists buying their systems, they need the average joe to be turned on to a sexy machine, that runs what they need, and costs the same or LESS. Isn't that what sold the first Macs? They just don't have much control over the 3D market, or the average joe- no mater how you slice it, but I feel they would do best to try and get the joes into it rather than waste time marketing to 3D app users. Word of mouth and performace/price ratio's along with getting apps made on the system are MORE than enough to get professionals to give a Mac a look over. How they get there I have no idea!

Explain this hypothesis, please.

Absolutely, Apple needs more studios and design professionals to use their products. Why, because that is where software developers also want their products to be. And that is the arena where Apple can compete. Just look at the disproportionately high presence of Macs in design studios.

From what I can gather, Apple have pretty much cleaned up in the area of 2d content creation. They are making tremendous inroads into the fields music and video of content creation. I'm quite sure that once their immense flair for innovation, is brought to bear on 3d content, they will do very well here as well. What better incentive and test bed than Pixar could they have?

You see everyone wants their products used in the making of LOTR, Matrix etc. Once that is achieved the mass consumer market, (average Joe to you), inevitably follows.

Parm

Big Jay
06-13-2005, 06:47 PM
I may be making myself flame bait but there are a few things I see different.

I see Microsoft and the Intel crowd as the innovative bunch. Tablet PCs, Media Center windows, dual channel wireless cards, windows CE, One Note, xbox etc... the Wintel arena is going fast forward rushing out new technologies like there's no tomarrow.

Apple is the exact oposite. They sit on the sidelines watching the fight and then pick and choice the technologies once they stablize, they then come up with great stratagies about how to leverage it.

The Apple company actually does "Think Different" about what they can do with the technology.

The airport base station is not some new technology. If you ever opened it up it is just a [email protected] wireless card in a pretty shell. I use the wireless card now in an old win98 notebook when the base station died. The ipod is just a old Toshiba PCCard Hard drive in a pretty case with a smart selection of music os, software(itunes) and store to make it all work together seemlessly. They have both grown since but the old technology really helped them to keep the cost down and get Mac user's used to the new technology then they begin to release the modern ones as demand goes up.

Microsoft and company are too busy rushing ahead to really think about how to weave all the technology together. Getting it to work together always seems to be 2-3 updates later.

Because of this I see Apple continuing to make their own hardware and software and keeping a tight reign on their technology usage. If Jobs tries to dive into the deep end of the pool and try to keep up with the rest of the crowd rushing headlong into every new technology that comes out OSX will suffer for it.

Well that's the view from my Crystal Ball, you milage may vary

parm
06-13-2005, 08:57 PM
I may be making myself flame bait but there are a few things I see different.

I don't see why. But be careful.

Look at the title of the thread, 'Mac to go x86'. Microsoft Windows being the predominent OS on Intel based machines, has led to the perception that they are one and the same, (Wintel). They're not.

Apples' announcement has highlighted. How the relationship between computer companies, component manufacturers and software vendors, is a dynamic one.

All computer makers, have to Cherrypick from an array of existing components, and synergise the available technology. Unlike Dell, HP, Sony and the rest, Apple is also able to offer its own viable operating system as part of the package.


The Apple company actually does "Think Different" about what they can do with the technology.

You'll get no argument here.

Parm

mlinde
06-13-2005, 10:07 PM
I may be making myself flame bait but there are a few things I see different.

I see Microsoft and the Intel crowd as the innovative bunch. Tablet PCs, Media Center windows, dual channel wireless cards, windows CE, One Note, xbox etc... the Wintel arena is going fast forward rushing out new technologies like there's no tomarrow.

Apple is the exact oposite. They sit on the sidelines watching the fight and then pick and choice the technologies once they stablize, they then come up with great stratagies about how to leverage it.

The Apple company actually does "Think Different" about what they can do with the technology.

The airport base station is not some new technology. If you ever opened it up it is just a [email protected] wireless card in a pretty shell. I use the wireless card now in an old win98 notebook when the base station died. The ipod is just a old Toshiba PCCard Hard drive in a pretty case with a smart selection of music os, software(itunes) and store to make it all work together seemlessly. They have both grown since but the old technology really helped them to keep the cost down and get Mac user's used to the new technology then they begin to release the modern ones as demand goes up.

Microsoft and company are too busy rushing ahead to really think about how to weave all the technology together. Getting it to work together always seems to be 2-3 updates later.

Because of this I see Apple continuing to make their own hardware and software and keeping a tight reign on their technology usage. If Jobs tries to dive into the deep end of the pool and try to keep up with the rest of the crowd rushing headlong into every new technology that comes out OSX will suffer for it.

Well that's the view from my Crystal Ball, you milage may vary Big Jay, my view is a little different.
1)Apple included 802.11b in products along with quality software to manage those products (Airport). Microsoft didn't even have 802.11 support in their OS until Win2K, although someone could write drivers for it.
2) Tablet PCs & Windows CE? Ever hear of a product in the Mid-90's called the Newton? it was a handheld PC running a stripped down Mac OS, before there was even a PalmPilot. Too soon, too early, the Newton was about 5 years ahead of it's time.
3) XBox? Come on, there have been game consoles for years! Microsoft didn't invent that one, and their product is not significantly better than the competition. I have one, and it's good, but it's not better than a PS2.
4) Media center PCs? Sorry, what is so exciting about this? I see them in the local mall, but I don't understand what I should get excited about.

Microsoft is about getting the technology in the system because someone else beat them to it, and figuring out how to get it to work 2 or 3 releases later. They haven't been first with a product since they release a GUI spreadsheet application in 1984... for the Macintosh.

NOTE: The previous statement is a broad, likely inaccurate statement. But, like most broad statements, there is at least a grain of truth in it

How about this -- who had USB on the desktop as a standard first? What about IEEE 1394? What about gigabit ethernet? What about Serial ATA?

Apple is and always has been about innovation - the real kind. Intel has innovation working as well (at least I've assumed that from some of the products they've developed). Two innovative companies will (hopefully) create a more compelling product than either one alone. That's my 2 cents, and I'm done with all the Apple/Intel product threads.

Big Jay
06-13-2005, 11:20 PM
I am not trying to do a pc is better than mac debate...it's irrelevant now anyway. I was just looking at the two cultures and saw that Apple being on the same hardware may be drawn into the culture that is the intel platform.

Dell is an example. they where happy with their business of selling cheap pcs for everyone until they realized that the overprices supped up machines out of Alienware where hot and selling despite being dramatically more money. So Dell dove into trying to match them hardware wise. Then you have Boxx with their top of the line work stations that cost huge amounts but are the best on the Intel platform.

So I was wondering where will Apple try to position itself and will it get cought up in trying to match the other players or strike out on it's own.

As you said yourself Windows did not have any real functionality for wireless until 2k (really xp SP2 finally is getting close) although individual cards had software that worked well on win98, which is how I have the card running on an old win98 laptop. What I was getting at is that the windows world is one of lots of technology with drivers being invented and added all the time. It is not pretty or elegant in any sense of the word, it is a giant beta test of technology in my view.

Mac made the Newton and got burned in the end. Toshiba? or another company (my memory is really bad on this one) made a tablet PC around the same time that tanked as well. A few years later a 2nd round of pc tablets showed up and again tanked, But here we are again for the third time with tablet PCs trying to find their place. Apple began the trend then everyone else keep innovating from there. Palm found the right price/power to kick off the palm computer movement into high gear.

I would not be suprised if Apple is waiting for the right price/performance for the tablet pc before they dive into the market. They already have the ink system and voice command so a itablet could appear some day... sorry day dreaming.

What I am hoping is that Apple won't get cought up in the rat race going on in the intel world and loose that elegance that is it's hallmark.

That's the last of my win/mac comparisons.

iaef
06-14-2005, 05:33 AM
Well, I guess things will come up like this thread. A lot of waves on the market and finally an stabilization. I believe that things will tend to be almost the same once the hype has passed, but with the benefit for Apple of being under intel's protection umbrella.
I think Microsoft won't change it's criteria since inertia is big on their side. But Apple could easily be winning more adepts.
It's true one should buy a processor box because of work done, there is also a group that would gladly buy just because elegance, design or whatever, there is the gaming group. I guess it is just a matter of time for Apple to get tuned into this new market. I believe he won't try to get rushed into the fast lane of being the first, the fast, the ultimate technology company. They will try to get their own pace and get going, doing what they do better, good software. They won't be the most innovative maybe they will, but they will be a great choice and a great opportunity to shose trying to get rid of their problems with Microsoft (which they might or they might introduce others, who knows).
For me, I will buy a new PC nowadays for my work and gaming experience, and might buy a Mac on '07. But that I should wait to see what will happen on the market by then. I have been riding several waves (as most of us) and had good experiences (PalmOS computing) and bad ones (Amiga computers). And after several years what has dictated my real needs was the market where I tried to sell my work. In the end, many things have changed (C64, Amiga, XT, Apple, Mac, Windows, MSDOS, Alias, Maya) but at the same time nothing has changed (Lightwave has always been there since Amiga time) :D . I believe everybody has a legitimate use for using MacPPC, Mactel or Wintel platforms and we all will make the best decision when the right time comes.
Let's just hope NT keeps along with us on this ride, whatever our choice of platform.

archiea
06-14-2005, 05:49 AM
Well said! I want a computer that does what I want it to do, not a status symbol or a piece of art.


Mac computers aren;t just works of art... they are functional. Case and point.. the aluminum powerbooks don;t creak and bend like the plastic ones. The cleanliness of apple's designs leads to cleaner interfaces. Compare surfing in safari to explorer or netcape jsut gto get an understanding. Open up a G5 compared to a PC to also get an understanding...

Now, we will have the same industrial design but with the fast procs from intel...

Matt, have you even used a mac?

BTW, I can spot a walmart shirt a mile away.

Lightwolf
06-14-2005, 06:06 AM
the aluminum powerbooks don;t creak and bend like the plastic ones.
You mean like the iBooks?

The cleanliness of apple's designs leads to cleaner interfaces. Compare surfing in safari to explorer or netcape jsut gto get an understanding.
Take a look at Firefox for a nice, clean and functional Browser interface. Does Safari support tabs yet?

Open up a G5 compared to a PC to also get an understanding...

Like with the laptops, that depends on the manufacturer... Some like Dells have extremely clean and well thought out interiors, others don't. Obviously, the smaller they get the less choice you have there as well (i.e. a miniMac compared to a PC barebone box).

After all, Apple ist just one of many computer manufacturers...
Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
06-14-2005, 06:19 AM
Yeah, I'm a big fan of clean interfaces too, I just would rather not sell my first born to pay for it. And an Intel chip on an Intel mobo... I would call that as good quality as anything IBM makes. Steve Jobs seems to agree. ; )

Lightwolf
06-14-2005, 06:24 AM
Yeah, I'm a big fan of clean interfaces too...
Lol, I know people that remove _all_ icons from the desktop ... Mine is a complete mess with icons everywhere ... and it would be no better on a Mac ;)
Cheers,
Mike - personal Finder :p

mattclary
06-14-2005, 06:30 AM
Normally I do, but I have a project at work that I just have to access some things frequently for. My home machine has no icons, and on occasion the randomly downloaded item.

Alliante
06-14-2005, 06:52 AM
Take a look at Firefox for a nice, clean and functional Browser interface. Does Safari support tabs yet?
Mike

It has since at least Panther (over a year now), it's just not turned on in the preferences by default.

:)

Amadeus0
06-15-2005, 02:42 AM
I just have to drop something in here.

Apple did not invent USB. Intel did. Intel boxes had USB well before Apple boxes did.

Same for PCI, AGP, and (if Apple didn't move to this Intel chipset) PCIe.

Same for Hypertransport. (AMD in that case.)

Also SATA was an Intel/consortium technology, not Apple. (Intel & crew announced 2 years in advance when the tech would be available on MB's and Apple "scouped" them.)

IEEE1394 Apple did invent (a technology which I like), but that's about it. Even Airport (the hardware end) was just an 'old' wireless standard that Apple FINALLY offered to their user base...and at the same time gave it a spiffy name.

So on the hardware end Apple is not an innovative company. They just take standards that have been available on the PC side for a while, give it a spiffy name, and then market the stuffing out of (it, telling us that they're really) them being "innovative"...


Their software on the other hand...

robewil
06-15-2005, 09:42 AM
Their software on the other hand...You mean, like Macromedia's Final Cut Pro and Spruce's DVD Studio Pro? Their operating system is based on Unix.

Okay, I'm not really going to pick on Apple. They are as innovative as any company out there. I think what has to be realized is that Apple's strong suit is to take existing technology and streamline it better than everybody else. SATA and USB are prime examples. They existed in theory and in specialized PCs before Apple made them standard in their computers. Once they did this, PC's followed suit but credit should go to Apple for taking the steps they did.

Lightwolf
06-15-2005, 09:48 AM
SATA and USB are prime examples. They existed in theory and in specialized PCs before Apple made them standard in their computers.
I not quite happy with your phrasing here ;) Both were intended as industry standards from the beginning, but it stil did depend on the actual manufacturers to make use of them. If you just view Apple as a manufacturer like, Dell, Acer Fujitsu-Siemens, HP etc... you will note that some adopted those standards just as early. Opposed to Apple computers, _the_ intel/windows PC doesn't exist.
After all, you can get some SATAII supporting PCs now, just as you can get some that support _no_ SATA at all. Which is the reference to go by.
It's just a big, confusing world out there ;)
Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 10:04 AM
Take a look at Firefox for a nice, clean and functional Browser interface. Does Safari support tabs yet?
Ever used Firefox on a Mac? It's so poor it feels like the entire application is broken. Safari has had tabs since 1.0.1 or something such, a couple of years ago. Either way, the only browser that actually has a good implementation of tabs is OmniWeb. ;)




After all, Apple ist just one of many computer manufacturers...
I disagree. What other computer manufacturer has that kind of impact on popular culture?





You mean, like Macromedia's Final Cut Pro and (I forget the company's name) DVD Studio Pro? Their operating system is based on Unix.
Macromedia's Final Cut Pro was probably nowhere near as good as I'm told FCP is. SoundJam, the application iTunes is based on, was nothing like iTunes. Mac OS X is, from the users' or developers' (and not the technical "kernel programmers'") point of view, nothing like UNIX. Technically, it's not even based on UNIX. It's based on BSD. :p What Apple does when they buy software or use open source software is they use the core technology and then proceed to make the actual application (again, from the developers' and end users' point of view) very good. OS X is not superior because its great thread management or how technically superior the file system is. It's better because it actually makes things more usable. Yes, OS X is POSIX compliant. Yes, you can run UNIX applications on it. The core technology is not the point. For Apple, it never was the point.




I think what has to be realized is that Apple's strong suit is to take existing technology and streamline it better than everybody else.
While I agree, I think that's a very gross understatement. :p

mattclary
06-15-2005, 10:51 AM
I disagree. What other computer manufacturer has that kind of impact on popular culture?



WTF are you talking about? :confused: Describe how it has impacted popular culture. More people could tell you about, "Dude, I'm getting a Dell" (and I don't consider that to be a big impact on popular culture) than anything remotely Mac related. Just because you use a Mac don't conclude the rest of the world has ever even seen one (outside of movies or TV where they are disproportionately represented :rolleyes: ), let alone had it affect their life.

robewil
06-15-2005, 10:55 AM
What other computer manufacturer has that kind of impact on popular culture?The funny thing is that you obviously think that's a good thing, yet you moan and groan when PC users see Mac users as cultists or fanatics.


I think what has to be realized is that Apple's strong suit is to take existing technology and streamline it better than everybody else.

While I agree, I think that's a very gross understatement. :p

...

What Apple does when they buy software or use open source software is they use the core technology and then proceed to make the actual application (again, from the developers' and end users' point of view) very good. There you go. I made a complimentary statement about Apple and you still have to knock it. Doesn't your statement above basically say the same thing as mine?

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 11:31 AM
WTF are you talking about? Describe how it has impacted popular culture. More people could tell you about, "Dude, I'm getting a Dell" (and I don't consider that to be a big impact on popular culture) than anything remotely Mac related. Just because you use a Mac don't conclude the rest of the world has ever even seen one (outside of movies or TV where they are disproportionately represented ), let alone had it affect their life.
I can only talk out of my own experience. In my experience, most people have an opinion on Apple, be it positive or negative. I can't seem to find anyone who cares about HP or Dell nearly as much. In my experience, Apple seems to attract opinions. Your mileage varies, obviously.




The funny thing is that you obviously think that's a good thing, yet you moan and groan when PC users see Mac users as cultists or fanatics.
I'm fairly neutral. I use Macs because I prefer the OS and the software, not because they're "cool" or whatever.



There you go. I made a complimentary statement about Apple and you still have to knock it. Doesn't your statement above basically say the same thing as mine?
Why do you assume I was attacking you?

robewil
06-15-2005, 11:36 AM
Why do you assume I was attacking you?Did I say attack? Sorry if you felt an attack was implied. I was just pointing out that you made a similar statement as mine yet you called my statement a "gross understatement". I was just pointing this out. I didn't mean any harm. :)

cgbloke2004
06-15-2005, 11:48 AM
these threads always get personal dont they, regardless of forum. hehe

[goes back to lurking]

WizCraker
06-15-2005, 11:53 AM
There is always a misconception that USB was developed by intel but in truth it was designed in partnership by a group of companies that developed the Universal Serial Bus specification.

They Are:

Agere Systems
Hewlett-Packard Company
Intel Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
NEC Corporation
Philips

mattclary
06-15-2005, 11:55 AM
I can only talk out of my own experience. In my experience, most people have an opinion on Apple, be it positive or negative. I can't seem to find anyone who cares about HP or Dell nearly as much. In my experience, Apple seems to attract opinions. Your mileage varies, obviously.


In my circles more people have an opinion of Dell than Apple. All depends on who your friends are I guess.

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 12:05 PM
Did I say attack? Sorry if you felt an attack was implied. I was just pointing out that you made a similar statement as mine yet you called my statement a "gross understatement". I was just pointing this out. I didn't mean any harm. :)
Oh, okay then. Misunderstandings galore. :)




In my circles more people have an opinion of Dell than Apple. All depends on who your friends are I guess.
So it seems.

iaef
06-15-2005, 12:13 PM
Captain Obvious: I'm fairly neutral. I use Macs because I prefer the OS and the software, not because they're "cool" or whatever.

What would be a difference between "thinking somthing is cool" and "preferring somthing"? Sorry, but you got me lost on this one (being not a native english speaker)

parm
06-15-2005, 12:39 PM
Hi Laef,

In the context here, the term cool would be considered negatively, as it implies being swayed by rather superficial values. Such as being cool because it's seen frequently in Movies, or on tv shows. Rather than having a preference for its more useful and practical advantages.

Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that many of the users of this forum, are not native English speakers, and won't necessarily understand some idioms in common usage.

Parm

cgbloke2004
06-15-2005, 12:41 PM
tbh i just use whatevers to hand.

[fires up his amiga..]

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 01:21 PM
What would be a difference between "thinking somthing is cool" and "preferring somthing"? Sorry, but you got me lost on this one (being not a native english speaker)
I prefer it because I work more efficiently with it, it's less of a headache, it annoys me less. Not really the same thing as prefering it because it's the hip thing to do.

Parm explained it better than I did.

Johnsongraphix
06-15-2005, 07:05 PM
So i just briefly read this entire thread and now I want to give my 2 cents on the entire Mac vs PC issue.
I don't know much at all about the details in the hardware that make my system run, and because I don't see that and because I don't care, is perhaps why I prefer to work on a mac. Each system is equally important in the world of computing. That's why thier both here right?
I use LW for 3d design, i'm an artist (again, not a technitian (or a good speller)) :)
Environment and bandwidth are my biggest concerns. I have been in PC built environments and with even one machine running- It's like listening to a vacum cleaner -I can't hear myself think, not to mention the dull space they take up.
For me personally, A creative environment means a quite environment and being surrounded with efficiently organized and esthetic space. Macintosh is inspiring with their hardware and their software to me, and they seem to raise the bar continuously with the lastest and greatest. -where's Longhorn by the way?
Overall, I say "to each thier own", and I'm glad not everyone appreciates the mac like i do.

cgbloke2004
06-15-2005, 07:45 PM
for me, a creative and inspirational environment is more often the people i'm with, and the material i have to work with.

what the mac looks like is of no concern to me. same with the pc.
noise-wise ive had it bad in both cases, and almost worse in a room full of sg's.
what the mac looks like is little-to-zero reason - for me its got nothing to do with how creative i get or how i work.

its the software that counts.

at the time i got into lightwave, it was the one app that looked like it could be on ANY platform and LOOK and PERFORM the same.
wasnt that the idea in the first place? looks like newtek still has it, but the 3rd party peeps with plugins havent quite caught up in that respect [and thats no criticism btw].
this is important for workflow - everything else was secondary - afterall, you get paid to get the work out, not sit there and admire your box..

yes, absolutely, everyone and their mother has their own opinion and thats fine.

but i refuse to believe that you can get any better work out of your computer 'just because it looks nice'
[be aware that i'm not targeting the previous poster - ive had this conversaion with many people over the years whenever the dreaded mac or pc debate came up - thats about 15 years for me..]

i can hark back to the days of atari vs amiga, speccy vs commodore.. hehe i bet theres a few here that remember those days too.

same sh*t, different day.

ive used lightwave on amiga's, silicon graphics, pc's, alpha's and macs.
i have a fondness for amiga because i started on 3d there [real3d ..] - the amiga had a friendly environment, and you could mod it to **** and it would still play ball.
you could personalise it, make it do whatever you wanted, and at the end of the day it was a do all wonder machine - it worked for multimedia people , 3d professionals, music [forever in atari's shadow] lovers, and gamers, and hobbyists.
my years in the amiga prepared me for getting on with any machine be it sun, sg, mac, linux, whatever. i owe those formative years and adaptabillity to the amiga platform.
but would i choose it over a mac or pc? of course not. i'd never get any work done for many reasons.

silicon graphics came next in terms of fondness - yeah you could mod them but it was a very 'serious' way of doing it, often taking the fun out of it if you ask me.
but more importantly it was a stable working environment and that was good enough for me.
in the old days the pc was crap imo - not because of hardware or because the pentium cant divide by 1 or whatever the joke was, but because of windows - i just didnt find it as well thought out as the others, nor was it remotely stable.

the mac was ok, but it was like a childs machine - you can play with it to a certain degree but it seemed people almost [i]liked being dictated by it.. i also found it fairly unstable [but nowhere near as bad as the pc].

since those days ive kept up with both pc and mac and come across this debate time and time and time again.

the only points that dictate to me whether i go mac or pc is:
price/bang for buck; and 3rd party availabillity [important for work - ie. lightwave].
on both accounts, the pc wins.

in terms of software, reliabliity, the OS you run it on - as long as it works, and is stable [at this stage. i consider both OS's to be stable and workable] - so both wins.
sooo, that takes me back to the original two points for comparison - meaning that even though the two are level-pegged in getting my job done, at the end of the day, the pc is going to bring me a better margin of profit than the mac.

thats all it is.
i dont give a toss about whether its 'cool' or 'geeky' or whatever. at the end of the day, i run apps on it, it gets me my bills paid, and it sits under the desk, or on it, or somewhere. its not a trophy piece. its a work tool. like a saw or a hammer.

Fausto
06-15-2005, 08:32 PM
sooo, that takes me back to the original two points for comparison - meaning that even though the two are level-pegged in getting my job done, at the end of the day, the pc is going to bring me a better margin of profit than the mac.

thats all it is.
i dont give a toss about whether its 'cool' or 'geeky' or whatever. at the end of the day, i run apps on it, it gets me my bills paid, and it sits under the desk, or on it, or somewhere. its not a trophy piece. its a work tool. like a saw or a hammer.


Well put! I couldn't agree more. The whole reason that I started on PC rather than a mac, and trust me there was plenty of pressure to use a mac in my line of business, was cost. I could be more profitable on the PC. I drive a Jeep, not a Mercedes or a BMW, a Jeep. Why? Because where I live a Mercedes only makes sense a few months of the year, and it doesn't get you into the mountains like my Jeep does. Oh, and my Jeep is trail rated :)

Thanks for this... direct and to the point.

Johnsongraphix
06-15-2005, 10:29 PM
If time is money, then I feel the Mac pays for itself. If it's about the software you run on you computer system and not the system itself, then mac is clearly the best choice for me. If it's a matter of versatility and compatability, again mac. If it's about playing a slew of all the coolest games out there, then it's a pc for sure.

about time-
I do not spend any time maintaining my software or hardware. no clean disk, and no defraging. I don't spend any time loading drivers for cameras, DV cameras, printers, or any other external divices that I may use for my work- Everything is truely plug and play. I can search my network of over 300GB instantly as I'm typing in my search. My computer has insisted I restart once in the past year of running it 24/7. If I'm surfing the web for reference or information, I don't get any pop-ups and I don't have virus protection programs warning me about things I'm already aware that i'm doing. And I have never had a virus in ten years of being on the internet. Networking is a breeze connecting to another mac or even a pc. The interface makes sense. And it runs the software I use the most, and if I need a program that is PC only- I run it on my mac using virtual PC (I've never seen a virtual mac). I think there is a common misconception that macs are limited to just macs- but If I can communicate with anyone using a PC- and then they can't open a file I send to them- why do they blame it on the mac? Why not blame it on Windows for not being more compatable with a mac?

Everything seems to be a chore for PC users with hardware and software. I think the die hards have invested so must time learning how to use a PC that they think a more simple to use system is less powerful or degrading to the knowledge they've work so hard to aquire. Maybe I'm wrong.

I hope I don't sound offensive to anyone (especially that last bit). But with using both PC's and mac's myself, I can't figure out why so many prefer the PC - besides the fact it's initially cheeper and it gets the job done. What can a PC do that a mac cannot-besides have more programs and more games? I can think of many good reasons to use a mac over a pc, but none for using a PC over a mac.

And to close I would like to add that even if a mac looked like a pile junk on my desktop, I would still use it for the software over a PC. I might hide it in my closet though.

:cool:

parm
06-16-2005, 01:14 AM
I thougt this was a forum for cg Artists who use Lightwave. I mean artists, generally have an informed aesthetic sensability, don't they?

Where is this puratinism coming from? Now, in a work environment environment I don't mind using Windows based pc's at all, ( in fact it makes an interesting change for me ), what you are given to work with, is what you are given to work with. Just get on with it.

In my own studio, or at home, however. I just would'nt have, one of the noisey, clumsy things near me.

Now, if using a Mac truely eats away at your profit, than who can blame you for not using one. But Artists who say that good design, and they way things look, is of no consequence . And who compare their tools of trade, with saws and hammers! That really is a new one to me.


Parm

cgbloke2004
06-16-2005, 02:46 AM
how so? it was merely an example. i can also say: pen, pencil, brush. paper. canvas.

same thing. theyre tools. the real creative part we all share is in our minds, our heads.
how we translate that to the physical world is done through media, and tools to work in that media.

a carpenter could be an artist surely? a saw and a hammer could be in his/her toolset. why not?

have i set out to declare mac-lovers as non-artists? is that what youre implying?

i think you and the last poster were perhaps missing my point in my previous post - whether it be pc or mac [and yeah i ran mac emulators on my amiga - Quadra950 - ran faster than the real thing...], theyre tools, not objects to idolise, thats all they are, and these days, they are pretty much equal.
i use both extensively in the production environment, and i dont moan how a mac does this, pc does that. i just do what it takes to get the job done [and far from the days of old of many differences, there are few now].

with misunderstandings [whether intentional or not] of posts like mine, its easy for a thread like this to spiral into silly bickering, polarising people when this is a 3d app forum that was supposed to be well known for being the same on all platforms in the first place...
[the point was that we can use the same tool, irregardless of the hardware/os it happened to be on at the time]

i dont think its so hard to see my position is it?

Fausto
06-16-2005, 03:22 AM
In my own studio, or at home, however. I just would'nt have, one of the noisey, clumsy things near me.

Now, if using a Mac truely eats away at your profit, than who can blame you for not using one. But Artists who say that good design, and they way things look, is of no consequence . And who compare their tools of trade, with saws and hammers! That really is a new one to me.


Parm

I compare computers, any brand, to hammers, saws and any other tool. That's what they are, nothing more nothing less. This is the part that I don't understand, about computer platform fanaticism. Yes, the computers in my office could be quieter, I'll grant you that, but I'd rather have them running cooler, I can tolerate the hum. As far as stability, or functionality, PC's are no less stable or functional than macs. I don't do games, never have likely never will, the things that are possible, that interest me, I'd rather do for real, and this includes creation of artwork as well. Yes, I do design work, graphic wise etc, but artwork, I'd rather do analog, with a pencil, brush or chisel in my hand.

When I started in business, the apple platform was a POS, the hardware wasn't any better than what was available otherwise and the OS was useless. One couldn’t print and continue to work, or format a floppy disk or Zip drive and continue to work. I know a number of people that used apples that spent way too much time working out extension compatibility issues or rebuilding thier desktops. There were serious shortcomings and stability issues on the apple side of things in those days.

I have never used Windows 95 or any other consumer level OS, all of our workstations used NT right from the get go. Yes it was more expensive and it was more work to install hardware, even find hardware that was ok to use on NT, but it worked. Currently, there's a 50/50 split between workstations that run XP and W2K. My personal preference is W2K despite the fact that XP has greater hardware support and ease of use in a less significant way. I like an OS that doesn’t get in the way. For me, the OS isn’t the most important key it’s the applications that run on that OS *not in emulation* and how well they run, Lightwave is a good example. Personally, there’s more variety and a greater number that run on a Windows operating system. That's it, it's a personal subjective like thing, not a religious thing. If an apple does it for you great, for me they're virtually the same these days and soon to be even more alike, aside from the application choices of course.

Cheers,

Lightwolf
06-16-2005, 03:25 AM
I thougt this was a forum for cg Artists who use Lightwave. I mean artists, generally have an informed aesthetic sensability, don't they?
"Aesthetic sensibility" yes - it is what comes out of my box that counts, especially if it makes my customers happy.
"Artist" no - and nor are 99% of 3D app users imho. Then again, I do have a strict personal definition of art ;)

Cheers,
Mike

parm
06-16-2005, 03:45 AM
cgbloke, I'm certain that nothing is implied by my post, and that I have not misunderstood anything you have written.

I was merely expressing genuine suprise, that people involved in a primarily visual field, declare that well designed and visualy pleasing products are of no importance to them. Simply because they can do the same job on an ugly, clumsy, noisey computer.
I'm not unsympathetic to that, just suprised that it's a preference and not just an economic neccessity.

As for your last post. I do disagree with your tools analogy. All tools are not created equally. A craftsman will only use the finest quality tools and materials available.



Parm

Fausto
06-16-2005, 03:47 AM
cgbloke, I'm certain that nothing is implied by my post, and that I have not misunderstood anything you have written.

I was merely expressing genuine suprise, that people involved in a primarily visual field, declare that well designed and visualy pleasing products are of no importance to them. Simply because they can do the same job on an ugly, clumsy, noisey computer.
I'm not unsympathetic to that, just suprised that it's a preference and not just an economic neccessity.

As for your last post. I do disagree with your tools analogy. All tools are not created equally. A craftsman will only use the finest quality tools and materials available.



Parm

Oh brother! This is ridiculous, artists will use what's ever available and whatever works, forget the finest quality materials and tools nonsense.

I've never used sable brushes, they're the finest, I've never used the most expensive soft pastels, I rarely painted on linen. The whole notion you're implying that only mac users are capable creating art because they use the best materials is hogwash. I earned my living from making art for over a decade, I used what worked, and not what some marketing department told me was the best to use. I would have expected an artist to be more discerning.

parm
06-16-2005, 04:38 AM
Oh brother! This is ridiculous, artists will use what's ever available and whatever works, forget the finest quality materials and tools nonsense.

I've never used sable brushes, they're the finest, I've never used the most expensive soft pastels, I rarely painted on linen. The whole notion you're implying that only mac users are capable creating art because they use the best materials is hogwash. I earned my living from making art for over a decade, I used what worked, and not what some marketing department told me was the best to use. I would have expected an artist to be more discerning.

Honestly, I'm not implying that at all. I've also used Windows 2000 and had no problem with it. I hope in two years or so, I can have both OS's on my machine. Some of the LW plugins not available for the Mac look very intriguing.

I do like your paintings. btw

I rarely use brushes at all, make my own paints and pastels. At the end of the day. I would rather own a painting made by Picasso using the chewed up end of a stick, than one by Homer Simpson, using a finest Kolinsky Sable.

What was this thread all about anyway?
:)

Lightwolf
06-16-2005, 04:51 AM
What was this thread all about anyway? :)
"mac to go x86"? ;)

To get back on topic, it looks like the intel compiler (which has just been released in version 9.0 for windows and linux) will be available on the x86 Mac as well (probably as a drop in replacement under XCode). Great news since it produces extremely good code.

Cheers,
Mike

MikeMD
06-17-2005, 04:20 PM
A craftsman will only use the finest quality tools and materials available.

Then no craftman should ever use a Mac. An inferior machine in every way, The well known fact finally just admitted to by Steve Jobs himself when he announced the switch to Intel.

My Pcs are better looking, faster and quieter than anything Apple has to offer.

Should I say: "I told you so" now , or a little later whan the actual switch happens.

MikeMD
06-17-2005, 04:29 PM
----------------------------------------------

about time-
I do not spend any time maintaining my software or hardware. no clean disk, and no defraging. I don't spend any time loading drivers for cameras, DV cameras, printers, or any other external divices that I may use for my work- Everything is truely plug and play. I can search my network of over 300GB instantly as I'm typing in my search. My computer has insisted I restart once in the past year of running it 24/7. If I'm surfing the web for reference or information, I don't get any pop-ups and I don't have virus protection programs warning me about things I'm already aware that i'm doing. And I have never had a virus in ten years of being on the internet. Networking is a breeze connecting to another mac or even a pc. The interface makes sense. And it runs the software I use the most, and if I need a program that is PC only- I run it on my mac using virtual PC (I've never seen a virtual mac). I think there is a common misconception that macs are limited to just macs- but If I can communicate with anyone using a PC- and then they can't open a file I send to them- why do they blame it on the mac? Why not blame it on Windows for not being more compatable with a mac?

--------------------------------

Same thing with my Pcs, only I do it faster and cost me 1/2 the money.

I wish Mac people would realize that Dell and Gateway are not the only PCs around.

The only difference is that I do have anti-virus software on Pcs connected to the internet and you do have a virius or two on your Mac, you just don't know it because you have bno AV. One day when it all comes crashing down you'll learn the hard way that Mac and viruses are not exactly incompatible.

policarpo
06-17-2005, 05:13 PM
Then no craftman should ever use a Mac. An inferior machine in every way, The well known fact finally just admitted to by Steve Jobs himself when he announced the switch to Intel.

My Pcs are better looking, faster and quieter than anything Apple has to offer.

Should I say: "I told you so" now , or a little later whan the actual switch happens.


Hahahah...this has to be the nuttiest thing I ever heard. I guess the past 20 years of design and media presentations we've all experienced was largely a lie.

Gee...I wish I had known this sooner. All those years of working on Macs and making millions for the companies I designed for. Wow. I guess I should just give them their money back.

Wow...really now.

Hahahah...i needed that laugh!

:p

Big Jay
06-17-2005, 05:40 PM
Then no craftman should ever use a Mac. An inferior machine in every way, The well known fact finally just admitted to by Steve Jobs himself when he announced the switch to Intel.

My Pcs are better looking, faster and quieter than anything Apple has to offer.

Should I say: "I told you so" now , or a little later whan the actual switch happens.


Your kidding right? I have an AMD with a good fan and a nice nvidia card and it is a serious noise producer. I have to use my laptop or mac to record voice since there is a constant blow dryer hum from my main computer.

G5s are pretty quiet unless they crash at which point all the fans go full blast.

Mike: have you used a Mac? They are pretty elegant machines inside and out even if they get beat by faster PCs because IBM is slow to get the faster PowerPC chips out the door.

someone else: As for not defragging you are taking your computer's life in your hands there mate. They slow down as time goes on and I usually wipe and reinstall my software every 2 years just to keep my Macs running at optimum speed. IF you run Final Cut Pro you need defragment software to keep FCP from quiting out on you after a few years. We do comercials here so we probably use the machine alot more than a home user . So use some precaution because Macs have a whole host of their own issues to deal with.

robewil
06-17-2005, 06:15 PM
Geez, just when the platform war on this thread was seemingly dead, someone had to stir up the pot again.

js33
06-17-2005, 06:53 PM
Yeah I can't wait till Macs are on Intel then the fight will change from Mac vs. PC to Intel vs. AMD. Well of course the OSX vs. Windows will never die. :rolleyes:

Cheers,
JS

MikeMD
06-17-2005, 09:12 PM
Your kidding right? I have an AMD with a good fan and a nice nvidia card and it is a serious noise producer

I use Lian -li 6070 cases and you can barely tell it's on ( and that is in a quiet room, in a normally noisy office you can not tell it's on at all even when it's right by your feet ). I also use AMD chips and nvidia cards. This is with stock AMD cooling.

I tried Macs here and there and see nothing intuitive, special or anything elegant about them ( Have a few at work and run into them in other situations ). All I see is that I can do the same thing for 1/2 the money and render much faster on a PC. I also have choices of hardware I want to use, unlike Mac users and don't have to pay $100 for every beta release of OSX named after a different kitty kat.

Now Jobs has found a way to deliver his 3Ghz Mac ( 3 years behind the schedule ).
Switch to Intel ( platform he has spent bashing for the last 10-20 years ) and use a 3+Ghz Pentiums.
The joke of course is that again Macs will be inferior because the newest opterons kick Intel's ***** and it will not change in the next few years. With 64 bit windows the difference can be substantial.

js33
06-18-2005, 01:13 AM
True AMD does have the desktop advantage at the moment. The coming dual-core P-M is going to be hard for AMD to compete with in the mobile market. Also once the P-M is redesigned for the desktop with a built in memory controller I think Intel will have the upper hand again at least for the desktop market. The Opteron has the upper hand in servers and higher end desktops and Intel doesn't have an answer for that yet except overclocked Xeons with the 64 bit extensions added in. I don't know if the P-M can scale up to high-end systems but it probably will.

Cheers,
JS