PDA

View Full Version : Who is against and upset anout the intel transition annoucemnt?



Ade
06-07-2005, 07:00 PM
I am actually feeling depressed about it too but also a bit angry.
I feel they didnt give IBM enough of a chance like they did motorola.
All consoles are going power pc and I find it hard to believe an x86 cpu uses less power than a g5 per watts.

I do believe three things:

1) Steves' last pledge was to make Apple number one again in anyway possible.

2) Intel lost alot of ground to AMD and the consoles and would have made an attractive deal to Apple
This would also explain why no mention of AMD support.

3) How the **** will Apple sell any hardware now ppl know PPC will be phrased out???
Why would someone now want to buy a G5 or a G4 laptop if Apple has no faith in them...
(shutteres to think how fat intel mac powerbooks will be)?

I have a question - Why didnt Apple choose the triple core xbox360 chip?
This chip would only get cheaper due to demand.
I believe it it was Steve Jobs anger at IBM for making him a liar when he said 2 years ago g5 to be 3ghz and not strategic planning driven my market trends.



I do believe people will somehow get a MAC OSX -WINE-like emulator up for windows, run FCP on it and the clones will still be number one.
I find myself calling for jobs Resignation....But then I cannot ignore that we have came so far with him.... *sniff

Dreaming- I wish Jobs announced a motherboard that allowed you to choose between either a PPC dual core (like xboxes triple) OR
you could choose an x86 dual core intel.
I know I would choose the PPC. Competition would be born between IBM and intel and in the programmers as well.
We have this competition in the PC 3D application world with some apps like 3ds running sweeter on intel but Maya running better on AMD.
Many PPC companies who port games will be affected now, these guys held the fort in the dark days.




Going to intel has detroyed the Apple culture of being different and "Think'ing Different"!

PPC FOREVER!

JackDeL
06-07-2005, 07:37 PM
I have a question - Why didnt Apple choose the triple core xbox360 chip?
This chip would only get cheaper due to demand.


This was my first question after reading an article about the Xbox 360 in Gameinformer magazine. ( issue 146 June 05 )

I had a difficult time understanding how any of us mac users would be able to show his face in public knowing that a CONSOLE from MICROSOFT was faster that many of the newest macs! :( :mad:

Since the issue for me has always been Apple vs Microsoft, not PPC vs Intel, I personally have a lot of hope that the switch to Intel will eventually make Apple a major threat to Microsoft. though I guess a lot depends on whether OS X will be able to run on any ole Wintel in the future or not. If it came down to the hardware being more or less irrelevant and it just being a choice between OS's I'm confident that Mac OS could kick ole' Bill right where it counts!

But in the meantime, What we (I) have to deal with is knowing that the G5 I've been saving for all this time, just became a foot-note in the history of computing.

I have been a Mac guy since the SE30! I have been very vocal and supportive of Apple over the years, from the switch from 680x to PPC, from Classic to OS X.

But, sad to say, I think this may be where Apple and I part company. :(

Ade
06-07-2005, 07:50 PM
Why would anyone want to now port to run on OSX, when they can just use the WIN32 and run it via some windows emulation, like WINE. I think as time goes by support for osx will just be in a win32 enviroment, like what linux does. OSX will still have the direct x api to deal with.
I too believe this might be where i part as well...

Its funny, maybe the Amiga can make a comback with its PPC technology.
Would love to run a computer that just runs a Newtek OS for LW app on an Amiga g5 and it runs ultra quick like how comsoles are optimised for their games.

LSlugger
06-07-2005, 07:50 PM
Personally, I would rather Apple had stuck with PowerPC. I was really looking forward to seeing some of that POWER5 technology come to the PowerPC, especially dual cores and SMT. Failing that, I would rather it hadn't made an exclusive deal with Intel. I am not enamored with Intel's technology or its business practices. (You think Steve's 3GHz prediction was bad? Intel was supposed to be at 10GHz, by now, not that anyone believed it.) Most of all, I feel like OS X has finally hit its stride with 10.3 and 10.4, and that such a disruption comes at a really bad time.

However, Steve Jobs stood up and said that, with the information he has, Apple can deliver a much better product with Intel inside. Is he infallible? No. Do I trust him? Not really, but it doesn't really matter: it's not up for a vote.

The sooner we can bury PowerPC, the better. OS 9 compatibility helped bootstrap OS X acceptance, but it's also a crutch that can hinder new development. Similarly, PowerPC compatibility will help bootstrap Intel acceptance, but it's an extra layer of complexity that will confuse developers and users alike.

The move to Intel brings some possibilities, but it also makes the Apple look that much more like an orange. There will be less slack in price comparisons, because there will be one less variable in the benchmarking process.

eblu
06-07-2005, 07:54 PM
holy carp.

well I haven't yet sounded out on this whole thing yet.

Ade... man... wtf?
lets start with Powercomputing who was one of the best mac cloners, and also the sole provider of the posters you put up in this forum...
they were also one of the BIGGEST supporters of stealing off-the-shelf parts form the Pc side of things, to drive prices down... ATA (then ide) was introduced By powercomputing, because they borrowed the technology from PC clones. maybe PowerComputing was not the company we thought they were? Marketing Lied? who knew?


Apple snarfed up that PowerComputing technology and delivered us the Imac, complete with an ATA drive among other things from power computing... thats right... the Imac would have been impossible if not for the economic innnovations PowerComputing "borrowed" from the mass appeal Pc Clone market. Those posters are MARKETING DRIVEL, designed to separate us from our money. PowerComputing got my money and possibly yours. I don't regret one dime, I got a Good computer out of it, at a decent price, which is the point of all of this anyway... what do I care where the technology comes from.

Apple has FOR YEARS looking for ways to drive down prices of components.. to meet the consumer demand for pricing similar to that of PCs, GUES WHAT! the Best way to do THAT is to use PC standard hardware... such as ATX style motherboards, or eliminate special Apple Only Bios Chips. I don't remember this much crazy talk, when Apple got a Huge cash influx from Miscrosoft (again leading to the creation of the imac). Or when they dumped tried and true Motorolla for IBM. the big meanie.

Apple is Primarily a business. in order to stay that way, they must meet consumer demand, and satisfy the money nerds. moving to intel does both of these things.
who among you hasn't freaked out about steve's promises of 3 ghz? coming right up.

its ok to have emotions, to feel betrayed... but lets get this into perspective:

1. buying a powerPC now is still a good idea. History dictates that the Transition is going to take a good deal of time, and if it does indeed go off without a hitch, you'll probably be ready for a new machine just as the intel boxes are just hitting their strides. Apple may have shot themselves in the foot as far as sales are concerned (if chicken little has his way) but frankly, get over it. Apple still makes a ****ed fine machine and its just as good now as it was before Monday morning.

2. Mega- who? what better way to end the megahertz debate? IBM, Motorolla... they couldn't afford the resources for such a lofty goal that intel could, I've never heard of a better reason to go with intel. Sure I don't like the processors, but part of that is pure marketing drivel. and luckily I don't have to sit and stare at the processor. if it works like a mac, then it is a mac. (I have HIGH standards there, otherwise I'd already be using a PC)

3. why didn't Apple go with the Xbox PowerPC? you're Kidding right? the CEll, the PowerPC, they will survive... as embedded processors. IBM and Motorolla saw it like this... the best use for the PowerPc was in a watch, or a phone. They didn't like splitting up theri reasearch budget for a desktop variant... IE: AIM Apple had to get personally involved and beg and bribe, just to get Some results... and lets face it, there was a 4 month period where the PowerPC was faster in the real world than whatever intel was shipping at the time. To get a usable processor out of IBM, Apple would be competing with MICROSOFT!!!! good idea. Besides... the Ps3 and XBox might just be IBMs way of filling the customer void for PowerPC chips from that brand new facility, when Apple declined to continue he relationship... which might just mean that Apple has been sure that THIS WDDC would be the Announcement of the switch to intel for at least... 1.5 years. So you're asking why apple isn't alienating the entire market even further? because deep down inside, apple want to be liked. by money nerds, by business nerds, by 3d nerds, even Apple nerds. Yes Apple nerds. wheres that 3Ghz? coming right up. you can have one right now if you're a developer.

4. amd? yeah... I'm not really Up on my AMD vs Intel lore, but my best guess why apple went with intel and NOT AMD, is Because Intel is a Larger, company. Larger means being able to deliver More... Faster. (period) Apple used to go with IBM mind you.

5. steve's ego? maybe maybe steve is that full of himself. maybe he can steer a company the size of an oil tanker around a turn the size of a dime. but that only speaks well of him. I think that Apple as a company has known about this trend for a long time, and now when they are at their most visible, fuzzy, acceptable, (thanks ipod!) to the marketplace, they have decided the moment when they take this plunge.

Now theres nothing bad to say about macs.
they use the same or better hardware,
they have superior Software.

now Apples can be compared to apples.

granted I never imagined this as a possibility, and its mildly alarming... but what the heck. its not like Apple stopped making the OS! Now that would be a really bad thing. the only thing that really disturbs me... is this little tidbit... Apparently one of the many interviews, basically came out and stated that Apple doesn't think anything they will be doing will preclude you from installing windows on the macPC. For me its just a bit too odd, but what the heck, if you want to ruin perfectly good hardware, by all means ;)

Ade
06-07-2005, 08:35 PM
I still believe itwas Steves ego and intel doing a deal to good to refuse.
I dont believe it when steve said the intel chips are more cooler than ppc reguardless of the g5 heatsyncs.

Johnny
06-07-2005, 09:44 PM
I don't get why peoples' noses are out of joint over what chip is inside a Mac box when it's the OS that makes a mac a mac. things in life change..things in computer life change more and faster.

I thought you spanked apple for not delivering a faster Mac, and went to the PC side, anyway. Now you're spanking them for changing their chip strategy? I don't think this was a casual decision, and it sounds from what I've read that Apple has a plan and a roadmap for this transition. Where's motorola? where's IBM? Where's the 3ghz G5? IBM couldn't/didn't deliver, so Apple moved on.

You moved on, right?

brayne
06-07-2005, 11:45 PM
I don't get why peoples' noses are out of joint over what chip is inside a Mac box when it's the OS that makes a mac a mac. things in life change..things in computer life change more and faster.

I thought you spanked apple for not delivering a faster Mac, and went to the PC side, anyway. Now you're spanking them for changing their chip strategy? I don't think this was a casual decision, and it sounds from what I've read that Apple has a plan and a roadmap for this transition. Where's motorola? where's IBM? Where's the 3ghz G5? IBM couldn't/didn't deliver, so Apple moved on.

You moved on, right?

Here, here!

Darth Mole
06-08-2005, 02:09 AM
Looks like I'll be sticking with ol' dualie 2GHz for the next year or two - but this way I can now afford that 23-inch LCD I've been after...

I've got my sights set on some fast-*** dual-core Intel Mac in summer of '07. Bring it on.

js33
06-08-2005, 02:12 AM
How many complaints and bitches have you Mac only guys had over the years about speed and LW problems that never existed on the PC?

Steve Jobs has the balls to do something about it and now you want to turn your back on him? What kind of loyalty is that?

You should be proud that you have a visionary CEO that isn't afraid to take chances and make bold moves. I appluad him for that. Matter of fact if he didn't return to Apple when he did Apple probably would have folded. Steve Jobs is the heart of Apple.

As far as the PPC being used in the XBox and PS3 it is a very stripped down processor with all the OOOE (Out of order Execution) stuff ripped out of it and would not run a computer well if it all.

You shouldn't base the Intel choice on processors out right now but rather in a year or two from now. The dual-core stuff is just now coming out and quad-core is actually predicted by Q1 2006. Who knows what will be out in 2007.

Steve is a survivor and he has enough sense to make the hard decisions when they need to be made.

I think this will not only save Apple but grow their fortunes more than they ever have in their history.

There are many PC users that would like to use OSX but didn't necessarily want to buy another system to do it. Now they will all have the choice.

Obviously a MacIntel will still be somewhat proprietary but from what I've heard you will be able to also run Windows on the same box. Best of both worlds for me.

Imagine being able to have a 64 bit dual dual-core machine or even dual quad-core with 32 gigs ram with OSX and Windows running on the same machine even at the same time through Virtualization technology.

Or a Powerbook with a dual-core or even quad-core processor.

Steve looked at IBMs roadmap and this scenerio just wasn't there.

Cheers

riki
06-08-2005, 07:23 AM
naaah don't care either way. I'm gonna grow old one day and rot in a box and get eaten by maggots, what do I care intel or motarola :p maggots or worms it's all the same.

mattclary
06-08-2005, 08:27 AM
I don't get why peoples' noses are out of joint over what chip is inside a Mac box

Because they won't be "special" anymore. They will be running on the same hardware the other 97% of the world is using. I have just come to realize that the OS war was never actually about the OS.

toby
06-08-2005, 10:19 PM
I have just come to realize that the OS war was never actually about the OS.

You wish. I like to keep moving, Windows keeps me waiting after every other click ( On every box I've ever worked on ). I also like to do 3 things at a time, sometimes more, which OSX lets me do. And I don't want to deal with drivers, or re-installing the system once a year, viruses, or IE. It's all about the OS.

I really don't care where they get the processors, because they've always sided with making a good machine instead of making a quick-buck. I always prefer companies that try to sell me with quality rather than being the 'cheap' option.

Saying the only reason we like Macs is that we want to look different is like saying that you only like PC's because you can brag that they're faster.

If the hardware didn't look good, I'd still buy Macs, because they work better and require less maintenance. Styiling is icing on the cake - just because I like to have attractive things in my house doesn't mean I'm just being trendy. Would you rather have that Hemi in a K-car or a 'Cuda?

toby
06-08-2005, 10:43 PM
For our friends overseas -

Fausto
06-08-2005, 11:09 PM
Windows keeps me waiting after every other click ( On every box I've ever worked on ). I also like to do 3 things at a time, sometimes more, which OSX lets me do. And I don't want to deal with drivers, or re-installing the system once a year, viruses, or IE. It's all about the OS.



This hasn't been my experience and I have several PC's running windows, W2K and XP in several locations. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. In addition, I know many designers that have experienced hardware and software issues resulting in downtime with OSX. One recently that has been waiting 3 weeks for his tiger replacement CD.

Here's why apple will fail: Poor customer support, tiny market share, not soon to grow given the recent news and the fact that the PC world for the most part has moved away from proprietary hardware. Also, the rest of the computing world, Microsoft included isn’t standing still, XP64 is terrific, and Longhorn looks seriously promising. And the most obvious reason; apple look like liars! The irony of THINK DIFFERENT!, I SWITCH marketing campaign, or We build the fastest computers on the planet BS won't be easily forgotten by the intended market, PC users. How can you firstly THINK DIFFERENT than adopt the very technology that you were stating was inferior. How can you make the claim that you build the fastest computers and that the future product will leave all other technologies in the dust, then turn around and state that Intel have the best technology and the best prospects for the future?

Honestly they just come across as arrogant, as in we can do what we want and the throngs of apple zealots will follow no questions asked, and desperate because they knew the jig was up! How does apple think they’re going to be able to compete when others more capable, IBM with OS2 for instance or Linux in its many flavours haven’t succeeded?

My prediction, apple will lose customers in this part of their business, thankfully for apple iPods are still selling despite there being better products already available by other vendors.

brayne
06-08-2005, 11:59 PM
Don't start making plans for the funeral just yet. I've been listening to people talk about Apple's impending doom for over ten years now. They're still here!

Ade
06-09-2005, 12:57 AM
For our friends overseas -
Id rather walk for both of them.

Ozzie
06-09-2005, 01:52 AM
Who cares what chip is in the machine, it's just a machine. Even if I did care, it's not going to change the situation.

I won't be losing any sleep.

CHEERS.

Mark

Ade
06-09-2005, 01:55 AM
It matters when machines like mac mini, g4 cube, imacs and powerbooks cant be made due to heat restrictions.

parm
06-09-2005, 02:18 AM
Apple is a company, a business. It is not a political party. They are not bound by ideology.

They are not lying. they are telling everyone what they are going to do, and why.

They may have only a relatively small market share, (2 to 3% is significant worldwide). But that share is consistant. There is a market, for quality, really well designed and reliable products.

toby
06-09-2005, 03:00 AM
This hasn't been my experience and I have several PC's running windows, W2K and XP in several locations.
That's because you're used to it, you think it's normal, you only do one thing at a time anyway - like every other pc user I know.



In addition, I know many designers that have experienced hardware and software issues resulting in downtime with OSX. One recently that has been waiting 3 weeks for his tiger replacement CD.
You don't have to be perfect to be better than the worst OS on the market.


Don't start making plans for the funeral just yet. I've been listening to people talk about Apple's impending doom for over ten years now.
Twenty years. But not with as much enthusiasm as Fausto.

js33
06-09-2005, 04:05 AM
How does apple think they’re going to be able to compete when others more capable, IBM with OS2 for instance or Linux in its many flavours haven’t succeeded?

Because they have apps that real users want and need. FCP, DVDSP, Shake, Motion, Logic, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand, Quicktime, etc... as well as running industry standard Adobe apps, Office, Quark, etc...

OS2 never caught on because it didn't have any killer apps and it didn't run Windows apps very well so there just wasn't any need for it.

Linux has always been a fringe OS that appeals to the tinkerers. They do have alot more support these days but again they don't have any apps that aren't already available on Win/Mac and there are no must have apps that run on Linux only.

Cheers,
JS

parm
06-09-2005, 04:14 AM
[QUOTE=js33]Because they have apps that real users want and need. FCP, DVDSP, Shake, Motion, Logic, iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand, Quicktime, etc... as well as running industry standard Adobe apps, Office, Quark, etc...

Further more, Once the Intel based machines start shipping. It's likely that apple users will have a computer that boots from all the major OS, and able to run all their apps natively.

Who's going to be limited by choice then?

mattclary
06-09-2005, 05:40 AM
You wish. I like to keep moving, Windows keeps me waiting after every other click ( On every box I've ever worked on ). I also like to do 3 things at a time, sometimes more, which OSX lets me do. And I don't want to deal with drivers, or re-installing the system once a year, viruses, or IE. It's all about the OS.

I really don't care where they get the processors, because they've always sided with making a good machine instead of making a quick-buck. I always prefer companies that try to sell me with quality rather than being the 'cheap' option.

Saying the only reason we like Macs is that we want to look different is like saying that you only like PC's because you can brag that they're faster.

If the hardware didn't look good, I'd still buy Macs, because they work better and require less maintenance. Styiling is icing on the cake - just because I like to have attractive things in my house doesn't mean I'm just being trendy. Would you rather have that Hemi in a K-car or a 'Cuda?

Toby, your sentiment seems to be the minority. I WANT to try OS X, I just want to run it on the hardware of my choice. This sentiment seems to disturb most Mac users. If the "my OS is better than your OS" thing was the case, they would welcome a convert.

Lightwolf
06-09-2005, 05:51 AM
That's because you're used to it, you think it's normal, you only do one thing at a time anyway - like every other pc user I know.

Gee, I thought you knew me ;)
When switched to intel after the Amiga died, the Mac was just no choice because the multi-tasking was abyssmal on any pre-OS X box (if you can call it multi-tasking). So I decided on a NT 3.5 box in '96 ... and haven't seen a reason to switch to another platform since. And I multitask like ****, I currently have around 6-8 apps running simultaneously with no problem whatsoever.
On the other side, my experience with OSX has been everything but nice (then again, these weren't my boxes so I didn't want to configure them to fit). Expose and the sliding, moving dock must be some of the most confusing user interface components ever invented. Good thing OSX has at least a decent shell/terminal, just about the only thing I'm missing in windows.
Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
06-09-2005, 05:54 AM
It matters when machines like mac mini, g4 cube, imacs and powerbooks cant be made due to heat restrictions.
But isn't this exactly one of the reasons why Apple is switching to intel? Because IBM can't deliver in that area? (Except for the iMac that is?). After all, the Pentium-Ms are faster than G4s and use less energy and run cooler.
...and, are we going to see a new Switch campaign? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

mattclary
06-09-2005, 06:00 AM
That's because you're used to it, you think it's normal, you only do one thing at a time anyway - like every other pc user I know.



Ummmmm.... have you ever actually used a PC? I have no idea what you are talking about. If you run on current hardware, you won't see any lag times or problems multi-tasking. Why are you so hostile?

JML
06-09-2005, 06:36 AM
That's because you're used to it, you think it's normal, you only do one thing at a time anyway - like every other pc user I know.

you probably don't know a lot of people then :rolleyes:

you should change your name to 'brainwashed guy'

JML
06-09-2005, 06:49 AM
I knew mac guys hated microsoft, but I did not know that they hated intel so much, why ?

I don't understand so many mac users are depress right now,
IBM or Intel, it's the same, both are not mac companies so why does it matter ?
you were fine with IBM , so why not Intel ?

robewil
06-09-2005, 09:56 AM
I knew mac guys hated microsoft, but I did not know that they hated intel so much, why ?Because for years, Steve Jobs and friends promoted the whole "Apple counter-culture" state of mind where lemmings used vastly inferior, boring, difficult to use, crash-prone products from IBM, Intel, and Microsoft. Mac users are enlightened, creative people who snub the norm.

A few years ago, Mac users had to adjust to the thought of Apple using IBM processors. Now, it's Intel. That's a lot to ask from people who have been so used to believing how terrible these companys were. :p

OneShot
06-09-2005, 10:01 AM
I'm a little ticked that I can't max out my less than one year old Dual Liquid cooled 2.5Ghz G5. I'm also a little scared to buy upgrades for my software. And confused at how much support Apple and venders will support my present system for the intrem. :(

But I probably not as ticked as Virginia Tech who just purchased 1100 G5 2.3ghz server. :eek:

marble_sheep
06-09-2005, 10:03 AM
Toby, your sentiment seems to be the minority. I WANT to try OS X, I just want to run it on the hardware of my choice. This sentiment seems to disturb most Mac users. If the "my OS is better than your OS" thing was the case, they would welcome a convert.

I don't believe they are in the minority. I think the people who are against this are just more vocal ;) I for one am glad about this transition. IBM gave Apple the mega shaft, without even the courtesy of using lube. So, if moving foreward means moving to the architecture already adopted by the rest of the world, then I trust that decision.

And no, Fausto... Apple is not going away any time soon. I will bet money on it. They've been close before... but they are stronger than ever and get this... their marketshare is actually growing. Guess you'll just have to live with their presence for a little while longer ;)

Think about it.... this was probably one of the best business desicions ever: M$ is happy because Apple will still use proprietary computers and won't be a direct threat. Plus, if Windows can run on these new boxes as is rumored, that means more OS sales for M$ because a lot of Mac users probably want the option for both. BUT... it's also good for Apple... they were willing to eat their words about proc speeds, and now there will be no argument because it will be the same **** proc. Plus, they get an increase in hardware sales because many, many PC users will be curious to use this kick*** OS they've heard about, but they still have the option to run windows natively on their new Apple box. Like I've said before... Apple can't, and won't, directly compete with MS! This way, everyone's happy.

So yeah, it was probably a good move. I couldn't care less what processor they use, just as long as they keep making the OS that I've sided with... in the war about OS's ;)

parm
06-09-2005, 11:15 AM
I knew mac guys hated microsoft, but I did not know that they hated intel so much, why ?

I don't understand so many mac users are depress right now,
IBM or Intel, it's the same, both are not mac companies so why does it matter ?
you were fine with IBM , so why not Intel ?

I think maybe dazed and confused might be more appropriate. But thats not suprising
Really, is it?

Personally, in 3 to 4 years I look forward to purchasing my rev b or c Mactel. Installing OS 10.6 and MS bovine equivalent. Run whatever software I like.

Intead of pays your money takes your choice, have both.

parm
06-09-2005, 11:30 AM
I'm a little ticked that I can't max out my less than one year old Dual Liquid cooled 2.5Ghz G5. I'm also a little scared to buy upgrades for my software. And confused at how much support Apple and venders will support my present system for the intrem. :(

Why can't you buy upgrades? Everything from here on should be dual, (Xcode 2.1),
anything not, will have run via emulation on the early Intel based machines.
What you have, is a safe stable machine. There is no reason why it should not serve you right through the next three transitional years, and beyond if needs.
Which Guineapig wants to buy a rev 1 Mactel, on day 1? Unless its got extremely large Dual Ghz


But I probably not as ticked as Virginia Tech who just purchased 1100 G5 2.3ghz server. :eek:
Thats quite funny

Parm

Fausto
06-09-2005, 12:11 PM
I don't believe they are in the minority. I think the people who are against this are just more vocal ;) I for one am glad about this transition. IBM gave Apple the mega shaft, without even the courtesy of using lube. So, if moving foreward means moving to the architecture already adopted by the rest of the world, then I trust that decision.

And no, Fausto... Apple is not going away any time soon. I will bet money on it. They've been close before... but they are stronger than ever and get this... their marketshare is actually growing. Guess you'll just have to live with their presence for a little while longer ;)

Think about it.... this was probably one of the best business desicions ever: M$ is happy because Apple will still use proprietary computers and won't be a direct threat. Plus, if Windows can run on these new boxes as is rumored, that means more OS sales for M$ because a lot of Mac users probably want the option for both. BUT... it's also good for Apple... they were willing to eat their words about proc speeds, and now there will be no argument because it will be the same **** proc. Plus, they get an increase in hardware sales because many, many PC users will be curious to use this kick*** OS they've heard about, but they still have the option to run windows natively on their new Apple box. Like I've said before... Apple can't, and won't, directly compete with MS! This way, everyone's happy.

So yeah, it was probably a good move. I couldn't care less what processor they use, just as long as they keep making the OS that I've sided with... in the war about OS's ;)

I never said anything about whether it was a good move or a bad move, quite frankly I'm totally indifferent to what apple does or doesn't do. I have a business to run and we're strictly a PC shop, that's both the development side about 40 strong, and the design side. I have no need or interest in OSX. For me, it's just another proprietary system with proprietary hardware managed by a company that has less than stellar customer service. XP and all of the windows based applications work terrifically. And yes, Toby, windows does multi task, in fact, it was multi tasking when apple computers wouldn't allow you to print and run a separate application at the same time. A close friend of mine, a mac zealot, used to say that he had no problems making his apple multi task, he was able to wash the monitor while it was ripping a file. This was before OSX.


The truth is, apple needed to do something, they knew that they weren't going to be competitive in a very short period of time. They were going to lose market share either way, I guess this approach gives them at least a tiny shot at future prospects. Yes it's true, I paint a less than rosy picture of how effective apple will be in promoting proprietary hardware to the PC user base, but that's only because I think I understand the PC user mentality, if it's fair to say that.

Firstly, most PC users are interested in open choices, and secondly I think you may over estimate how curious we may be at running OSX. Remember, on the PC there's many, many, many different OS choices, not just the variety offered by MS. There's Linspire one of many different builds of Linux which are as robust as OSX and will run windows applications through wine, there's Unix, and BEOS, and one big benefit, Linux is FREE! None of these have managed to take a decent chunk out of the Windows market. Historically manufacturers have taken sales hits for these types of swings, there are people who won't be happy with apple for doing this, and there are people who will view apple as having no credibility when they make any kind of future marketing claim.

Cheers,

toby
06-09-2005, 01:59 PM
Ummmmm.... have you ever actually used a PC? I have no idea what you are talking about. If you run on current hardware, you won't see any lag times or problems multi-tasking. Why are you so hostile?

I've been working on PC's steadily for the last 3 years. They've all been less stable and have worse system response than my dual 450 G4. How steadily have you worked on a Macintosh?

I'm hostile towards Fausto's exaggerated BS based on his short-sighted assumptions solely designed to make Apple look worse than it is. Especially coming to the Mac forum to do so.



Gee, I thought you knew me
I've never worked with you.



When switched to intel after the Amiga died, the Mac was just no choice because the multi-tasking was abyssmal on any pre-OS X box (if you can call it multi-tasking). So I decided on a NT 3.5 box in '96 ... and haven't seen a reason to switch to another platform since. And I multitask like ****, I currently have around 6-8 apps running simultaneously with no problem whatsoever.

And I'm sure you just have a plain vanilla install of Windows too...

Maybe you should tell the rest of the world, including major studios, how you set up your machine because everyone else just sits and waits patiently waiting for Windows to respond while it shows a bunch of greyed-out windows.

So tell me, can you start a radiosity test-render with 8 threads, switch to the other copy of LW, start another test render, start up Photoshop and see it come up with no hesitation whatsoever, and listen to iTunes the whole time with not a single skip? Work like this for a month without ever rebooting and still get the same result? On a dual 450?

Johnny
06-09-2005, 02:06 PM
Firstly, most PC users are interested in open choices…

Yes, and m$ is an exemplar of open choices..Seems the PC side's *only* choice is making DIY boxes, but as soon as you choose m$ as the environment, you are owned.

But hey! the bright side is that PC users enjoy a bomb-proof user experience, effortless installs and compatibility of drivers and the same or better ease-of-use as with Mac OS, all at pennies on the dollar.

heh


J

Fausto
06-09-2005, 02:09 PM
Matt, what's the point?

This individual is only interesting in goading you and I into some infantile argument. It doesn't matter that history, and experience have lead others and us to these conclusions or points of view. This person doesn't know what they're talking about. Fanaticism has literally blinded him from reality.


Cheers,

Fausto
06-09-2005, 02:14 PM
Yes, an m$ is an exemplar of open choices..Seems the PC side's *only* choice is making DIY boxes, but as soon as you choose m$ as the environment, you are owned.



You are owned? How is that? If I purchase a PC I'm free to run what I want on it as far as OS's are concerned. And if I do choose to run XP or any flavour of windows, how am I owned? To the contrary, you purchase an apple you are owned, because nothing else other than apple OS will run on it.. I guess this cliché fits here; is this the pot calling the kettle black?

You purchase a PC, *hardware* you're free to choose what you want to run on it, this is open, I guess that subtlety was lost on you.

Johnny
06-09-2005, 02:28 PM
You are owned? How is that?…


You're owned to the extent that m$ licensing procedures and protectionism makes installing other software or straying from the m$ path akin to self-disembowelment.



To the contrary, you purchase an apple you are owned, because nothing else other than apple OS will run on it..

Actually Macs can run both OS X and Classic Mac OS, X-Windows and Linux - All the options most of us care for, tho after the transition to Intel, real masochists will be able to load the pus-filled kluge known as windows, too..tho who knows why they'd want to?


I guess this cliché fits here; is this the pot calling the kettle black?

Absolutely not! It's more a case of the kettle saying to the pot "you're full of soup!"


J

mattclary
06-09-2005, 02:38 PM
How steadily have you worked on a Macintosh?


I haven't touched a Mac since... about 1990-91? But I make no claims as to how responsive they are. My only point is, don't say a PC is unresponsive and capable of doing only one task at a time, it's just false.

Like I said, I look forward to using OS X one day, and I hope they can increase their install base. I would love to see MS squirm.

mattclary
06-09-2005, 02:47 PM
To stay on the topic of this thread, I found this very apropos. He pretty much nailed everything I've been saying (or trying to say) about Mac users.

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


See, there's often a difference between what a company sells and what consumers actually get when they purchase the product. Apple Computer, Inc. has "sold" slightly exotic, "technically superior," performance-oriented hardware for years, regardless of where the company's products have actually stood vis-à-vis the PC on the performance ladder. Or, to put it differently, the "RISC" PowerPC architecture has been a core part of the Apple brand and the overall "mythology" of the Mac platform since the 68K transition, even if that architecture rarely delivered on company's promises with benchmark numbers. So what Apple fans are mourning right now isn't the loss of some actual technical superiority of the Mac hardware, but rather the loss of the perception of that hardware's "technical superiority." Even more importantly, Mac enthusiasts are also mourning the loss of that perception's role in the ongoing maintenance of the myth of Apple and of the Apple brand in the form in which these two have coexisted in the PowerPC era.

Johnny
06-09-2005, 02:57 PM
More 'learned' comments from the techno-gods, I guess. Most of us on the Mac side have been in too many Mac/PC situations where the only productive hardware WAS the Mac stuff. Too many situations where PC hardware was down vastly more than up, situations where 'cutting edge' windows boxes were messing themselves over the complexities of fonts and color.

You can believe whatever you want to about tech this and benchmark that. But there's a good reason Macs are used in ad agencies and other creative installations, and why, all thru the "apple is dead" years an insignificant number of those went PC (and were singin' the blues after they did.) Mac loyalty has nothing to do with steve jobs or pretty boxes: Mac gear WORKS, and works reliably with little fuss and muss.

All this is anecdotal, but since the PC crowd is ecstatically happy with their OS, why all the bile?

J

toby
06-09-2005, 03:08 PM
Matt, what's the point?

This individual is only interesting in goading you and I into some infantile argument. It doesn't matter that history, and experience have lead others and us to these conclusions or points of view. This person doesn't know what they're talking about. Fanaticism has literally blinded him from reality.

Cheers,
You're right, there is no point in expecting us to believe that your blind hatred of a company that "you could care less about" led you to have a lot of experience with OSX, we see right through it.

There is no point in telling us "shares of Apple went down today" because any idiot knows that it goes up as well.

There is no point in telling us "Apple only has 2% of the market" because we know that if you exclude housewives and pencil-pushers, it's 50%.

There would be a point in telling us what Windows, system performance-wise, can do that OSX or Linux can't, excluding software availabilty because that was done with under-handed marketting, where Gates ripped off the public and dozens of software companies.

Fausto
06-09-2005, 03:22 PM
You're owned to the extent that m$ licensing procedures and protectionism makes installing other software or straying from the m$ path akin to self-disembowelment.



Actually Macs can run both OS X and Classic Mac OS, X-Windows and Linux - All the options most of us care for, tho after the transition to Intel, real masochists will be able to load the pus-filled kluge known as windows, too..tho who knows why they'd want to?



Absolutely not! It's more a case of the kettle saying to the pot "you're full of soup!"


J

yawn

Gee I wonder what the cause of all this histeria is? Drink less coffee, more water, you'll feel better.

toby
06-09-2005, 03:44 PM
To stay on the topic of this thread, I found this very apropos. He pretty much nailed everything I've been saying (or trying to say) about Mac users.

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

What an a$$hole! ( Not you, Jon Stokes )
Completely disregards things like USB and Firewire, which showed up on Macs a full year before any PC's, and assume that 'all we care about' is this spiritual crap. Completely disregards Jobs' obvious efforts to get the best processor regardless of whether it's 'risc' or not. I haven't heard any risc-cisc comments brought up in a decade, this guy seems to be yet another "how can you use a product that 90% of the public doesn't" and starts off with this 'spiritual' assumption in his effort to explain it.

Matt, I understand what you seem to be thinking, I'm just trying to tell you that your wrong. You're focusing on the few that shock you and making assumptions about the rest of us. People always say that 'those **** motorcycles are too loud' because they don't notice (duh!) the ones that are quiet!

I also understand this 'spiritual' concept - I used to fix BMW motorcycles, and if their owners actually add up how much money and time they spend in the shop, they'd be forced to admit that they are inferior - but instead they make excuses, or blame themselves, every time they break. This is not the case with Macs. Read my points again, they are not excuses, they're actual benefits. Fausto doesn't talk about why Windows is better, only that Apples' shares are small. He must think that MacDonalds is fine dining because they're so big.

Ge4-ce
06-09-2005, 04:17 PM
I'm a die-hard Mac fan, and have no problems at all with Apple's switch to Intel.

What bothers me the most at this entire conversation is:

Why do some people here think that the current G5 and the coming G5 models and all other models are a waste of money, or that they are doomed in 2 years? not working anymore in 2 years...

That's so complete BS. I have the feeling a lot of people still don't get it what it means to change from PPC to intel. For the user: NOTHING CHANGES, except performance, and maybe cheaper boxes.

I've said it before and said it again: Every developer switching to Xcode with his app, will only have to check another checkmark to make an app with dual binaries. Expect them to do this at least 6 or 7 years, and maybe 10 to 12 years. Why? Because that's all they have to do!!! The hard work is NOW, when they potentiolly have to switch to Xcode and check their software. Once this is done, making this software available for both PPC and intel is just a checkbox...

Meaning: next Powermac will be more powerfull than current. There's absolute NO reason to wait for the Intel Macs to come. the only speed advantage you will have is just another year of evolution.

Powerbooks and iBooks will see bigger speedjumps. I must admit. But current dual 2.7 can stand up pretty well agains any PC and system for the same price.

Fausto
06-09-2005, 04:20 PM
Fausto doesn't talk about why Windows is better, only that Apples' shares are small. He must think that MacDonalds is fine dining because they're so big.

I have purposely stayed away from making comments like OSX sucks or windows is better or worse because of this or that because I think it's not relevant to the conversation. I wasn't trying to enter into a debate about what's better, just that proprietary doesn't cut it, end of story. If you're happy with your choice, all the power to you, I'm happy with the choices I've made for my company.

Here are the points I made.

1) In my opinion apple will lose market share, history tell us this is a safe bet.
Apple is taking a protectionist stand by not allowing their OS to run on any other PC because they know they'll lose substantially. Apple cannot compete with the likes of Dell, don't argue with me, almost every business analyst has made the same assessment.

2) Apple will see increases in their iTunes business.

3) Apple represents a very small slice of the PC market, and an even smaller slice of Intel's business.

4) There are more options for running OS's on the PC platform, not in emulation

5) People will not soon forget the I SWITCH and THINK DIFFERENT Campaigns in the light of this change. Apple will struggle to hold any credibility with PC users in the near future. "How can you firstly THINK DIFFERENT than adopt the very technology that you were stating was inferior. How can you make the claim that you build the fastest computers and that the future product will leave all other technologies in the dust, then turn around and state that Intel have the best technology and the best prospects for the future?
"
6) Apple has terrible customer service.

7) Apple is proprietary, and I think that doesn't bode well for them in the PC market place. Firstly, most PC users are interested in open choices, and secondly I think you may over estimate how curious we may be at running OSX. Remember, on the PC there's many, many, many different OS choices, not just the variety offered by MS. There's Linspire one of many different builds of Linux which are as robust as OSX and will run windows applications through wine, there's Unix, and BEOS, and one big benefit, Linux is FREE! None of these have managed to take a decent chunk out of the Windows market. Historically manufacturers have taken sales hits for these types of swings, there are people who won't be happy with apple for doing this, and there are people who will view apple as having no credibility when they make any kind of future marketing claim.

I'm not the one making personal attacks here.. I was just expressing my POV.

Johnny
06-09-2005, 04:39 PM
I have purposely stayed away from making comments like OSX sucks or windows is better or worse because of this or that because I think it's not relevant to the conversation.


which is: "Who is against and upset anout the intel transition annoucemnt?"

and not:

"Who has an axe to grind from the PC side?"

J

parm
06-09-2005, 06:22 PM
I have purposely stayed away from making comments like OSX sucks or windows is better or worse because of this or that because I think it's not relevant to the conversation. I wasn't trying to enter into a debate about what's better, just that proprietary doesn't cut it, end of story. If you're happy with your choice, all the power to you, I'm happy with the choices I've made for my company.

Here are the points I made.

1) In my opinion apple will lose market share, history tell us this is a safe bet.
Apple is taking a protectionist stand by not allowing their OS to run on any other PC because they know they'll lose substantially. Apple cannot compete with the likes of Dell, don't argue with me, almost every business analyst has made the same assessment.

Currently Apples' market share is increasing, thanks to i-pod owners who currently own windws machines switching to Macs, (19 or 20% I believe). I don't know how many i-pod owners know or care who makes the chip inside their Mac mini.
It is possible the high end Macs will take a hit in the short term. Long and medium term, everything looks Rosey. Apple get to keep all their options open, just in case IBM, AMD, or anyone else comes up with a killer chip


2) Apple will see increases in their iTunes business.

3) Apple represents a very small slice of the PC market, and an even smaller slice of Intel's business.

True. But Apple are a good customer for Intel. They bring value to the Intel brand disproportionate to their size.


4) There are more options for running OS's on the PC platform, not in emulation

5) People will not soon forget the I SWITCH and THINK DIFFERENT Campaigns in the light of this change. Apple will struggle to hold any credibility with PC users in the near future. "How can you firstly THINK DIFFERENT than adopt the very technology that you were stating was inferior. How can you make the claim that you build the fastest computers and that the future product will leave all other technologies in the dust, then turn around and state that Intel have the best technology and the best prospects for the future?

I don't understand what point you are making here. Something to do with the 'Think Different' advertising campaign? Or that Apple is a company with the forsight and pragmatism to realise, that in the competative world of technology, things can change.
"

6) Apple has terrible customer service.

7) Apple is proprietary, and I think that doesn't bode well for them in the PC market place. Firstly, most PC users are interested in open choices, and secondly I think you may over estimate how curious we may be at running OSX. Remember, on the PC there's many, many, many different OS choices, not just the variety offered by MS. There's Linspire one of many different builds of Linux which are as robust as OSX and will run windows applications through wine, there's Unix, and BEOS, and one big benefit, Linux is FREE! None of these have managed to take a decent chunk out of the Windows market. Historically manufacturers have taken sales hits for these types of swings, there are people who won't be happy with apple for doing this, and there are people who will view apple as having no credibility when they make any kind of future marketing claim.

I have used Macs for a really long time. I have never had to use 'Apple Care'. So I don't know if it's rubbish.

If I buy a Mac and somethings wrong I'll take it back to the shop and change or get my money back. If Apple allow anyone to put it's OS on any box of bits. Apple Care phonelines would be jammed. Trying to answer problems not of their making. Leading to a situation where, software vendors blame the hardware vendors and back again.

As for proprietry and choices. Laptops and portables are the fastest growing area of pc. I've yet to meet anyone who has built there own laptop yet.


I'm not the one making personal attacks here.. I was just expressing my POV.

Fausto, you are drawing a lot of flak here, because your POV, could be considered to be spreading FUD

no disrespect intended

Parm

Ade
06-09-2005, 06:53 PM
Macintosh is a religion, a form of politics (fascist freedom) and a community.

Apple is a company bound to make profit.

riki
06-09-2005, 07:14 PM
Here's to hoping that I no longer need to rely on Apple for repairs.

wacom
06-09-2005, 10:35 PM
I use a Pismo, and an imac G5, each running OSX, and a dell running xp. All I can say is that the days of OS's crashing all the time are over- on EACH platform. OS9, windows 95-ME were pieces of crap. They crashed like ****- among other issues. NT 4 was great...if you got it setup right and never saw the rare but freaky as **** blue screen of death.

The whole thing about which system multitask better is a waste of time too. I've use each system (and still do as you can see) and OSX and XP, on "similar" machines seems to mulit-task over all about the same. OSX has some real problems for me when it comes to ME telling a program to force a quite, because it has crashed. Besides that it seems a great OS in everyway. Windows 2000-XP as been the same. It's easier to make generalizations though for Macs than windows stations, since they hardware is so locked down (or was), with PC's it's up to how smart the person was who built it.

People who defend poor little IBM need to take a reality check. That company was behind some very BAD things in history. Not that any other hardware maker is a saint- since almost all RD spins out of defense contracts (it's true, so don't cry).


On the xbox360 chip: Even MicroLimp has stated that the xbox360 chip is geared for games- and wouldn't be the most effeicent processor for general tasks. The otehr reason Apple would be stupid to adopt it is that it wouldn't work in a lap top. That is unless you want it to be 3 inches thick with that water cooling in it! Talk about power consumption too! The IBM chips seem more specalized than what is needed for general computing, while the Intel and AMD chips seem poised for single system use. The IBM chips are rummored to be good at networking though...

Besides, people keep ooohing and aaaahing over the xbox360 and PS3 chip ideas, but forget that behind the curtain the real star is the GPU for those systems...

Chalk me up for one in the "happy" corner that apple is doing this! It's smart- plain and simple, and will add a true competitor to MicroLimp- which isn't going to hurt anyone (including people who use MicroLimp products). Believe it or not, but there are a lot of things AMD and Intel have done, and can do, but they've been restrained by legacy software and hardware- Apple is small enough and it's users crave an edge enough that they may finally get the green light on some of these things in the consumer (yes I said consumer) market.

mlinde
06-09-2005, 10:38 PM
Here's why apple will fail: Poor customer support, tiny market share, not soon to grow given the recent news and the fact that the PC world for the most part has moved away from proprietary hardware. Also, the rest of the computing world, Microsoft included isn’t standing still, XP64 is terrific, and Longhorn looks seriously promising. And the most obvious reason; apple look like liars! The irony of THINK DIFFERENT!, I SWITCH marketing campaign, or We build the fastest computers on the planet BS won't be easily forgotten by the intended market, PC users. How can you firstly THINK DIFFERENT than adopt the very technology that you were stating was inferior. How can you make the claim that you build the fastest computers and that the future product will leave all other technologies in the dust, then turn around and state that Intel have the best technology and the best prospects for the future? Here's what you just can't seem to get through that thick layer of beige plastic you call a brain -- Apple is the ONLY computer company that offers face-to-face customer support (Apple Store Genius Bars) as a FREE service -- that sure is poor customer support. ALL Apple computers have at least a 1 year warranty, even the $500 mini. Hmmm, that sure sucks compared to Dell's 90 day warranty on their $500 PC. Tiny Market Share? 10th largest PC manufacturer in the world sure is small, you are right there too. Longhorn might be out by the time Apple has a full stable of Intel-based Macintosh computers and another major OS upgrade, that's what -- three OS updates with major feature upgrades, still better security, and multiple hardware platforms in the time it takes M$ to make one update for one of those platforms? As for proprietary hardware, um, where? SATA? DDR SDRAM? AGP 8X? PCI-X? Oh, maybe you mean USB or 802.11g? You are lost in the Macintosh of 1993, and I can't help that. As for the think different/technology arguments, the PPC G5 is still a competitive desktop computer, price for performance. That's today, June 2005. Apple is looking at 2,5 or 10 years down the road, and Intel has the best plan. Or haven't you heard, IBM and Freescale are going into cellphones and videogame consoles?

Honestly they just come across as arrogant, as in we can do what we want and the throngs of apple zealots will follow no questions asked, and desperate because they knew the jig was up! How does apple think they’re going to be able to compete when others more capable, IBM with OS2 for instance or Linux in its many flavours haven’t succeeded? Honestly, you just come across as uniformed and arrogant. Who is Apple competing with? An OS that can't be on the internet for 20 minutes without becoming infected with a dozen different viruses, spyware and malware? Hmmm, strong competition that. Apple is, and always has, marched to their own drum. Show me a computer that packs the same features in hardware and software, dollar for dollar, as a Mac that ISN'T a Mac. I'm talking about built in security, functionality, ease of use, and software capabilities that come IN THE BOX. Where's the desperation? Gee, lets take our time, over two years, to allow our developers time to get up to speed with the new units, yep, that's a desperate move. And you are right, OS2 came out what, mid 1990s? Hmm, sometime after the Mac OS? Yeah, and Linux, there's a realistic consumer product. Hey, let's take a few hours to set up our new computer operating system so we can start to think about the software we have to hunt down online, possibly recompile to use before we can do anything productive.

My prediction, apple will lose customers in this part of their business, thankfully for apple iPods are still selling despite there being better products already available by other vendors. If I had 10 shares of Apple stock every time some uninformed PC ZEALOT told me Apple was going out of business, I'd be a multi-millionaire.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who are most upset are those who have invested YEARS of their life learning to work around the issues with Windows, only to have their neighbor next door buy a Mac, which just works, with far fewer headaches and hasses, and both of those computers having the same CPU inside. Is that where you come from Fausto? Darn near pizzed off because now that **** Mac user next door is going to get the same CPU doing much cooler things than your Windows PC can do, for about the same price?

Ge4-ce
06-10-2005, 01:26 AM
I'll drink to that... Cheers!

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 02:05 AM
So tell me, can you start a radiosity test-render with 8 threads, switch to the other copy of LW, start another test render, start up Photoshop and see it come up with no hesitation whatsoever, and listen to iTunes the whole time with not a single skip? Work like this for a month without ever rebooting and still get the same result? On a dual 450?
Well, I can on my PC, I wouldn't use that ressource hog iTunes though (sheesh, 20+MB just for playing back music?). On a dual 450 I have to wait even for the dock thingy to come up when surfing in Safari...
Also, I know how to juggle my task priorites, and rendering with 8 threads in that situation isn't really needed. I can easily render a comp with DF in the background at the same time and still surf (while the LW renders chugg away). Been there, done that.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 02:13 AM
Here's what you just can't seem to get through that thick layer of beige plastic you call a brain -- Apple is the ONLY computer company that offers face-to-face customer support (Apple Store Genius Bars) as a FREE service -- that sure is poor customer support. ALL Apple computers have at least a 1 year warranty, even the $500 mini. Hmmm, that sure sucks compared to Dell's 90 day warranty on their $500 PC.
That might be valid in the US, in europe all companies are bound to a 1-2 year warranty by law. And there might be an Apple store in Berlin if I'm not mistaken. Great, a 6 hour drive to the next Apple store, it might be faster to go to Paris ;)
...Then again, Macs have always been pricier here anyhow, which makes them less of an option on this side of the pond.

Cheers,
Mike

Ge4-ce
06-10-2005, 02:44 AM
Yeah, Macs are pricier in Europe, I must admit that.

They have the same numbers, 2999 $ vs 2999 € but 1 euro is 1.25 dollar, so that makes it 25% more expensive over here!


Never stopped me from buying these awesome machines though!

I worked entire last summer on a Dell Dual Xeon 2.3 Ghz or something. Must say that still the multitasking, and the feeling is way better on a Mac. You can do more things at once, that's for sure, but the switching between apps is just like the PC has to think some longer what to to when pressing alt-tab.

Just like if the PC's panicking.. "Oh no, he want's to switch app.. what shall I do first.. finish this and then switch an app? or first switch, put this on hold, and..." (just a matter of speaking offcourse)

toby
06-10-2005, 03:23 AM
6 - 8 programs at once? That's pretty cool - and all you had to do was configure a stripped down version of Windows and juggle programs in the task manager? Great.

Two programs encoding video, one burning a dvd, Premiere is running so Classic must be too, iTunes hasn't skipped once, and switching programs shows no hesitation whatsoever. Been working for 6 1/2 hours like this, no problems. On the dual 2.8ghz win2k box at work, if I render radiosity or anything render-intensive with any more than 1 thread, every command will stall before activating, if I try to start a program it takes twice as long just to begin to start up, and every window will pop up solid grey, then draw later.

Ge4-ce
06-10-2005, 03:31 AM
6 - 8 programs at once? That's pretty cool - and all you had to do was configure a stripped down version of Windows and juggle programs in the task manager? Great.



you forgot to launch Calculator.. :rolleyes: ;)

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 03:37 AM
6 - 8 programs at once? That's pretty cool - and all you had to do was configure a stripped down version of Windows and juggle programs in the task manager? Great.
Huh, stripped down? My box is loaded with stuff running at the same time, my tray looks busy compared to your dock ;)
Juggle programs in the task manager? Yep, but you can blame the ones that don't use the task scheduler properly. It isn't really neccessary with 90% of the apps I run, but for that extra smoothness it helps. Oh, last time I had my computer off was three weeks ago (because I wasn't in the office for a couple of days). We also, for example, have our render jobs not only on the farm but as background tasks on the workstations as well. The only reason to disable that is RAM usage.


On the dual 2.8ghz win2k box at work, if I render radiosity or anything render-intensive with any more than 1 thread, every command will stall before activating, if I try to start a program it takes twice as long just to begin to start up, and every window will pop up solid grey, then draw later.
Well, it looks like your w2k box has some solid problems then... I have to admit that LW is a ressource hog though. Then again, this is what the task manager is for...
Cheers,
Mike

toby
06-10-2005, 04:02 AM
Huh, stripped down? My box is loaded with stuff running at the same time, my tray looks busy compared to your dock ;)
I was talking about the OS.



Well, it looks like your w2k box has some solid problems then... I have to admit that LW is a ressource hog though. Then again, this is what the task manager is for...
Cheers,
Mike
Looks like every Windows box I've ever seen has solid problems, exept your magic boxes. I don't quote problems that are specific to a machine.

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 04:09 AM
I was talking about the OS.

Erm, so was i ;)

Looks like every Windows box I've ever seen has solid problems, exept your magic boxes. I don't quote problems that are specific to a machine.
Nor do I. We are talking about OSes here... and I did see windows boxes with solid problems, but I've also Macs with solid problems. I guess it is more of a user problem than anything else (no offense intended), and Macs may be more forgiving. Then again, I've seen complete idiots screw up their Macs too ;)
But, only because you have seen problems on one platform, doesn't imply that other people have the same experience, and I for one don't. _Very_ productive on Wintel boxes for more than 10 years now ... and still counting.

Cheers,
Mike

OneShot
06-10-2005, 04:22 AM
Well after listening to the WWDC speech (starting about 21:00)

I recant my earlier statement. With universal binary code I can keep this G5 working till the Intel Macs arrive. That makes me feel a lot better. If fact I suggest you take time to listen to the speech. :o

I actually see an even brighter future for the Mac and more and better apps, especially 3D apps. :D

Fausto
06-10-2005, 04:24 AM
Here's what you just can't seem to get through that thick layer of beige plastic you call a brain




and another great zinger




Honestly, you just come across as uniformed and arrogant.



Why is it when anyone, pc users or mac users included say anything that's even remotely derogatory toward apple the fanatical loonie tunes come out of the wood work? You know the type; they’re the ones that have apple stickers on the back windows of their cars. I have yet to see one vehicle with an Intel sticker or a Dell sticker on their vehicle.

I remember not too long ago, when the G5 was first introduced a mac user posted his own benchmark results that refuted apples marketing claims. This poor guy was inundated with email and guestbook postings some of which sincerely wished he'd drop dead. How out of place was that? Do you even recognize that it's wrong to personally attack someone for sharing his or her opinion?

This I personally don't understand, I don't connect with this machine fanaticism. I haven't praised Microsoft, I haven't defended some their practises, I've been equally critical of MS in the past, I've use other OS systems on my PC's. I haven't said anything about the quality of the apple product, I haven't said that OSX was crap, I've stated my opinion about their customer service, again, this from my own experience and the experience of people I know. I stated some opinions about what I thought might lay in front of apple as a result of what's been happening in the PC market, and this latest move, that's it! Why does this warrant such an energized and hateful attack? If you disagree, great! We'll see how it turns out. The personal attacks just weaken your argument.

Apple haven't been able to make any headway as far as market share is concerned, in fact, they've lost market share over the last 10 years, this isn't my opinion, it's fact. I don't see how this latest move is going to change that trend. There is a lot of competition in the PC-to-PC world. Apples being RISC processors, being the only manufacturer that provided the OS as well as the hardware stood segregated from the rest of them, this move changes that. The level playing field, which by the way, apple won't be participating in fully because OSX isn't going to be available for other PC manufacturers, is a tight margin, highly competitive market. The big names in the PC world are making money because of huge volumes and ancillary business revenues, apple won't stand out in that group.

Ge4-ce
06-10-2005, 04:33 AM
Erm, so was i ;)

Nor do I. We are talking about OSes here... and I did see windows boxes with solid problems, but I've also Macs with solid problems. I guess it is more of a user problem than anything else (no offense intended), and Macs may be more forgiving. Then again, I've seen complete idiots screw up their Macs too ;)
But, only because you have seen problems on one platform, doesn't imply that other people have the same experience, and I for one don't. _Very_ productive on Wintel boxes for more than 10 years now ... and still counting.

Cheers,
Mike

I have to agree with Toby here.. I can't stand computerproblems. Who can? Probably nobody. But everywhere I come, especially at places where more than one person has to operate the same computer, PC's are more busted than Macs.

I don't have a single doubt that you (Lightwolf) have a very perfect cool running windows box. I myself know also some people who have their machines running like a mean clean rendering machine.. with zero problems.

Problems start in company's, where lot's of people all together know how to solve an issue. Then things start to go wrong. At this point, Macs are more robust to idiots than PC's. How many people do you know, that at startup, click "OK" on 2 or 3 error messages before the desktop appears? saying: "Oh, he does that all the time, no big deal) I can't recall a single Mac user doing that. I either works, or it doesn't at startup.

That's what bothers me the most about PC-users (no personal offence intended) A lot of them just seem to live with bugs and error messages. Once every x-weeks, they reformat they drive and start over.

I'm not talking about you Lightwolf. You are one of those exceptions that have a lot of knowledge about your machine(s) and know how to use it and what you can do and what you can't do. My professional collegues also have robust systems. At home, where no kid, or no son-in-law can touch it. If you have a strict personal computer at work, you also have a good chance to keep it clean.

The moment more people work on it (like local IT-ers) things get screwed up.

Same with Macs, but a lot less!! At my school, not a single PC is issue free. Schools are an exagerated example of my theory above. The Mac at my school do work fine. (or at least 95% of them)

BeeVee
06-10-2005, 04:43 AM
Can I suggest that we let this thread die a dignified death? If we don't all continue on our way and do some LightWave on whatever platform we choose to use (hey I'd like it to still be an Amiga personally...) things are going to start to get ugly.

Honestly, this is just like one of those C.S.A.A threads that wouldn't die... :rolleyes:

B

Lightwolf
06-10-2005, 04:54 AM
(hey I'd like it to still be an Amiga personally...)
Now you're talking...

...dying....

cheers,
mike

SCS5
06-10-2005, 05:13 AM
I use, or have used the Amiga, Mac, & PC's over the years...... Love them All! They ALL HAVE GOOD & BAD qualities.

The only difference I see between all these systems is that Mac users seem pissed off at the rest of the world, & PC users seem happy!

Ge4-ce
06-10-2005, 05:19 AM
this is not the way to go when NT want's this thread to die..

let's close down this tread with something like Jack Nicklson in Mars attacks:

(breathe in...) "why can't we just all..." (breathe out) "Get along"....


And every user uses the machine he likes best.. End of story

SCS5
06-10-2005, 05:30 AM
Sorry!…………………Off to the grave site…Byyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

mlinde
06-10-2005, 10:44 AM
You are correct. I took the statements you made and replied with two whole sentences of personal attacks. For that I do apologize. Would you accept this apology, and refute any of my arguments with facts?

toby
06-10-2005, 03:42 PM
Last words -

Lightwolf, go to a PC store, start up a dozen graphic apps on any of the computers there, then go to a Mac store and do the same and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Fausto, comments like 'Apple shares are down again' is an arrogant statement to claim superiority, because nobody was talking about the Market. You came here to bring it up just to rub in our faces. Don't accuse us of being fanatics just because we don't like the way you come here to exaggerate and taunt.
Basically what you're doing here is dumping icewater on someone while they're sleeping and, when they get pissed off, say "jeez, what an ill-tempered hothead, you should relax". It will get you an argument every time.

riki
06-10-2005, 06:53 PM
This was an interesting read,

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11809

Ge4-ce
06-11-2005, 01:34 AM
This was an interesting read,

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11809

Actually, that's really the worst piece of Cr*p I read lately. Why couldn't Apple just decide they go with Intel chips? Don't think there's a hidden agenda. No way.

If Intel would buy Apple, and release OSX for all OEM manufacters, sure, it will hit Micro$oft, but it would also crack Apple, because they won't sell computer hardware anymore. They would simply become a on of million PC maker, and their OS would be copied all over the world. Aint a chance Apple is going to let that happen, just because Intel can take back on Micro$oft. And as for the argument that Steve would take personal revenge on Bill gates? What kind of CEO would take personal feelings in such a position? BTW, who even officially confirmed that Steve hates Bill? We all asume this!

This article was written by someone who doens't know what he's talking about, and just want to spread some commotion amoung the allready lit Apple community. Maybe he want's to buy cheap Apple shares?

js33
06-11-2005, 01:44 AM
I wonder how the arguments will change when we are all running the same hardware. :D

The only things left to ***** about will be price and OSes.

Cheers,
JS

js33
06-11-2005, 01:49 AM
Actually, that's really the worst piece of Cr*p I read lately. Why couldn't Apple just decide they go with Intel chips? Don't think there's a hidden agenda. No way.

If Intel would buy Apple, and release OSX for all OEM manufacters, sure, it will hit Micro$oft, but it would also crack Apple, because they won't sell computer hardware anymore. They would simply become a on of million PC maker, and their OS would be copied all over the world. Aint a chance Apple is going to let that happen, just because Intel can take back on Micro$oft. And as for the argument that Steve would take personal revenge on Bill gates? What kind of CEO would take personal feelings in such a position? BTW, who even officially confirmed that Steve hates Bill? We all asume this!

This article was written by someone who doens't know what he's talking about, and just want to spread some commotion amoung the allready lit Apple community. Maybe he want's to buy cheap Apple shares?

It could be true. Never under estimate the enormous ego of Steve. :D
I think he would like history to remember him as the underdog that brought the giant down. :eek: It only took him 25 years but he finally did it.

Now wouldn't that be a kicker. After all these years those of us who started on the Amiga could finally have a similar OS back to run on PC hardware, not counting Linux.

Cheers,
JS

sjon
06-11-2005, 05:21 PM
Personally, I think this move is great. I've seen OSX (Tiger) operating on a 3.6 GHz Intel chip and it is so fast. Think of it, this way. A Mac user can use either Leopard (the new ops sys) or Windows (brrrr). A PC user can use Window (brrrr). This is the best of both worlds. And all the old legacy programs will work fine (well, Metrowerks is in a bit of a tunnel, right now), but XCode and Java will roar. And code conversion is simple and fast. I, personally don't like Windows. It's too leaky and feels like driving a tank. But there are some really fast PC's out there and I want their speed. This is not a question of PPC versus Intel, but Mac OS versus Windows and Mac wins hands down. Besides, both Motorola and IBM don't seem to be able to produce enought chips to keep up with Apple's orders (how many of you ordered a new G5 and had to wait for months because of the unavailabilty of the chips).

Think Quad mounted dual-core 4.8 Ghz chips in a Mac. With that kind of power, we'll finally be able to get that matter transporter working and even break the speed of light (sorry, Albert). Render on the fly - I love it.

Sjon

OneShot
06-11-2005, 11:23 PM
John Markoff offers some additional insight into the decision as well: "IBM executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business." :eek:

No wonder Apple had been looking for another CPU. It seem if IBM was almost trying extort Apple. :mad:

parm
06-12-2005, 01:59 AM
This was an interesting read,

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11809

Could be, might not be.

It seems the punditry going around at the moment is taking speculation to fanciful levels.

It's quite amusing to see the 'professionals', (Cringely, Stokes, Siracusa et al), floundering for something coherent to say. It seems they have been caught of guard as much as anyone.

As for the Osborne effect. Well, I would have thought, Two years is a long time to put off buying a computer, just because something better might be out by then. It doesn't matter what you buy now, in two years something better will be out.

What really would be interesting. Is a glimpse at Intels' roadmap, what is in the pipeline? what have they got in R & D for Apple in 2007?

Parm

Lightwolf
06-12-2005, 03:43 AM
What really would be interesting. Is a glimpse at Intels' roadmap, what is in the pipeline? what have they got in R & D for Apple in 2007?

Apparently fairly low power but high performance dual cores coming up in 2007. Then again, this is so far away and road maps change _all_ the time ...

Cheers,
Mike

Captain Obvious
06-12-2005, 03:44 AM
What really would be interesting. Is a glimpse at Intels' roadmap, what is in the pipeline? what have they got in R & D for Apple in 2007?
64-bit dual-core 65nm or less processors based on the Pentium M.

I've also heard they have more than dual-cores on the roadmap for 2007.

Ge4-ce
06-12-2005, 04:42 AM
Maybe Intel's roadmap is very clear. You can look for the upcoming processors on X-number of sites. There's no secret there. Neither was there with IBM.

But don't expect Apple to announce what kind of chips they're gonna use in their machines. Not now, not tommorow, and not in the future. They only say it when they announce the machine. It has always been like that.

Apple likes to keep things secretive. It keeps "the magic" alive. besides... the rumor sites would instantly die the day Apple starts announcing products years in front. And that's also bad marketing I guess. Sales would go down cause everyone want's to wait for the next best thing. I know I'm like that myself. I only buy when a product is recently realeased and announced. I hate the feeling I had once with my powerbook G4 titanium. Last model, where they announced somewhere in July, but it only shipped in november, and in january, they announced the 17" aluminal PB... I felt sooooo betrayed, even I know progress doesn't stop. But at least you want the feeling progress stops when you just spent 3K or more...

wacom
06-12-2005, 11:28 AM
You Mac people just got out of the stone age of memory and resource managment when OSX came out and you're trying to tell all of us Amiga, Windows, Unix and Linux users how AMAZING multitasking is and dynamic resouce alocation? Get real! Besides you keep comparing generic PC's, found at Office Depot or the like, with a well configured and managed PC. Guess what- I've been multi-tasking with dynamic resouce management for over ten years! Go read a history book and you'll find your extrodinary claims of multitasking are as old as the seventies.

Guess what- when I render I don't want to have seven apps open- why would I want things to render any slower. Now if I had a dual system, then I might, and I stress MIGHT indulge in such things, but I prefere to send things off to a render farm, or be old fashion and go work on one of my other systems. That's why my PC renders, and my Macs do mostly the graphic design work.

And there is a big diffrence between juggling 8 apps that are rendering, with one CPU and limited RAM and having a dual sytem with up to 4GB. I find my Macs FASTER at mulittasking if they have enough RAM, but WAY slower when they don't. CRUNCH goes the harddrive way too much when my Macs get close to paging.

I love my Macs and OSX, but man I can't stand you ingrorant Apple die hards- you are just so blind. The most efficient OS's I've ran have all been FREE Linux versions...so go blow your power costs more theory.

Ge4-ce
06-12-2005, 11:57 AM
You Mac people just got out of the stone age of memory and resource managment when OSX came out and you're trying to tell all of us Amiga, Windows, Unix and Linux users how AMAZING multitasking is and dynamic resouce alocation? Get real! Besides you keep comparing generic PC's, found at Office Depot or the like, with a well configured and managed PC. Guess what- I've been multi-tasking with dynamic resouce management for over ten years! Go read a history book and you'll find your extrodinary claims of multitasking are as old as the seventies.

Guess what- when I render I don't want to have seven apps open- why would I want things to render any slower. Now if I had a dual system, then I might, and I stress MIGHT indulge in such things, but I prefere to send things off to a render farm, or be old fashion and go work on one of my other systems. That's why my PC renders, and my Macs do mostly the graphic design work.

And there is a big diffrence between juggling 8 apps that are rendering, with one CPU and limited RAM and having a dual sytem with up to 4GB. I find my Macs FASTER at mulittasking if they have enough RAM, but WAY slower when they don't. CRUNCH goes the harddrive way too much when my Macs get close to paging.

I love my Macs and OSX, but man I can't stand you ingrorant Apple die hards- you are just so blind. The most efficient OS's I've ran have all been FREE Linux versions...so go blow your power costs more theory.


You know what? It's because of people like you, that war exists... you make me sick... We practically shot down this thread because there's no use in keep eachother telling that our systems are way better than your systems.. Just keep it for yourself from now on, and stop throwing oil on the fire...

quotes: "You Mac people"... overgeneralising is the root of discriminatioin. Get a life

parm
06-12-2005, 01:36 PM
64-bit dual-core 65nm or less processors based on the Pentium M.

I've also heard they have more than dual-cores on the roadmap for 2007.

Please, do tell.

Parm

wacom
06-12-2005, 03:18 PM
Ever try reading your own tag line?

"The best way to accelerate a pc is at 9,81 m per square seconds...

"Pixar is the most technically advanced creative company; Apple is the most creatively advanced technical company" - Steve Jobs


Powerbook TI SD 1Ghz G4, 512 RAM, ATI mobily radeon 9000, 60GB HD
PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0Ghz, 2.5 GB RAM, 160GB HD, nVidia 6800 ultra"


This goes beyond the Pot and Kettle type situation. You've been pile'n up wood and kindl'n for some time now...we just tossed a match on it!


You know what? It's because of people like you, that war exists... you make me sick... We practically shot down this thread because there's no use in keep eachother telling that our systems are way better than your systems.. Just keep it for yourself from now on, and stop throwing oil on the fire...

quotes: "You Mac people"... overgeneralising is the root of discriminatioin. Get a life

Ge4-ce
06-12-2005, 03:34 PM
Ever try reading your own tag line?

"The best way to accelerate a pc is at 9,81 m per square seconds...

"Pixar is the most technically advanced creative company; Apple is the most creatively advanced technical company" - Steve Jobs


Powerbook TI SD 1Ghz G4, 512 RAM, ATI mobily radeon 9000, 60GB HD
PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0Ghz, 2.5 GB RAM, 160GB HD, nVidia 6800 ultra"


This goes beyond the Pot and Kettle type situation. You've been pile'n up wood and kindl'n for some time now...we just tossed a match on it!

Yes, you don't have "ME" to remind me where I stand for. But my tag is my personal opinion. I'm free to express my personall opinion right? I never go personal on someone because he uses a PC. I never did. You DO. You put us in pidgeonholes like: "the mac people" and I don't understand those Mac-people.

The steve jobs quote is just a quote, don't see what's wrong with that, It's someone elses opinon with the one I agree.

The last 2 lines are for a technical reason. How many times did I had to write my technical notes. for bug reports etc.. well, there they are.

You got personal in the first place, I did not throw wood on the pile this entire thread. I just gave my opinion without ranting on PC-people.. but I can disagree with an opinion can't I Or do you have a problem with that? Cause you don't belong in a forum if you can't stand people's opinions.. that's what forums are about...
:rolleyes:

toby
06-12-2005, 06:15 PM
You Mac people just got out of the stone age of memory and resource managment when OSX came out and you're trying to tell all of us Amiga, Windows, Unix and Linux users how AMAZING multitasking is and dynamic resouce alocation?
No, we're telling Windows users.


Besides you keep comparing generic PC's, found at Office Depot or the like, with a well configured and managed PC.

I'm comparing a modified 450 G4 and a generic G5 to several custom-built, 'well managed' PC workstations, with better graphics cards and more ram.



I love my Macs and OSX, but man I can't stand you ingrorant Apple die hards- you are just so blind. The most efficient OS's I've ran have all been FREE Linux versions...so go blow your power costs more theory.
Coming here to re-ignite an argument that's already ended, you must be the fanatic here. I've NEVER heard anyone say that Mac is more stable or better at multi-tasking than Unix os's. That's ridiculous. Don't put words in our mouths just so you can say we're ignorant.

somnambulance
06-12-2005, 09:02 PM
I will send $1 in the mail to who ever wins this argument! :p

I do have to say though, working in Windows about equal to scrubbing toilets!

its about quality, not quantity.

mlinde
06-12-2005, 09:57 PM
I love my Macs and OSX, but man I can't stand you ingrorant Apple die hards- you are just so blind. The most efficient OS's I've ran have all been FREE Linux versions...so go blow your power costs more theory.
So what 3D app are you running in Linux?

Ge4-ce
06-13-2005, 05:11 AM
Yes.. let me see..

3D:

LW? nope
3DSTmax ? nope
Z-brush? Nope
Modo ? Nope

Maya? yes, but you have to contact the sales department for these platforms.

Compositing:

Digital Fusion? Nope
Shake? yes, but at a higher price and limited functions (no unlimeted rendernodes)
AfterFX? Nope


So maybe linux is stable, and I agree it is cheap (free) and it works very nice.. But you do realise it's based on the same UNIX structure that OS X uses right? And there's no software available at this moment that would support my needs..

Aegis
06-13-2005, 07:25 AM
Amiga owns you all :D

Captain Obvious
06-13-2005, 08:39 AM
You Mac people just got out of the stone age of memory and resource managment when OSX came out and you're trying to tell all of us Amiga, Windows, Unix and Linux users how AMAZING multitasking is and dynamic resouce alocation?
I've been using OS X since the public beta in 1999 or 2000. That's more than five years of using OS X. "Just" doesn't quite do it justice.


Guess what- I've been multi-tasking with dynamic resouce management for over ten years! Go read a history book and you'll find your extrodinary claims of multitasking are as old as the seventies.
That's nice. I was multitasking on my ancient Macintosh LC from 1992, running Mac OS 7. The reason OS X makes multitasking better is not because it has better tech, but because it has a better user interface.


I find my Macs FASTER at mulittasking if they have enough RAM, but WAY slower when they don't. CRUNCH goes the harddrive way too much when my Macs get close to paging.
Can't argue with that. A Mac with less than enough RAM is painful to use.


The most efficient OS's I've ran have all been FREE Linux versions...so go blow your power costs more theory.
I'm a user interface enthusiast, and GNU/Linux simply doesn't offer anything interesting in that department, regardless of how awesome the kernel is or how stable it is.






So what 3D app are you running in Linux?
Blender! It's awesome!

Ok, sorry, it isn't. I lied. :(

Lightwolf
06-13-2005, 08:47 AM
That's nice. I was multitasking on my ancient Macintosh LC from 1992, running Mac OS 7. The reason OS X makes multitasking better is not because it has better tech, but because it has a better user interface.
Erm, if you call that multi-tasking, then DOS was an MT OS right from the start as well (since you could fake MT with TSRs back then) ;)
Cheers,
Mike

wacom
06-13-2005, 11:27 AM
Erm, if you call that multi-tasking, then DOS was an MT OS right from the start as well (since you could fake MT with TSRs back then) ;)
Cheers,
Mike

At least someone else can see what I'm up against here. Lightwolf tells it how it is- as always!

Hey Lightwolf- did you see that AMD is going to release a 8 core CPU by Q1 2006! Just wild!


"That's nice. I was multitasking on my ancient Macintosh LC from 1992, running Mac OS 7. The reason OS X makes multitasking better is not because it has better tech, but because it has a better user interface. "

OS 7 was great for the time, but by the time 8 rolled around it felt like a prehistoric OS- ditto for 9 (god that was painful to work with). If you can tell me how you got dynamic resource allocation to work on your Mac pre OSX I'd like to know, so that I could go back in time and not have to live that Mac OS nightmare.
All I can remeber is allocating memory to AF, hitting render, and walking over to the next computer...I guess you call that multitaksing!

This is the problem, I'm no wiz about how computers and software works, but some of you really need to go down to a book store and pick up a "understanding my first computer" book. Of coarse, up till OSX and the slow desolve of PostScript as the defacto printing font, you guys could remain in the dark about hardware/software, and how an OS works in general- just like Mr. Jobs wants you to be. Isn't the Mac die hard slogan something along the lines of "...it's a mac, I don't have to think about it, Apple takes care of me, all I need to know is where the on button is..."

Get off the Apple nipple and start thinking for yourself- I use Macs and noone here has said a word that truley makes me think they are the king of kings, jack of all trades, uber love toaster that they claim the platform to be. I love OSX- and XP really is no slouch either but I'm not about to ditch either one for the other...

PostScript is dead
the PPC will be dead
Adobe sleeps with whoever
Apple is going to use Intel

Hmm...time to open up your eyes before reality wacks you in the face. I just don't get this brand loyalty when it comes to an OS- an OS isn't a hard thing to use folks! It's not like switching 3D apps etc. the learning curve is very low and so is the price...

PS- I had fun using my Pismo to write this...

PPS- What do I use Linux for? Well, I've used it on several cheap "PCs" to make a small render farm before. Free OS and a "free" thing called SN. Please don't tell me you've never heard of NewTeks right hand man SN? Now I just send it off ot a "real" render farm...I'm lazy and their farms are sooo fast...

Johnny
06-13-2005, 11:30 AM
heh..I want me a 4 jubiflop rig!

RonGC
06-13-2005, 12:32 PM
What i don't understand is that if your not a current Mac user Apple's plans do not affect you ;)

So why are we having to be insulted and harangued by non Mac users.On other threads here and other sites on this topic, Mac users are being barraged with derogatory retoric from non Mac users.

If you can't add something of worth in a civilized manner then start your own anti-Mac Rant thread elsewhere.

Ron

parm
06-13-2005, 01:06 PM
What i don't understand is that if your not a current Mac user Apple's plans do not affect you ;)

So why are we having to be insulted and harangued by non Mac users.On other threads here and other sites on this topic, Mac users are being barraged with derogatory retoric from non Mac users.

If you can't add something of worth in a civilized manner then start your own anti-Mac Rant thread elsewhere.

Ron


Very well said.

sjon
06-13-2005, 01:10 PM
Enough with this silly discourse. It goes nowhere, and produces nothing. It is worthless.

Sjon

wacom
06-13-2005, 01:39 PM
Enough with this silly discourse. It goes nowhere, and produces nothing. It is worthless.

Sjon

It's true! Man is it fun though!

Much could be said of sports too though...but man they can be fun too!

If you're a Mac user (like me) and you read then look at this:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html

Makes me feel great on one hand (the emulator) and bad on the other (Hollywood as the reason for the chip change?).

Captain Obvious
06-13-2005, 03:59 PM
I must admit I never really did any 3D work in OS pre-X. ;) My multitasking was much simpler.




OS 7 was great for the time, but by the time 8 rolled around it felt like a prehistoric OS- ditto for 9 (god that was painful to work with). If you can tell me how you got dynamic resource allocation to work on your Mac pre OSX I'd like to know, so that I could go back in time and not have to live that Mac OS nightmare.
Well, I can't really argue with that. I liked Mac OS 9 for the most part, as long as it kept stable. Of course, it never was stable. I was lucky if I got an uptime of more than a few hours. :(





Isn't the Mac die hard slogan something along the lines of "...it's a mac, I don't have to think about it, Apple takes care of me, all I need to know is where the on button is..."
Definitely not.



you guys could remain in the dark about hardware/software, and how an OS works in general- just like Mr. Jobs wants you to be
I am definitely not in the dark when it comes to computers. I may not be the most educated person in the world when it comes to such matters, but I'm hardly the target audience for "For Dummies" books either. I prefer OS X for a great number of reasons, and "I just need to know where the button is" is not one of them.





the PPC will be dead
In the Mac, yes. On the market as a whole? No, not by a long shot. All the next-gen consoles will be PPC. The PPC will probably remain a big player in the high-end embedded market. And so on... The reason Apple switched was because they weren't a big enough player in the PPC market. Freescale devotes more time to embed chips than to Mac chips.




What do I use Linux for? Well, I've used it on several cheap "PCs" to make a small render farm before. Free OS and a "free" thing called SN. Please don't tell me you've never heard of NewTeks right hand man SN? Now I just send it off ot a "real" render farm...I'm lazy and their farms are sooo fast...
If I can get an apartment where electricity is "free" (included in the bill), I'll try to set up a Linux cluster myself. :)





Hollywood as the reason for the chip change?
I really don't buy that. They have the OS, the whole ****ed hardware, and they'd have the video formats and the video store. They don't need DMR built into the processor. The iTunes Music Store is as safe as it can get without getting too annoying to use. If media can be viewed, it can also be pirated, regardless of the DMR.

If Apple wants Intel's DMR, it's to prevent OS X from being run on homebuilt systems and such, not because 'Hollywood' wanted it.

The reason Apple go "down-up" with the processor upgrades is because professional software will probably take longer to port to x86/Xcode. A normal consumer user will not run Lightwave or Quark and will thusly not suffer if the applications lag behind in the porting.

Ge4-ce
06-13-2005, 04:47 PM
you guys could remain in the dark about hardware/software, and how an OS works in general- just like Mr. Jobs wants you to be. Isn't the Mac die hard slogan something along the lines of "...it's a mac, I don't have to think about it, Apple takes care of me, all I need to know is where the on button is..."



You could as well have said: "You Mac Diehards are just a stupit bunch of idiots who not know sh*t about what they do...

Oh look! a little thingy with 2 other thingys on witch you can push.. In the middle, there's little round thingy wich you can turn around with your finger! "It's a mouse" EEEEEEEEEEEEKkk a mouse!!! Is it dead? I want to push the buuuuuutttttooooonn...

Come on man... Your ego grows with every post you make! You really think because you're the one that has experience with putting together a PC you are the only one? Or that Mac users have no brains, and you have? because you use a PC and we don't? There are some great Mac fanatic technicians out there. They know exactly how stuff works.. And a lot of people from this forum are amoung them...

You know.. you remind me of someone.. a year or 2 years ago.. He was starting flame-wars all the time on these forums.. He then got kicked from this forum.. To reappear some weeks later under a new name to be kicked again... I just forgot his name... Some else remembers him here???? Anyway.. you act like him a lot..

give it a break dude...

somnambulance
06-13-2005, 06:09 PM
... because you use a PC and we don't?

Actually I have both. I think its great that Wacom and all the pople like him sit around and bash OSX. All the extra time they have to spend working Windows I can sit in the sun. Thats right, I finished first and I have a tan, sucker.

RonGC
06-14-2005, 10:02 AM
Of interest is that Modo has been compiled to run on the intel Mac. Read the press release. The whole conversion time a whopping 20 minutes :)

So the Apps are coming online already. Good news, bring it on Newtek.

Ron

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 10:46 AM
20 minutes? Wow, that's quite impressive.



Good news, bring it on Newtek.
Lightwave will probably be more difficult to port by several orders of magnitude, what with all the CodeWarrior things. But I have great hope NewTek being able to pull it off. :)

cholo
06-15-2005, 12:56 PM
I don't want to fuel a fire that's already out of control, but let's just say I wasn't thrilled when Final Cut Pro HD quit working after Quicktime updated itself to 6.5 and I had to dig really deep in Apple's site to find the stupid fix that involved typing commands in a shell window (so much for the user friendliness of it all). Oh, and I'm not the Mac user at the office by the way, I don't really know much about macs to be honest. I just bail out the Mac users on occasion because when Macs do crash they do so badly.

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 01:18 PM
I just bail out the Mac users on occasion because when Macs do crash they do so badly.
I've been using Macs pretty much forever, and OS X since the public beta. Despite running pre-release software quite often, and tinkering like a maniac, I've never broken OS X. Not a single forced reinstall, no real fixing broken things. In five years of using it. I'm surprised I have as few problems as I do. :p

Cman
06-15-2005, 02:43 PM
I've been using Macs pretty much forever, and OS X since the public beta. Despite running pre-release software quite often, and tinkering like a maniac, I've never broken OS X. Not a single forced reinstall, no real fixing broken things. In five years of using it. I'm surprised I have as few problems as I do. :p

I am too.
We have an OSX system and had to reinstall once, crashed a few times.
My XP system, OTOH, has never stopped. Not even after I tinkered with it: the registry, etc etc.

Both OSs are good at some things and both suck at some things, imho.
I just hope the Intel transition will let me run both so I can use whichever I need on the same hardware.

parm
06-15-2005, 04:15 PM
I just hope the Intel transition will let me run both so I can use whichever I need on the same hardware.

I hope so too. But who's to say that Microsoft will be any happier to allow it, than Apple is to allow their OS onto other Intel machines. We might find them taking steps to prevent it happening.

Captain Obvious
06-15-2005, 04:28 PM
My plan is, if it is possible, to build a box of my own and run OS X on it, for the most part. I'm too poor to buy a PowerMac... :(



I hope so too. But who's to say that Microsoft will be any happier to allow it, than Apple is to allow their OS onto other Intel machines. We might find them taking steps to prevent it happening.
There is little Microsoft can do to prevent it. x86 Macs will be, essentially, standard PCs. In order to stop Windows from being run on a Mac, they'd probably stop Windows working on quite a few "normal" PCs in the process.

Ge4-ce
06-16-2005, 01:43 AM
I just bail out the Mac users on occasion because when Macs do crash they do so badly.

Yes, I agree with that. HUH???? Ge4-ce agrees with this???? YES!

But they do rarely crash. And if they crash, there is always a cause and you can fix it. I rather have ONE big problem that can be fixed and the machine works fine again, than working several months on a row with dozens of minor problems that keep you from your work from time to time.

If you DO have big problems with a Mac, they mostly come from an action the User did. (like updating, accidently deleting files, moving folders...) that's easy corrected. I never, really never encountered a system that just out of the blue stopped working. (exept from hardware problems offcourse) So if you can remember what the last thing was you did, it's easy to fix. Windows is like death slowly creaping on to you.. Numerous viruses, DLL missings, overwritten files, ... are sneaking up on you slowly. But everyone just relaxes and just click away those tiny error messages until one day, they have enough of it and just make a fresh install..

BeeVee
06-16-2005, 02:56 AM
Come on guys... I posted back when this thread was young: http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showpost.php?p=278477&postcount=67

This is a forum about LightWave. Dispute the merits of LightWave on the Mac or PC if you'd like, but can we keep platform wars out of this forum please?

B

naldopr
06-16-2005, 11:21 AM
well guys piz
so if apple use intel pross. we are going to see nvidia fx or better ones card on the mac?

also the same plug in as the pc?
I know places that use both of them mac-G5- and pc for there production and they comfirm that mac do not work as well of pc on 3d animation. just for editing app,

any comments on that
arnaldo :)

toby
06-16-2005, 12:16 PM
well guys piz
so if apple use intel pross. we are going to see nvidia fx or better ones card on the mac?

also the same plug in as the pc?
I know places that use both of them mac-G5- and pc for there production and they comfirm that mac do not work as well of pc on 3d animation. just for editing app,

any comments on that
arnaldo :)
Please, no more comments on that.

OneShot
06-16-2005, 12:22 PM
Geez! We need a Mac only challenge. Seem we have to much time on our hands! Let's model a G5 with a stake in it and in the mean time kill this thread. :rolleyes:

Lamont
06-16-2005, 12:57 PM
Ok folks. You Mac guys really make me laugh with threads like this. It's more like Chicken Little in here.

You guys are all about the stability of the OS right? I am sure that's not going to change.

Apple will still have that flare that all Macs have.

Apple made the right choice when it dumped Motorolla for IBM, dropped ATI for nVidia for that stint, and now dropped IBM for Intel. It's win-win. You guys get the higher clock and cycle speeds you want, and you get to have that cool "Intel inside" sticker.

It may open up more hardware vendors to the Mac platform. This is good for you.

More games, more software. Why complain about something that, if Apple did not announce it, you would not have cared for one second, and just though "Hey, higher speeds.. cool.".

The sun will still shine tomorrow. Trust me.

Windoze rules!! **throws a shoe and runs away**.

turbo
06-19-2005, 01:44 PM
back to the question..

I am shocked and saddened by it. Job's resignation also entered my mind..
Byebye to elegance and innovation is a thought prevalent in my mind as well.

Not gonna get into the war on this, tho. My current system should rock for a bit yet.
And can still be upgraded. I'm hoping that by the time it needs replacing a better solution will have come to the fore.

And that's all that I have to say about that. :cool:

Captain Obvious
06-19-2005, 03:39 PM
<nitpick>


Apple made the right choice when it dumped Motorolla for IBM, dropped ATI for nVidia for that stint, and now dropped IBM for Intel. It's win-win. You guys get the higher clock and cycle speeds you want, and you get to have that cool "Intel inside" sticker.
Apple haven't dumped Motorola yet. Even more nitpicking, it isn't Motorola producing the chips, it's Freescale... Anyway, there are still G4s. Most of the time for the past several years, Apple has offered both Nvidia and ATI cards, thusly no dumping occured. The switch to Intel is not about clock speeds, since Apple probably won't even use the Pentium 4 processors.



It may open up more hardware vendors to the Mac platform. This is good for you.
Debatable. There is obviously an interest in producing Macs outside of Apple (the Clone Wars and Dell's recent comments proves that). It isn't, as such, any less impossible now. If they wanted to, they could've allowed other companies to produce Mac-compatible computers even with PowerPC. They did, if you recall...




More games, more software.
Somehow I doubt that. The installed user base will be mostly PowerPC for another four years or so. The amount of software that won't be released for PowerPC will be very limited. Porting something to Mac OS X is most likely a bigger project than porting it to PowerPC.


</nitpick>

Lamont
06-19-2005, 05:00 PM
Apple did dump ATI. I could not get an nVidia card for my 1st Gen B&W G3 w/out modding it. I had no choice but ATI when I bought the thing. Now you have a choice. I think I had a choice between Matrox and ATI. Lucky for me back then I wasn't into 3D. Apple released the G4, made nVidia notice it as a viable gaming and workstation platform and here we are today.

Why would you not want to make your own Mac? I like Macs, I don't like the $2000 pricetag for a entry-level workstation. Or Alienware's $3,500 system.

All in all, I am very pleased Apple went Intel. AMD or Intel would have been better than IBM. If everything is what it reads to be, I really do think there will be more software coming to the Mac platform.

It's always about speed/performace BTW.

For giggles, here's Alienwares one-sided Build Vs. Buy chart : ::BvB:: (http://www.alienware.com/build_vs_buy_pages/index.aspx)

And I do remember the PowerComputing machines. I always wanted one. But Apple was greedy or maybe the "quality" wasn't there.. something and they are all gone.

toby
06-19-2005, 05:30 PM
Why would you not want to make your own Mac?
Oh, well, same reason I don't want to build my own... car. :)

The story I heard about Apple clones is that they were putting Apple out of business, (cutting their own throats) because they didn't have to develop nearly as much, and could sell cpus cheaper or faster for the same price.

Captain Obvious
06-19-2005, 05:42 PM
Apple released the G4, made nVidia notice it as a viable gaming and workstation platform and here we are today.
With plenty of cards from both vendors...


Why would you not want to make your own Mac? I like Macs, I don't like the $2000 pricetag for a entry-level workstation. Or Alienware's $3,500 system.
Agreed. For people "like us," there is definitely a market for DIY Macs, but the bulk of Apple's hardware sales comes from people who just want it to work (and support when it doesn't), and thusly would never consider building their own system. On the other hand, this means that the loss of sales to DIY people wouldn't big a big issue for them, and they might actually make more money because of it. There are quite a few people who would buy a Mac if they could build it themselves, but not many enough for it to be that big an issue for them, I think.



And I do remember the PowerComputing machines. I always wanted one. But Apple was greedy or maybe the "quality" wasn't there.. something and they are all gone.
The loss of hardware sales nearly sunk Apple. Now they sell more software and have the iPod, so it might be different...

Johnny
06-19-2005, 07:11 PM
The loss of hardware sales nearly sunk Apple. Now they sell more software and have the iPod, so it might be different...


As I remember, it wasn't *just* the loss of hardware sales..it was that the clone makers weren't helping out with the marketing and advertising other than for themselves.

IOW, Apple spent the sweat, time, and money to make the Apple name great, and the cloners just skimmed off the top without putting back...Kinda stupid business model to just suck the life out of a product with out helping to sustain it.


And as for DIY Macs or lack thereof, there are plenty of us who couldn't care less! I'm not really into having computers for the sake of having them, but for making art. The less time I spend tinkering and futzing with my gear, the more I have for doing my actual work.

J

wacom
06-19-2005, 08:27 PM
Actually I have both. I think its great that Wacom and all the pople like him sit around and bash OSX. All the extra time they have to spend working Windows I can sit in the sun. Thats right, I finished first and I have a tan, sucker.


Please find ONE post where I bash OSX! In fact I've repeatedly said how GOOD it is and how much I hated earlier Mac OS's (well when there where better options such as around the time of OS 7). OS X is the best thing to happen to the Mac since the first Mac OS came out. It's a modern OS- what more can I say?

My northern living makes it harder to get a tan naturaly...but I spend more time indoors working...but maybe if I lived in a sunny place I'd use ONLY a Mac and noth each system?

Ge4-ce
06-20-2005, 12:58 AM
I'm not really into having computers for the sake of having them, but for making art. The less time I spend tinkering and futzing with my gear, the more I have for doing my actual work.

J


That's actually the main reason I wanted a Mac. I want to create things with it. I want to use it day in day out without any hassle with my gear. It's a helping device. Not a semi god-a-like partner... I pay that much money for having a machine that works right out of the box. apart from jamming in an extra HD, or some RAM and maybe.. but Maybe a PCI card... I don't touch it. I did break apart several entire computers to see how they work, and I'm pretty conviced that I would be able to put together a Mac or a PC by myself. But my business relies on these machines, just as my life relies on my car (for a part) and I don't build my own car.

Sjohnson4
06-20-2005, 02:49 PM
Well here it goes, my first opinion.

You guys got it all wrong. Intel approached Apple.

Intel is afraid of losing the single largest share of the market to come around in 20 years.

Think big, real big, bigger than that.

What one stroke would put Apple on top in under 5 years?

CHINA!

China has already said how unhappy they are with Windows. Two reasons were given, first cost per unit and viruses.

China has also said how much they like open source systems. Unix.

But there is no real money in Unix. But with an optional Apple interface (OS/X) there is money to be made.

Intel plus Apple make a profitable sales force to the new kid on the block!

Think real Big!

But of course I have been wrong before.

Steve

Lamont
06-20-2005, 03:30 PM
Why not just buy a bunch of PC's and install Unix?

Go MacIntel!!!

js33
06-20-2005, 03:47 PM
Well because you couldn't run FCP, DVDSP, iLife, Logic, Adobe, etc...not counting emulation.

Also Linux is more of a niche than OSX. Less hardware support or support in general and it's not sexy. :p

Cheers,
JS

Captain Obvious
06-20-2005, 04:33 PM
Well here it goes, my first opinion.

You guys got it all wrong. Intel approached Apple.

Intel is afraid of losing the single largest share of the market to come around in 20 years.

Think big, real big, bigger than that.

What one stroke would put Apple on top in under 5 years?

CHINA!

China has already said how unhappy they are with Windows. Two reasons were given, first cost per unit and viruses.

China has also said how much they like open source systems. Unix.

But there is no real money in Unix. But with an optional Apple interface (OS/X) there is money to be made.

Intel plus Apple make a profitable sales force to the new kid on the block!

Think real Big!

But of course I have been wrong before.

Steve
Hmm, interesting idea. If Apple gets the growing Chinese market, they'll be one of the largest computer OEMs fairly quickly.

wacom
06-21-2005, 10:31 AM
Less hardware support or support...

Well, that's not really true considering our Macs are a semi-closed system, and that Linux runs on MANY platforms, and many diffrent forms of hardware.

But I'm with you on the total usablity- and OSX is much more sexy! Don't forget that Windows people can play the usability card too though, so it's not REALLy a good one to play all the time when it comes to software...

Mac doesn't have any real VT, XSI, 3DS MAX, SolidWorks, AutoCad, Pro E, a full version of Alias, Mac LW doesn't have a lot of the same plugins as the PC version (though that will change soon with the x86 chagneover). There are many more, and I'm afraid that iLife doesn't really apply does it? Do you use iLife that much for professional work?

Personally I have real reservations buying software that doens't have a Mac or Linux version/flavor as I hate to be pigeon holed (hence why I use LW).


And this whole comparison of building a car to a computer is a little bit much don't you think? Five years ago it was MUCH harder to build a stable PC, and took far more research. Today though it isn't as hard and having the net as a resource helps. Trust me- it used to be a REAL nightmare to get a good PC together (at least for me) about ten years ago when IRQ and DMA settings almost always conflicted with everything, and to change them you had to use dip switches! Now though you can buy a couple of stable motherboards, from reputable manufactures, a very stable video card and a main stream sound card and be 99% sure you will not have any problems. Granted this isn't as nice as pulling our slick Macs out of the box, connecting a few cords and hitting GO, but for some people it helps/works.

Then again- why would a guy who works on cars go down the street to have another guy work on his car?

As to the whole idea that a small renderfarm or what not will take up so much money in energy costs and space that is not a good option is really a bogus complaint. People like Pixym and many others use server rack systems (such as those made by dell or even Apple). They are small and effiecent and very cost effective- you don't have to run a monitor off of every one, or a sound card etc- these are simply for CPU POWER. On these you can run Linux and SN free of charge and see a huge return in render times going down. Also- you don't have to keep them online ALL the time- only when you want to render etc.

Don't forget that there is no reason we can't use our Macs as our workstation and then send our renders to a PC/Linux SN setup.

Ge4-ce
06-21-2005, 11:07 AM
I fully agree on that.

You can run Linux on every server rack system you want for free. But those neat server rackmountable systems from whatever brand, are not really cheap. (unless I overlooked some brands) but Apple's cheapest rendernode costs 3K. And I presume that comparable PC brands cost about the same. The OS choice is only relevant when you get a PC server. they come without serversoftware and the Microsoft server software is expensive to VERY expensive. ANd you pay per licence. If I would buy PC clusternodes, I would choose Linux as well. But since I would buy Xserves, you get the OS for free. so it's irrelevant to me.

Sjohnson4
06-21-2005, 11:27 AM
Unix can run on ay number of boxes, that’s the reason Intel approached Apple. They don’t want to lose this sale.

This move by Apple to Intel helps to insure an Intel sale. And Apple provides Unix a nifty interface to the Chinese language.

Big Money

Steve

wacom
06-21-2005, 03:11 PM
I fully agree on that.

You can run Linux on every server rack system you want for free. But those neat server rackmountable systems from whatever brand, are not really cheap. (unless I overlooked some brands) but Apple's cheapest rendernode costs 3K. And I presume that comparable PC brands cost about the same. The OS choice is only relevant when you get a PC server. they come without serversoftware and the Microsoft server software is expensive to VERY expensive. ANd you pay per licence. If I would buy PC clusternodes, I would choose Linux as well. But since I would buy Xserves, you get the OS for free. so it's irrelevant to me.

Well, you can get this one with 80GB SATA, 512MB RAM, Dual 3Ghz CPU for around $810

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=sc1425-min&s=bsd

RAM is cheap so I NEVER get it from the main CPU maker (be it Apple or Dell or whatever).

Ge4-ce
06-22-2005, 02:09 AM
Well, you can get this one with 80GB SATA, 512MB RAM, Dual 3Ghz CPU for around $810

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&kc=6W300&l=en&oc=sc1425-min&s=bsd

RAM is cheap so I NEVER get it from the main CPU maker (be it Apple or Dell or whatever).

Yep, that's pretty cheap. But, it's a special offer of the moment so you get a second processor for free. I just configured that one and I got 1000 bucks.. wich is still pretty cheap. But good enough for a rendernode.

But I would actually add another some bucks.. because this thing was really really striped down.. (typical Dell) like HEY! 799 for a Xeon rackmountable server!

But actually, you get a processor in a case. barable able to work. No CD, No rackmountable chassis, so unless you want to intstall an OS over ethernet, you add 50 bucks.. unless you want this thing to hoover around, you want rails to rackmount it. with all those bits and parts, you easy come up with 1000 bucks.. wich is offcourse still pretty cheap.

Weird stuff: You found this via dells small business online store for 799 in promotion. I was looking for it via the large business online store, and there they charge 1600 for the SAME machine!! would they tell customers???

link to same machine in pro business store (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?cs=555&oc=PE1425SATAPAD&m_8=40GS&c=us&l=en&s=biz)

Captain Obvious
06-22-2005, 02:16 AM
Do you use iLife that much for professional work?

Listening to music via iTunes doesn't count, right? :p

archiea
06-22-2005, 03:19 PM
I'm a little ticked that I can't max out my less than one year old Dual Liquid cooled 2.5Ghz G5. I'm also a little scared to buy upgrades for my software. And confused at how much support Apple and venders will support my present system for the intrem. :(


...Look at support for old G3 and G4 computers ...it should be about the same...



But I probably not as ticked as Virginia Tech who just purchased 1100 G5 2.3ghz server. :eek:

Why? Are they not getting use out of them now? As I understand it, they recently swapped out their G5 desktops for the servers, so they appear to be well funded...

Some real doom and gloom posts here.. I'd say as end users (as opposed to developers), idealy, we won't see much change... Same mac software but on faster machines... Apple will probably maintain the exclusive nature of their hardware in the form of the apple Rom... Good Idea in my book.

I mean if you think about it.. apple has been doing well as a niche market company because it has evolved beyond just competing with Microsoft/intel as it did in the '80's and '90's. Especially since OS-X, apple's has shown that it can thrive while beating its drum to a different tune... And if Apple's market did suddenly swell.. well.. then I think it wouldn't be apple anymore.. it would be about volume sales and not quality..

The market has also changed where computers are being used by people who aren't computer fans, as they were in the '80's and '90's... so its truly become an appliance... The market has also changed in that many services are available (online) through the computer, so the computer becomes the means to use those services.. So things like Dashboard (former sherlock if you think of it) for new mac users offer them a quick and convienient method to access ebay purchaeses, stocks, flights, amazon serches and orders.. basically things in everyday life. A pC can do this, but the mac offers a differnt way to do this.

So if you prefer the way the mac offers this information to you, what difference does it make if you access your bank info, flight plans, ebay purcheses, etc, from an intel processor or an IBM.. other than the intel being faster?

So what is all the fuss?

I really think Apple should maintain their exclusivity, in the form of an apple rom or what not, because its worked for them to not compete with microsoft toe to toe. At the same time, using intel's architecture opens up Apple's software to be more compatable with PC's. The trick is, if you want to use Apple software, Apple need to be certain that you need an apple computer to run it. If they made it easy to run Apple software on any box, that would kill them. Remember, iTunes runs on windows for one reason only.. to make money off of the windows base... you still need to buy apple hardware (ipods) and you need to buy Apple music (Itunes music store). The intel based mac should be no different...

PC people may fuss over this, but thats their problem... Yes it would be convienient to have one box.. like you do with linux... but then again Linux isn;t apple and apple needs to maintain a business... Also I like apple's industrial design.. its simple and clean.. why should Apple not have this exclusivity.... Perhaps apple may have windows run on apple boxes... kinda like the iPod.. to sell more macs... but not have OS-X run on PC's . Perhaps an intel bios on a PC-X card that you can add to your Mactel box...

This makes sense.. think about it:

You need an apple box to run OS-X... since it requires an apple rom an whatever else... You can buy a PCI-X card that has the intel bios to run windows.. so this makes you buy an apple box for mac... but if you want to run windows, you can with some extra hardware... Microsoft sells more copies of windows.. what does intel care about what you run on their gear, and apple gets to pitch their hardware to the windows crowd without loosing their mac base to non-apple hardware. PC users get their single machine... and all of that mac hardware envy that PC users tend to regurgitate is quelled once and for all!!!

You heard it here first!!!

archiea
06-22-2005, 03:55 PM
With plenty of cards from both vendors...


Agreed. For people "like us," there is definitely a market for DIY Macs, but the bulk of Apple's hardware sales comes from people who just want it to work (and support when it doesn't), and thusly would never consider building their own system. On the other hand, this means that the loss of sales to DIY people wouldn't big a big issue for them, and they might actually make more money because of it. There are quite a few people who would buy a Mac if they could build it themselves, but not many enough for it to be that big an issue for them, I think.



The loss of hardware sales nearly sunk Apple. Now they sell more software and have the iPod, so it might be different...


I have store bought macs along with DIY Shuttle PC box. I think it comes down to being able to configure what you want. I mean I can buy a "barebones" mac now and install crucial memory, the 800XT ATI card, a RAID card along with additional drives and configure it as any kind of raid system that I want. I can get a fiber optic raid system for the mac at near 200MB/sec... thats a far cry from the lowly "barebones" mac that you get at the store. So yes, there are DIY macs right now. If you are talking about the customizations like the neon tubes, neon fans, light FX and tranparent cases for the PC, yes that is lacking on the mac. Personally I think they too ghetto for me, but thats just my tastes..

Then there's the processor options... well Apple is about selling hardware so they don't support processor upgrades, but the mac community has always had a healthy aftermarket suppy of upgradable processors. So youhave this options. I'm fairy certain that apple won;t allow you to just pop the 3.5 ghz proc and put in a 4ghz.. they want you to buy the 4 ghz mac. In Apple's defense, major processor jumps are usually accompanied by a significant hardware upgrade (faster buss, better engineered chasis) that the computer upgrade is worth it.

Like now, I'm gonna get a G5 because the bus is just so much faster.. meanwhile my dual 800 G4 will get upgraded to a dual 1.8 ghz proc and be used as a renderer... so in practice, how different is this from a PC? i.e. I just upgraded the memory, video card and processor on my PC shuttle box. Again.. no real different than how I upgraded my mac... You tell me...

js33
06-22-2005, 04:29 PM
Like now, I'm gonna get a G5 because the bus is just so much faster.. meanwhile my dual 800 G4 will get upgraded to a dual 1.8 ghz proc and be used as a renderer... so in practice, how different is this from a PC? i.e. I just upgraded the memory, video card and processor on my PC shuttle box. Again.. no real different than how I upgraded my mac... You tell me...



I'm fairy certain that apple won;t allow you to just pop the 3.5 ghz proc and put in a 4ghz.. they want you to buy the 4 ghz mac.



You just answered your own question.

The beauty of a PC is that everything is changeable. You can swap out the motherboard and processor and use all your existing pieces and have a new machine. Apple does have some upgrade options just not as much.
True they would rather you buy a complete new machine but that is not always necessary.

Cheers,
JS

wacom
06-22-2005, 10:43 PM
Yep, that's pretty cheap. But, it's a special offer of the moment so you get a second processor for free. I just configured that one and I got 1000 bucks.. wich is still pretty cheap. But good enough for a rendernode.

But I would actually add another some bucks.. because this thing was really really striped down.. (typical Dell) like HEY! 799 for a Xeon rackmountable server!

But actually, you get a processor in a case. barable able to work. No CD, No rackmountable chassis, so unless you want to intstall an OS over ethernet, you add 50 bucks.. unless you want this thing to hoover around, you want rails to rackmount it. with all those bits and parts, you easy come up with 1000 bucks.. wich is offcourse still pretty cheap.

Weird stuff: You found this via dells small business online store for 799 in promotion. I was looking for it via the large business online store, and there they charge 1600 for the SAME machine!! would they tell customers???

link to same machine in pro business store (http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?cs=555&oc=PE1425SATAPAD&m_8=40GS&c=us&l=en&s=biz)


Dell is really strange that way. I've seen small biz configurations that are easily 400 bucks less than the private or large biz packages! The processor upgrade is a special deal though. Yes it is stripped down too- but you could always install an OS via and external CD-ROM, over a network, or get the hot swap version and just install it on another system. There is also the option to get it pre-installed with an OS, but that would be windows not Linux. I guess I was looking at it mainly as a render node- which is used simply for the raw processing power.

Captain Obvious
06-23-2005, 05:47 AM
The beauty of a PC is that everything is changeable. You can swap out the motherboard and processor and use all your existing pieces and have a new machine. Apple does have some upgrade options just not as much.
True they would rather you buy a complete new machine but that is not always necessary.
I can buy an ancient PowerMac G4 on Ebay, a 400MHz single-processor one and pop dual 1.8GHz G4s in it. That's a pretty darned good upgrade cycle, don't you think?

js33
06-24-2005, 02:56 AM
How do you put dual processors on a single processor motherboard? Add-in card?
That's not bad except you don't get any advancements on the motherboard. On a PC you can swap out the motherboard and get all the advancements and upgraded features . If Apple offered motherboard upgrades then it would be about the same. Maybe they will when they go Intel.

Cheers,
JS

archiea
06-24-2005, 08:49 AM
You just answered your own question.


No, I was showing how both my mac and PC are going through near identical upgrades (processor, graphics card, memory..) That the dual 800 proc mac can become a dual proc 1.8 ghz mac TODAY just as the shutle can go from 2.4 ghz to 3.2 ghz TODAY.



The beauty of a PC is that everything is changeable. You can swap out the motherboard and processor and use all your existing pieces and have a new machine. Apple does have some upgrade options just not as much.
True they would rather you buy a complete new machine but that is not always necessary.

Cheers,
JS

True, you can completely cannibolize a PC, but I just prefer to use these computers and occasionaly upgrade the main components (GFX card, memory, drive, proc) than become my own PC builder and spend all that time putting humpty dumpty back together again.

I'm sure I can swap out motherboards on the shuttle and so forth but I;m not going to take it that far... its just easier to sell or donate it and get a newer machine. Like I said, usually by that time the chassis and motherboar improvements usually merit the upgrade. I just don;t have the patience anymore to play musical motherboards...

archiea
06-24-2005, 08:58 AM
How do you put dual processors on a single processor motherboard? Add-in card?
That's not bad except you don't get any advancements on the motherboard. On a PC you can swap out the motherboard and get all the advancements and upgraded features . If Apple offered motherboard upgrades then it would be about the same. Maybe they will when they go Intel.

Cheers,
JS
This is just something that apple won't do, period.. they aren't going to become a component company.. they are a computer company... I don't want to spend hours wrapping up cables and twist ties..I just want to plug in the b*tch and use it. I know alot of Dell and HP users that just get a new box when they want something faster... that just it... people get too busy to tinker with these boxes...

Captain Obvious
06-26-2005, 02:28 PM
How do you put dual processors on a single processor motherboard? Add-in card?
The CPUs in PowerMacs have been on daughter cards for as long as I can recall. Replacing a single-processor daughter card with a dual-processor one will make your single-processor Mac a dual one.


That's not bad except you don't get any advancements on the motherboard. On a PC you can swap out the motherboard and get all the advancements and upgraded features . If Apple offered motherboard upgrades then it would be about the same. Maybe they will when they go Intel.
You can replace the motherboard in a Mac, too. It's just the matter of getting a Mac motherboard... During the Clone Wars, there were third party replacement motherboards, I think, but a Mac mobo needs the Macintosh ROM, so it doesn't really work anymore, I'm afraid.

But honestly, that is not an apples-to-apples comparison, since the G4s stayed at AGP and 100MHz system bus pretty much forever. Who cares if you can replace the motherboard when you don't really gain anything from it? There weren't any real amount of "advancements and upgraded features" to get. There aren't that many of those for PCs, either. AGPx4 is still compeditive, even after all these years, and DDR is old enough to be standard even on old hardware.

riki
06-26-2005, 06:34 PM
Does this mean they'll be called MACTEL now :)

Captain Obvious
06-28-2005, 04:09 AM
We still call them "Macs," even after the switch from 68k to PowerPC processors. Why would that change now?

Boo!
06-29-2005, 01:42 AM
...i dont know if anybody has spotted this...

http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1146

...

Captain Obvious
06-29-2005, 08:07 AM
...i dont know if anybody has spotted this...

http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1146

...
I don't mind the x86 processor, even if it is a Prescott, but a BIOS? *weeps bitter tears*


:p

Stooch
07-14-2005, 09:51 AM
It matters when machines like mac mini, g4 cube, imacs and powerbooks cant be made due to heat restrictions.

didnt the cube macs get discontinued because they were catching on fire?

Captain Obvious
07-17-2005, 04:28 AM
didnt the cube macs get discontinued because they were catching on fire?
It got discontinued because it didn't sell well. Hardly surprising, what with the price tag and all.

JML
07-17-2005, 11:33 AM
didnt the cube macs get discontinued because they were catching on fire?

we have 2 maccubes at work, and both have their case removed. I asked why, and they said the cubemacs overheated easily.

toby
07-18-2005, 01:33 AM
Here's why apple will fail: Poor customer support, tiny market share, not soon to grow given the recent news and the fact that the PC world for the most part has moved away from proprietary hardware. And the most obvious reason; apple look like liars! The irony of THINK DIFFERENT!, I SWITCH marketing campaign -

My prediction, apple will lose customers in this part of their business, thankfully for apple iPods are still selling despite there being better products already available by other vendors.


"Apple said net income for its third fiscal quarter ended June 25 rose to $320 million, or 37 cents per share, up from $61 million, or 8 cents a share, a year ago, on a split-adjusted basis."

Revenue rose 75 percent to $3.52 billion from $2.01 billion.

- 1.182 Million Macs shipped for quarter (35% growth)
- 6.155 million iPods shipped for quarter (616% growth)
- iTunes Music Store market share 80% according to Neilsen
- Tiger revenue $100 million in quarter

"The sales increase can be attributed to two things, Bajarin said. First was that the company was "more aggressive" in marketing its Apple stores -
The second reason, Bajarin said, was that Apple has continued to push its "switch" campaign, though more on a local basis through the stores than through national television marketing campaigns."

Oh, the end is near, thanks for the warning Fausto!
Any other stock that I shouldn't buy?

Captain Obvious
07-18-2005, 02:25 AM
I would also like to point out that I've never seen a switch ad that went along these lines: "Before, I was using a run-of-the-mill x86 processor, but now that I've switched to the PPC ISA, I'm much better off."

The Switch was never about the architecture. It was about the OS and the stability a closed hardware platform gives. It always has been about that. It won't open up more just because they switch to x86. It won't be Windows just because they switch to x86. A Mac is a Mac is a Mac.

johnchuray
08-01-2005, 09:31 AM
The last time I even looked at the processor was in my old Dual500 G4--after removing the massive heat sink, all I saw was two wafer-thin black squares. I was so disappointed that I never tried that again. Seriously, when was the last time anybody looked? Ever? Why does anyone care?

My first Mac was a MacPlus (I held out for the full 1MB of built-in, nonexpandable RAM.) So I'm a disciple. But I've always hated being ignored. IDE and USB were major breakthroughs in terms of being able to get all the other crap that makes my workstation my workstation, and I'm all for Apple loosening their grip on the hardware. If I can at least be as fast as anyone else I'll be happy. And just maybe I'll be able to get ATI cards when they're new.

It's all about the software. BTW I bought Apple at 18 two splits ago. heehee. I ain't giving up. No way.

jasonwestmas
08-08-2005, 01:50 AM
I just love the way OSX operates both with its GUI and the data just seems to flow more smoothly than windows. It has a simple feel and multitasking is silky smooth and for a visual artist I think that is heaven. My Dell doesn't feel like this at all, I get bottle necks and hangups all the time with multiple apps open. It's hard to tell if that's because of the Mac hardware VS. Dell Hardware or because of Windows Vs. OSX.

Even if there were no bottle necks and occasional crashes when loading files in Lightwave, I just like the Mac logistics that exists within the GUI better. Sound Silly?

When the Intel conversion happens I just hope the Apple quality in hardware is still maintained and doesn't become a Dell box with fancy Apple GUI.:D I also hope this conversion creates better 3D support for OSX. This is a lot of great information, thanks to everyone for the Update!