Jun. 6th, 2005 @ 11:43 am
Okay... I'll be the first one (on my friends list at least) to post it...
Apple switching to Intel???
After years of calling Intel evil and slow, demonstrating that everything on PPC is faster, how can Apple be pulling this switch? Sure... it's a piece of cake for them... they've been building stuff for x86 for YEARS (something most people have known for a long time anyway), so people were constantly on the watch for something like this... but what are we supposed to think now? If Apple's been claiming that x86 sucks for so long, and now apparently it doesn't suck, what are we supposed to believe? Which is better? x86 or PPC?
Looks like we're just supposed to go with whatever the Marketing departments tell us...
frustrated and confused
Okay... 3rd one on my friends list... it's amazing what a browser refresh can show ;)
lol yeah .. i noticed my friendlist go batshit crazy with this news in the last 45 minutes. not that we didn't all expect it .. but .. yeah. ew.
|Date:||June 6th, 2005 07:31 pm (UTC)|| |
much ado about nothing
Hey guys. I just got back from Apple's developer conference, and I went through the same emotional transition about this that you did. After all said-and-done, I've decided that this is really not a big deal, and actually it's a good thing.
Apple is making this swith because, for a variety of reasons, the PowerPC architecture just isn't progressing as fast as Intel's. And yes, the x86 architecture is a lot "messier" than the PowerPC's, but the bottom line is, you can get alot more performace per $$$ with Intel chips than with IBM's.
More importantly, the processor is only one part of a computer. What you actually see, and what you use every day, are the OS and the apps. That's where Apple's stuff has always outdone all the competition's. I watched Steve Jobs demo all the new OS stuff on a PowerMac with a 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 running Tiger - and it didn't look a bit different from the same apps & OS running on my 1 GHz PowerBook G4 (except that it was a LOT faster!)
Expect that the design, and the user experience which is what makes a Mac a Mac, to continue. Also expect a lot of backlash and grumbling from the old die-hard Mac community. And expect, in a few years, that it won't make a bit of difference - except that the Mac you know & love will run 4 times faster :-)
|Date:||June 6th, 2005 07:46 pm (UTC)|| |
I'm worried they won't be able to keep the heat and fan noise down in a x86 powerbook. I'll be pretty pissed if the nextgen powerbook whines and whirrs as loud as the typical windows laptop. Other than that, I'm not sure when push comes to shove that I really care one way or another, but I do share in feeling a little betrayed by the PPC marketing hype. ;-)
It's nothing compared to the heat and noise that would have been generated by a G5 PowerBook...
|Date:||June 7th, 2005 12:41 am (UTC)|| |
Good point. I still find I don't care all that much about the hardware and processor. As long as you keep making pretty little machines that are functional, that crash less than windows, that are easier to use than windows, and pretty much that just aren't windows, and I'll be blissfully ignorant.
Agreed... the processor is just another component, and not really a big deal for most people... despite all the hype around processors, users' experience with the Mac shouldn't be altered in any way from that of Tiger running on a G5. In fact, on Steve's Pentium demo machine at the keynote, apps appeared to be more responsive than they are on my dual G5. And if the hardware engineering team can pack a G5 into the back of an iMac and manage to keep it cool, I'm not too worried about seamless incorporation of an Intel chip.
At the time where Apple was making these claims, the PowerPC was faster. But that gap just isn't there anymore, and PowerPC hasn't advanced very quickly since the G5 came out.
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|