Intel Inside: Holding Off on a New Mac
From Christopher Laspa
Hello Charles,
I read your take on this event and
immediately flashed back to yesterday's stun. Your article totally
captures the 'limbo' I'm currently in.
I too, was considering new hardware/software next year, so -
should I wait, or should I go for it - is the question.
I remember the Motorola/IBM switch and
whole move to PowerPC well enough. It seemed that everything
rapidly became some form of 'kludge'. Some software worked, others
locked up the system (we were around System 7.5, I believe). And
yet others barely ran. I remember I had proudly bought my
first real new Mac - a PowerBook 520c! I paid near Cdn$5,000 for
it in early 1995, and it had 20 MB of RAM. A week later at work my
new company-bought 8100/80
arrived, and it just smoked my 520c royally. I had seriously bought
at the wrong time.
This vignette may keep me from buying any new iBook or PowerBook
until year two of 'Intel Inside', when most of the bugs are
out (stabilized or reported!). 'Til then? I figure I'll 'hotrod' my
G3 WallStreet like others
(including yourself) and hope my 3400c survives. It will be 10 at that
point.
I understand that Wegener Allegro 400 is only US$99. That may be
a temporary answer. 'Nuff said.
Great stuff, as usual!
Regards,
Christopher M. Laspa
- Hi Christopher,
I would say that folks who buy Apple laptops between now and the
Intel intro are likely going to feel like you did with your 520c
back in 1994 speed-wise. On the other hand, there will be some
mitigating factors, such as Classic support, and legacy
non-emulated support for large software collections.
However, even a low-end current iBook model would represent a
substantial boost from your 3400 and WallStreet - or my Pismo.
Charles
Intel Inside: It's OS X That Counts
From: James Taylor
Hello,
I just thought I'd write a note to tell you that your piece about the Intel transition was very well
written and insightful. I think most of the people clamoring for
Jobs' head are missing the big picture. I am a recent switcher
(from 2001, with my G4/733),
and I did not switch because I was in love with the PowerPC. I
switched because I was in love with OS X. Ever since I got to
fiddle with an OS X machine at CompUSA, I
was hooked.
I will be of the group that supports Apple because of their
superb OS, not their choice in CPU supplier.
Thanks for the article. It will do quite a bit to calm the
irrational fear some Apple fans are feeling now.
Regards,
James Taylor
- Hi James,
Glad you agree. As I commented in a column last week, I think there
is plenty to be happy about. We will still be able to run
OS X, which is the quintessence of the Mac user experience.
Apple will continue to lead the industry with cutting edge design
innovation. Macs, especially laptops, will be better performers -
and maybe cheaper to buy as well.
Charles
Intel Inside: It Doesn't Make Sense
From Peter da Silva
I don't think this was just in the back of Steve's mind. I think
he's been planning on this for a long time and has just been
looking for a good excuse at a time when Apple's cash and market
share can take a hit.
Why?
His reasons don't make any sense.
Freescale's got faster G4s coming out with far better
integration and a higher bus speed (which is the real
bottleneck on the PowerBook, not the clock speed - the G4 is one of
the faster processors clock-for-clock out there) than the Mobile
Pentium. IBM hasn't hit 3 GHz, but nobody has kept up the
same pace over the past couple of years - and IBM's had a better
percentage improvement in clock speed than Intel. The P4 is not a
"cool" chip either, it's got at least as high a power draw as the
G5. And nobody with any idea of what's involved should have been
expecting a G5 PowerBook. Ever.
Unless something's really wrong at IBM (which would be a
huge scoop, since it'd likely lead to a schedule slip for the Xbox
360) or Freescale (which would still be big news), the Power
roadmap's looking a lot better than Intel's.
And Apple only dropped direct support of booting Mac OS 9
in the past few months; they had a G4 for OS 9 users until
pretty recently. I suspect that if Steve had been able to win over
the ISVs with Rhapsody, with
"Yellow Box" for new software and a "Blue Box" emulation package
for legacy software, the Intel transition would already have been
over.
He missed the brass ring with Rhapsody, but it looks like that
just delayed things.
- Hi Peter,
And then there's Robert Cringely's theory that Intel is going to
buy Apple - Going
for Broke: Apple's Decision to Use Intel Processors Is Nothing Less
Than an Attempt to Dethrone Microsoft. Really.
For my extended thoughts on the matter after several days of
consideration, see my latest Moore's Views & Reviews column on
Applelinks:
MacIntel - The Mother of All Paradigm Shifts or Just the Logical
Next Step?
Charles
Intel Inside: It's Not the Chip, It's the
Software
From David Weiss
The move is from proprietary to everything, everywhere: the Net,
the browser, and Java-like programming makes it all trivial.
Sony made VHS machines. Beta didn't win; Sony won by
adapting.
Jobs isn't looking up the road; he's looking at the mountains in
the distance. Mac/Windows. Chocolate/vanilla. Who cares?
Apple is different in that at r&d when someone comes up with
something cool, the staff is not encouraged to say, "So what,
stupid!" - referenced to Jobs saying Windows would have been better
if Gates had dropped acid.... [see http://appserv.gcn.com/16_2/news/32006-1.html
- ed]
It's not the chip, it's the software. It's not the toaster, it's
the toast!
best,
D
PS don't fear the "sweeper"
- I'm inclined to agree,
Charles
Intel Inside: What About 64-bit
Processors?
From Scott Selby
As of the last time that I checked, Intel still has not released
a 64-bit [x86] processor. What justification is there for going
with a 32-bit Intel when the [64-bit] Athlon exists?
Scott Selby
- Hi Scott,
My question in reply would be: How important is 64-bit computing to
the average user? My inference: not very. Maybe I don't know what
I'm missing, but I don't perceive that I'm missing anything truly
compelling in terms of what I need my computers to do by not having
64-bit support.
However, what I perceive to be the biggest reason for Apple's move
to Intel is the availability of a variety of processors suitable
for use in laptops. Apple couldn't remain stalled at 1.67 GHz
forever. Laptops represent more than half of Apple's system sales
(and, indeed, more than half of personal computer sales overall in
the US during the last quarter).
The likelihood of a laptop-compatible G5 chip from IBM anytime soon
was getting more remote. If it hadn't been for the laptop issue, I
doubt that Jobs would have made the switch.
Charles
Intel Inside: OS X and Windows to Coexist
From William Doty
Hi Charles
I enjoy your columns on Low End Mac.
I've been with Macs since my first one, an LC II. My first Power Mac was a 6100/66, then a beige G3, now a Quicksilver G4.
I made the list to highlight the integration of PC parts into
Apple computers. The only part in my G4 that isn't from a Windows
PC is the G4 processor. I'm not surprised about the Intel
processor.
The OS X Panther operating system is a Unix relative. Its
analogous to the old Windows 3.1 running on top of DOS in the
beginning Windows computers. My G4 Mac runs OS X on top of
Unix. You can start X11 and run Windows emulators or Linux. The
fact is a G4 will run almost any operating system and a truckload
of open source software.
Several years ago there was talk of a Common Hardware Reference
Platform(CHRP). The story was the consumer would buy the box and
run whatever operating system he (or she) wanted.
I would suggest to you that day will arrive in 2006 with the
first Macintel boxes. People will simply partition the huge hard
drive and run Windows and Mac OS X side by side. Apple
Computer will sell OS X "kits" to Windows PC users.
Send in the clones.
Windows clone builders: Almost anybody who can get a kit and a
screwdriver can build a Windows computer. Will people build
Macintelapplle (a real bastard word for a bastard computer) clones?
If its the same parts, sure! There will be no way to stop them.
Apple will have no way of knowing what machine the OS X is
going to be installed on once they sell a copy to a consumer.
The bottom line: OS X was designed from the git go as a Unix
operating system that would run on common PC hardware. This is a
good move for Apple and will finally increase market share (for
software). Which do you suppose is more profitable (and has less
warranty claims), OS X CDs or fancy flat panel iMacs at $1,200
a pop? Duh!
The real question: Why should Apple continue to build computers
for the home market?
Bye,
Bill Doty
- Hi Bill,
Thanks for reading.
Phil Schiller pretty much confirmed that the MacIntels will be able
to run Windows, but also said that Apple will not allow OS X
to run on non-Apple hardware. No doubt determined hackers will find
a way, but that's not really a problem for Apple. Those folks
wouldn't likely buy Macs anyway.
Charles
Letters sent may be published at our discretion. Email addresses
will not be published unless requested. If you prefer that your
message not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters
may be edited for length, context, and to match house style.
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
