Macs to use Intel processors...confirmation at last?
-
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
i had my eye on this rumor for weeks, and laughed it off... to have it confirmed today... jesus... what a farce...
but apple aren't stupid, they know what they're doing... shame though, it's the end of an era, ppc and mac os x made a good combination, a very poweful one... if they do develop and release a g5 powerbook, i'll still buy one.
but apple aren't stupid, they know what they're doing... shame though, it's the end of an era, ppc and mac os x made a good combination, a very poweful one... if they do develop and release a g5 powerbook, i'll still buy one.
I think I'm returning my iMac (which was less than two weeks ago), as it's performance in anything I've done is not signifigantly faster than my 5 year old 1.3Ghz AMD box, and basically has no future. I had hoped that, you know, the OS, the OpenGL libraries, and Applications in general would be optimized for the G5 in the future.
Might be a stupid restocking fee, though. Grr.
Might be a stupid restocking fee, though. Grr.
"I'm returning my Mac as it's white and not black, like you illustrated at the keynote."
Really, I'm not worried about it at all. I got a dual 2Ghz G5 when they came out, a 1.33Ghz 15" PB and a 1.33Ghz 12" PB for the girlfriend.
We'll be able to run the apps until the machines are too slow to use, as always. I'll get a OSX86(tm) system when they come out because, as a developer, I need as much CPU power as I can get to compile with GCC.
I'll compiled a fat binary and, believe you me, will support it as long as Apple do.
Really, I'm not worried about it at all. I got a dual 2Ghz G5 when they came out, a 1.33Ghz 15" PB and a 1.33Ghz 12" PB for the girlfriend.
We'll be able to run the apps until the machines are too slow to use, as always. I'll get a OSX86(tm) system when they come out because, as a developer, I need as much CPU power as I can get to compile with GCC.
I'll compiled a fat binary and, believe you me, will support it as long as Apple do.
Awaiting the video: http://homepage.mac.com/only_mortal/scr ... pation.jpg
That's true if you're looking at the Pentium 4...which we're pretty sure they wont use. The Pentium M offers incredible power per watt, and with future multi-core processors using that core, it should be a great chip.saturn wrote:lol, AT points out that AMD performs much better per watt on the 2nd page. Too bad, Jobs.
I'm just glad I haven't bought a Mac in the last year, and don't intend to for a long time.
I disagree.Canis wrote:I'm sure they'll start with Intel, but will have some AMD option in the future. AMD has some pretty good 64-bit solutions, and Apple wont be able to ignore them for too long...
In addition to my point above, I have to question if the processor(s) will be an identical part to any "PC" processor. If it's not, then there's no reason that AMD could even produce a usable chip. And if they did, you'd need another line of motherboards and who knows what else.
Also, AMD could have the same trouble as IBM with producing large amounts of chips. Apple doesn't want to get shafted again by manufacturing problems. With Intel, they'll never have to worry about that. Intel could produce a hundred times more processors than Apple could ever sell.. (maybe an exageration, but you get my point)
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:00 am
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:00 am