Apple shifts to Intel: what is all the fuss about? | The Register — Here is an excellent analysis of the Apple Mac-Intel platform shift. I’ve noticed that the many PPC advocates seem to be in denial right up until the Jobs announcement. One fellow (a Mac online columnsit) even says that the announcment MUST be about Intel second sourcing the PowerPC chip! That one had me rolling in the aisle.
First, understand the key fact: a Mac built out of an Intel CPU and Intel system logic will be no more a PC than a Mac is today. Two things make a Mac: the operating system and the hardware design. It is not, for the vast majority of users, what kind of processor it contains.
Most of the components that go into that hardware are already coming straight out of the wider Wintel world, and have been since Apple began ditching proprietary specifications like NuBus and ADB, and expensive standards like SCSI, in favour of USB, Firewire, UItra ATA, Serial ATA, PCI and AGP.
Mac hardware today differs from PCs solely in the CPU, system logic and the motherboard they sit on. You can argue that PowerPC is a ‘better’ chip than x86 equivalents, but it’s difficult to demonstrate a clear, real-world advantage between the two platforms. Some benchmarks show the Mac’s superiority, others don’t. The G5-class PowerPC 970 certainly hasn’t retained the low-power benefit of the old G4 and looks no closer to notebook-suitability now than it did when it was launched.
One day I hope medical science discovers a cure for the “fan boy” gene. That awful tendency some people have to irrationally adopt a desire for a tool with the dogmatism generally reserved for religion and human love.
I think the worst by far are Apple-heads. You can write the most eloquent and truthful piece on the Mac, pointing out its great attributes and fantastic features, but if you point out even one completely true negative about it, you’re considered flamebait or trolling.
The next on my list are Xbox-ers. Which is very strange because there are NO dogmatic Windows users. At least, none that I’ve seen. Most users of Windows are pragmatic, they like some features of Windows but they recognize the various problems. But Xbox-ers have an irrational devotion to their consoles which transcends any truth pointed out to them. I’ve never witnessed this behavior with PlayStation users. In fact all gamers I know tend to play for the GAME not for the console. Maybe its because Halo is Xbox only that Xbox-ers are transferring the love of that game to the console itself.
The next are obviously Linux-heads. And even though they are a minority, as most Linux users try to be helpful, they are extremely zealous in their distain towards anyone who cannot recompile their kernel in blindfolded, with their hands tied behind their backs, and without a keyboard. I’ve compared the mentality to hazing. “I’ve had to suffer the pain of learning this shit, so should you.” Luckily most distro’s of Linux are so easy to install and use that we don’t have to ask for help as nearly as much.
I’ve been using various Macs, for home use, since 1984 – and for me it has never been about which processor it was using, but how the BS was in the background, so I could concentrate on using the computer, without having to remember arcane crap. [Especially in the pre-Windoze world - when you had the choice of command-line DOS on a PC, or the Mac's GUI]
My favorite comment on one of the Mac-based forums was:
“Apple is a hardware company, not a software company”.
LOL.. Good One!
Well, now that it’s official I’ve noticed that the Apple-heads are PISSED. Check out some of the comments from Apple users here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1752234&tid=118&tid=179&tid=3
It’s like the world is ending. Or at least their world. Why is this change a problem for Apple users?! The change-over will not take place for several years, thus they’ll be able to fully use their new systems for their natural lives.
It’ll make the Mac platform more viable, which will only strengthen their paradigm.
And it should also make systems cheaper. Although, it’s debatable whether Apple would want to go cheap.
It’ll make PowerBooks MUCH more powerful! How is that bad?
It’ll make Macs easier and cheaper to upgrade, I’m assuming that Mac users will be able to buy any AGP/PCI-E/PCI card they want and simply install it, rather than buying more expensive Mac specific cards.
The only genuine complaint I’ve found is that Macs will become louder, and that’s so petty as to border on ridiculous.
Why are so many Mac-heads so devoted to the stagnate PPC platform? I thought the beauty of the Mac was in the sublime OS and stylish packaging.
The biggest news that never was. At least in my books.
Seriously, who really cares about Apple switching to INTEL chips.
According to Apple’s Vice President current INTEL users wil NOT be able to install MAC OS X in 2006. At least that’s Apple story today. If this is indeed true I think it could be the biggest blunder in the company’s history.
Mike Voice: When the vast majority of your profits come from the sale of hardware, you are in fact a hardware company. Sure, Apple makes great software, but it’s only sold via Apple’s hardware.
Privacy, continue to get over it.>>
from Digit Mag.:
“Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls “IDE redirection” which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller.
Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls “active management technology” (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip’s firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.”
http://www.digitmag.co.uk/news/index.cfm?email&NewsID=4915
Note to all Apple fans currently gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes: A computer is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe Apple will finally be able to start giving MS some real competition. I agree with Matt Livingstone, it’s about the software. This is why Linux is killing MS on the server side, because it can use the same hardware as MS Server, but do it cheaper and quicker. When you can start buying Dell computers preloaded with the Mac OS Microsoft might finally start getting some much needed competition at the desktop level.
Dvorak — What do you think this means for the future of MS Office Developement for the Mac.
Apple doesn’t want to have to support every piece of hardware out there in the x86 world. It would be a support nightmare. Before viruses and malware took center stage, Microsoft claimed buggy hardware and 3rd party drivers were the cause of 90+% of the crashes in Windows. This is the advantage to vertical markets — control of the entire widget and minimizing unknowns. Apple is a “vertical market” company, if I’m using the language right. It’s not about the hardware or the software, it’s about the integration of the two + services.
I don’t think anything will become louder — apple will continue to use quiet fans and hard drives. From what I’ve read, they’re likely to use Pentium M and not Pentium 4, so that’s a bit moot anyway.
Apple is usually a generation or so behind on internal hardware in low- to mid-range systems, I hope this brings them up to speed with the latest-and-greatest Wintel specs.
Congratulations on predicting this one, Dvorak. I have to give you (and your pal Enderle) credit for it. Mad props –
I agree, this is a non issue. Having used both for almost 20 years the only thing I care about is how well the machine handles the task I want it to do. I could care less what’s under the hood as long as it works (well, as long as it works and it works reasonably quickly).
But if the Mac heads are right and this is the end of the world, at least I’ll now have a use for all those Oreos I stocked up on before the world ending Y2K crash.
Ima — pleased to see similar thoughts about the positives of this. I can think of a few more; but, that’s probably unnecessary. I have to disagree with you about the noise, though, dude. There are a couple of generations of folks — numbering in the millions — who have tinnitus.
The single biggest physical delight I’ve experienced since I switched to a Mac, this year, is that my bloody office is quiet enough, now. When I turn on my XP desktop — which is about once every 2 weeks, nowadays — within 10 minutes, the old tinnitus pops right back out at me. Jobs dedication to building a quiet box, I’m certain — I hope — will carry over to the Intel machines.
Apple’s design crew has proven to be bona fide problem solvers in recent years. Frankly, I’m looking forward to another couple iterations of whatever they come up with.
And, of course, OS X Rules. It kind of makes me chuckle to look at this from the obverse. If there was a sea change in hardware that pushed people into trying several OS’s, who thinks that an objective trial would suggest that people switch to Windows?
The first thing to go outright or have a workaround will be that proprietary bios. Just as people hacked their XBox to use it as a Linux server, so will it happen with Apple’s artisy paper weights.
To their advantage, more hardware will be available as it will be easier for companies to port their drivers and consolidate their code. It will be amusing to watch Apple deal with the open nature of Intel hardware and a vastly large field.
Apple and it’s zealots can’t seem to get what everyone in the universe knows: Apple is a *software* company not a hardware company. Of every box produced, 95%+ of the software comes out of Apple whereas 95% of the hardware is made by someone else.
This move should have come 10 years ago. Had Apple made a version of their OS that ran on the x86 architecture then, there’d be alot more competition in the OS market.
I find it quite interesting how the plain fact that Apple was broke and then bailed out by MS who still own if not the majority of Apple’s stock than at least are the largest shareholder has been forgotten by nearly everybody.
Between Apple and SCO (Yes I’m sure there’s something up between SCO and MS as the wise Mr. Dvorak has said.) Mr. Gates is clearly the puppetmaster! Competition from Apple is allowed within strictly controlled limits so Gates can hopefully deflect more accusations of monopolization. Meanwhile SCO is scaring purchasers around the world into making buying decisions based on legal opinions above and beyond all else. This is why the only competition that will have any meaning must come from open source.
And please don’t waste everyones time by posting something about the hands off agreement between MS and Apple. Who enforces(d) that agreement? Also please don’t post anything naive about how MS doesn’t own 50% of Apple so they can’t control it either. You don’t need to own 50% of a public company to control it. Especially not if you’re MS who can exercise control through proxies and through it’s control of most of the software used in Macs.
And finally why are Macheads such Jihadis? Because deep down in the repressed parts of their brain they know all this.
Milo says:
I find it quite interesting how the plain fact that Apple was broke and then bailed out by MS who still own if not the majority of Apple’s stock than at least are the largest shareholder has been forgotten by nearly everybody.
I think the reason everyone has forgotten this “plain fact” is because it is not true. They do not own the majority of stock. They are not the largest shareholder.
You don’t need to own 50% of a public company to control it.
There was a short period of time where MS owned 150MM in non voting shares. They have sold even that. They now own 0%
Apple is not controlled by MS.
I’ll say it again to Apple, their zealots and anyone else who thinks this is just another load of Jobs pooh!
Apple is a software company. Without iTunes the iPOD would be just another sexy Apple product so get over it! For Pete’s sake (sorry Pete) its just a MP3 player its not some universal cultural tool!
Steven Jobs is a chicken shit, snob who loves to rub Microsoft’s and Windows users noses in their own shit and doesn’t care to hand them a tissue. In fact I’d venture to say Mr. Jobs is afraid to compete, head to head with Microsoft. Too much work I figure.
I can hardly wait to here what excuses Steves going to cook up when the numbers he announces in 2008 are just a reflection of the same numbers Apple has been presenting stockholders for the last seven years. Daaaaah!
Look Steve… all those clearly skewed numbers aside you haven’t made ANY SIGNIFICANT INROADS TO CONVERTING WINDOWS USERS!!! MS still makes about a BILLION – THATS A BILLION Steve not those Austin Powers millions Apples been flogging lately… Sure Apple sells BILLIONS in product but Microsoft MAKES BILLIONS WITH SOFTWARE!!! Not bad eh Steveo!
Where are all the mass defections that Tiger was to bring… all your numbers today talked about switching current Apple user not new ones, and certainly NOT Windows users… what a load of bullshit.
All Apple has done is given itself another three to five years IF THAT of trying to sell its proprietary chic PCs to the SAME zealots who act more and more like those rediculous blue space toys in Toy Story (ha there I said now shadup)
Make all the fun you want Steve about Microsoft and Windows, and trust me I am NOT a Microsoft fan in the very least, but MS only sucked $149 out of me in the last five years compared to $745 for the average Apple user according to your math. So who are the stupid users now!
Please Steve… put down the silly presentation clicker and compete head to head with Microsoft and Windows and all the other big boys or just shut the hell up and go home! Please.
MS sold their stock in Apple a long time ago ….
Mile, you’re years out of date. The Apple stock purchase had more to do with covering M$oft during the anti-trust investigations/trial than anything else. And was bought back, many moons ago.
Of course, don’t post anything naive disagreeing with me — or the SEC.
Ima Fish,
I was laughing at the idea that software was less important than hardware, when the only reason the hardware sells is because of the great software that runs on it.
Who would pay a premium for a Mac without the OS, and the ability to run the iApps, Final Cut, etc?
Who would pay a premium for an iPod without iTunes and the iTMS to support it? [which is why all "iPod Killers" are doomed to fail, because they only address one-third of that equation]
Apple is an OS company working on being an Internet company, and as Jobs mentioned himself – during today’s WWDC Keynote – “the soul of the Mac is the OS”
Apple is like Nike – with regard to manufacturing – they do the [amazing] design work in-house, and contract-out the manufacturing [which is why people getting built-to-order Macs mention tracking their orders from Shanghai].
An InfoWorld article covering the MacWorld Expo in Jan 2000
quotes Jobs:
At the end of his talk, Jobs once again referred to Apple as an Internet company rather than a hardware manufacturer.
“We believe Apple will be one of the ten most profitable Internet companies in the next ten years,” said Jobs.
I doubt Steve has changed his mind about that, what with .Mac, iTunes/iPod/iTMS and Quicktime [cross-platform], etc
PowerPC looks to be falling behind, so they drop it like a bad habit – but announced plan of having all future software run on both processor types is very smart, If PowerPC exceeds expectations – or Intel stumbles – Apple can go with whoever wins, switching at will, because it will be transparent to the user.
The specifics of the hardware don’t matter – as long as it adequately-supports the software – because the software is driving the [very profitable] sales of the hardware.
It would be interesting to know if they are converting to 32bit or 64bits prossesors.
#12 “Apple is a *software* company not a hardware company”
Years of Apple trumpeting the super-computer power of the G4 – G5, and how its light-years ahead to the Wintel platform, they do market their hardware as superior.
I wonder tho, whats the file size difference of a universal binary compared to that of x86 or PPC binary, should be negligable (hopefully) right?