Apple goes Intel: It's true!
posted June 6th 2005 2:09PM
Steve's just finished up delivering his keynote, but it looks like all those years PC nerds spent debating Apple fanboys about x86 vs. PowerPC performance weren't exactly for nought—at today's Apple WWDC in SF, Jobs declared the PowerPC has been "living a secret double life." We know it's more than just getting 15 "integer perf units" per watt to Intel's 70—like, say, having consistant troubles getting to that magical 3.0GHz marker, or those pesky heat issues. Steve's solution? Go Intel. And just as everyone had been expecting, a secret Intel build of OS X had been kept in house for the past half decade, just waiting for a reason to be loosed upon the world. They expect the full transition to Intel-based machines to be complete by 2007, as speculated, but we're still in the dark about how Mac is going to make OS X beige-box PC-proof—or if they even are.
is it time for the apocalypse already? Microsoft is planning to use PPC in the next Xbox and Apple is planning to use Intel in the next Mac. strange times. makes me tingly all over.
Well there is a lot of talk going on here but my main point is this:
I think its a bad move for Apple, Steve Jobs made big points about thermal problems/performance problems for the future etc....Well he just chose a CPU with...Thermal problems and one that is inferior to AMD Athlon 64's!!!
Pretty dumb really. AMD are the real innovators here. We only build AMD systems...Why? Well we specilize in quiet pc's and Intel are too hot for us. Customers dont give a damn about intel, they want speed...AMD delivers
AMD are way ahead in innovative design, i see intel losing market share over the next five years or so.
Ok so people go on about Dell and I love Intel. When was the last Dell you saw described as "Classy"??? More like cheap "C**p"
By Apple going down the Intel road is a sure reason to be worried. hardware sales will drop as consumers wont buy a yesterdays pc technology box.
Apple wont release an OS for windows platforms, despite using the same hardware...Why? They are scared...Microsoft has its problems for sure, but they are kings, and until Apple cop on an take them on, head to head they are a has been company.
Yeah ipod is nice etc, Apple's are snazzy, but who wants to buy a dumbed down mac? AMD would have given them the edge they needed. Steve Jobs is a nutter, he will get kicked out, Apple's once 12% market share is now at a little over 2%...They were iin trouble before, they will be again.
Sad really, but they have blown it...
Watch this space....
AMD wont care they rock!!!
Personally, I see this as a good thing. I'm not too familiar with PowerPC-based systems as I have never used one, but if the information in the article is correct it should mean good things are coming.
They said that PowerPC is hitting a roadblock in processing power. What if the price of overcoming that roadblock doubles or triples the price of the processor, or requires other hardware changes. This could cause a serious jump in the price.
Also, It's not the x86 architecture that's the problem with PCs. It's the Operating System. As long as the chip does what it's supposed to do it won't make a difference.
What this means to me, as a PC user, is that I will soon be able to escape the wrath of Windows AND still keep a graphic interface without learning command line.
It seems that in general (at least to the whiners here), Windows and x86 are one in the same. You don't see anyone even mentioning Linux/Unix. #186 put it perfectly.
Pros: Lower prices on Macs, Less $$$ to Microsoft, More software available, More widespread use of OSX (which translates to better support... as in, being able to go on the net and find answers in a matter of seconds to even the most complex problems such as you can with Windows currently).
Cons: More whiners?
Its not about whiners, Apple is supposed to be different!!!
Power Pc, you dont know your stuff. Not heard of the cell processor???
Intel is yesterdays news...
Most Apple owner i talk to are not happy...
Its not about whiners, Apple is supposed to be different!!!
Power Pc, you dont know your stuff. Not heard of the cell processor???
Intel is yesterdays news...
Most Apple owner i talk to are not happy...
Its not about whiners, Apple is supposed to be different!!!
Power Pc, you dont know your stuff. Not heard of the cell processor???
Intel is yesterdays news...
Most Apple owner i talk to are not happy...
Look at Mac Mini...Great idea, looks cool. Apple say they want to get windows users...Nice, but upon further inspection it seems I cant use my 5.1 speakers set up with it, due to the headphone out only socket....The ATI graphics are stuck at 32Mb, not great really, and when you start beefing up the spec, its starts to look pricey compared to a pc. I mean come on Apple a DVD-RW is bog standard now. The 2.5" hard drive is a bit sloppy and at only 40 or 80 gig, this is pretty limited. IF it were cheaper maybe..
Point is this. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET INTEL MACS AS CHEAP AS NORMAL PC'S!
Apple come up with some great ideas, but sometimes they just don't have the brains to fully use them.
I agree Windows needs proper competition.
Linux is interesting, but people wasnt to throw a cd in and sit back, not spend ages sorting something out because of a lack of driver etc...
I think it's game over Apple
Can somebody answer this for me?
By using Intel processor in Mac,
some day can I dream of installing Mac OS to PC?
Can somebody answer this for me?
By using Intel processor in Mac,
some day can I dream of installing Mac OS to PC?
No. It will not work. Apple dont want you to. You can install windows on a Mac however.
The whole issue here is yet again Apple don't have the guts to take on Microsoft.
It was good to see that apple was ready with a conversion/development kit for intel. I found this site already for converting PPC apps to intel compatible "universal binaries". I contacted them, and they are already accepting code.
http://www.iRecompile.com
Mac is better than pc hands down. Why? thats simple. Keep in mind that all computers, mac or pc can have hardware issues and some can be a lemon right out of the box.
The reason that macs are better is that their OS is superior by far. For example back when I was wasting my time using windows based computers all I ever did was perform useless maintinence on the OS before I could even use it. It was useless because no matter how many patches were installed and no matter how many times I updated my anti-virus and scanned, the system never worked out it was always crashing or freezing or just plain sucking. My last "PC" was an AMD 64 system with xp pro and a gig of ram. I wasted all that f-ing money on that system and I never got any return out of it. it was crap. not because of the processor or the motherboard or any hardware. It was simply because I was running Windows on it. So some told me to go to linux so I said cool. But there is no freakin product support and renders it usless to me. It was complete crap!!! very stable and mildly elegant crap but crap! WHATS THE GOOD OF HAVEING A HYDROGEN POWERED BMW WHEN YOU CANT FIND PARTS OR A FUEL STATION. So like I said... Crap!
All my life I refered to the Macintosh as Crapintosh. ha ha.... But it seemed it was my last hope to get a decent system. So I went to te nearest Apple Store and spent hours talking to a salesman and messing with the computer. I was amazed at the ellegance and sheer beauty but I remeberd what I was told as a child, beauty is on the inside. Mac OS X is sooooo far ahead of Windows or Linux when it comes to useability, stability, and all around power.
I do understand that Linux depending on what version you use, is more stable. but what good is stability when all the programs you need aren't made for linux and if they are the complexity if linux renders them un-useable. Also with that I realize that the games that come out that I want to play, I have to wait an extra year for them to come out for the mac. A COMPUTER IS A TOOL NOT AN F-ING TOY! YOU WANT GAMES GO BUY A PLAYSTATION! ITS CHEAPER AND ITS A TOY... GOD!
The amount of cash you spend on a "PC" just so you can play half life 2 or Doom 3 (i love doom 3) is stupid considering when duke nukem forever comes out you will need to buy pretty much a whole new system. STUPID! Its a pointless endevor. a waste of money. ohh but a mac is more expensive. yeah out of store cost, but then a new worm, gotta go to the computer shop again to remove it (this applies to the average customer) windows crashed and I want to save the pics of my dead child before I loose them, back to the shop. When you consider the maintinence cost of a pc verses a mac the mac is less expensive. and besides its proven that you get more use out of a mac in terms of years of use. You buy a new pc say every 3 years and a new mac every 6. You bought 2 pc's and spent hundreds on windows repairs and I bought a mac and upgraded the ram to the max, finished recording my bands album (without incident), made a home movie for the inlaws for x-mas. And still spent less than you. So to all you a holes that keep bashing the mac! swallow your false pride and use your head! and to all you few linux people that accomplish anything with linux. wow! way to go! better than me.
What I talked about is mosly for the average consumer. It differs if you know how to fix the crap yourself, then it just costs time. But life is short dont waste it fixing the Windows Bull Sh*t.
Windows = headache, heartache, insanity, bending over for bill, and is prob. the number 2 cause of suicide.
OS X = mental health, accomplishments, love, admiration, friendship, and a trust in a computer that will be there for you and not expect you to be there for it.
Scott
P.S. i will be creating a web site regarding all the crap i was talking about. interested? e mail me for the link.
This is wonderful news. As an IT student who owns both, I must say, this would be great to eliminate the Windows workstations in my apartment.
I love my mac notebooks, and I love my linux partitions on my windows boxes. I hate Windows, has anyone ever seen the amount of spyware, malware, and viruses that run rampant on the windows platform?
This is wonderful news for us Apple users, and this is excellent news for the non-mac hardware (x86) users. x86 encompasses both AMD and Intel, so have no fear. The only different is compiling optimizations for the specific instruction sets... (amd or intel)
Rejoice, we can move past Windows, and not have to devote the time to the extremely tedious linux work.
I for one, wished this a few weeks ago when I had to re-install (yet again) windows xp on several home based workstations.
Go Jobs!
I am no windows lover but you miss the point...
Yes X86 includes AMD, but as Apple state...in big words now...APPLE OS WILL ONLY RUN ON APPLE CUSTOMIZED INTEL CPU's...
This means no Apple operating system will run, at the minute, on AMD cpu's.
It means NO APPLE OS FOR NORMAL PC's OR ONES CUSTOM BUILT!!!
Windows will not die a death, what are you gonna buy if you want an intel pc....Ummmmm oh i dont want to pay 300 more for the same spec Apple PC when I can buy a "whatever" just as fast one for less.
Its a daft choice Mr Jobs has made, and one he will regret.
Stop playing around with your ever decreasing market share, release Apple O/S for ALL PC,s
Windows is no.1 not because its the best but because it works ON LOTS OF DIFFERENT HARDWARE!!!
OTHER MAIN POINT...AMD ARE FASTER THAN INTEL...A LOT FASTER WITH THE DUAL CORE CPU's....MAC USED TO MEAN THE BEST PERFORMANCE>>>WHO WILL BUY AN INTEL MAC< WHEN A AMD WINDOWS PC WHIPS ITS ASS?????
Yes trust me, i am a CPU engineer, and Intel got thrashed by the new AMD Dual Core cpu's THRASHED TO BITS......
POWER PC WAS THE APPLE CPU, AND YEAH THAT WHIPS PENTIUM 4 ALSO...THE WHOLE BUSINESS APPLE BUILT UP IS TO BE DIFFERENT FROM INTEL PC's
Jobs is running scared, he blew it....All they have is ipod now...
Bye Apple...was a crappy fight you put up!!!!
Fitzgerald group. You are obviously a cpu engineer and definately not a buisness major otherwise you would understand that Intel could at a moments notice put AMD out of buisness. If you go back in time, Intel helped statr AMD so that they would not be a monopoly. Can you say 82% market share. Intel has more cash reserves in the bank than AMD's gross sales. Intel puts more into R&D each year than AMD could spend in five years. This is an excellent direction for Apple and will prove to be a good descision. As for AMD HAMMERING Intel. I don't see Intel running scared and in 5 years please look back at your comments when Intel's market share is still above 80% and AMD is still sucking hind T*T
Facts...First Intel did not start AMD
79% and declining steadily.
As for R&D its not what you put in, but what you get out....AMD are cooler, faster, more innovative, and better value for money.
As for lacking business skills, i have my own business thanks very much. Based in the UK & Ireland, so i think i have some experience on this issue.
As for a smart move by Apple let time be the judge of that, i feel that Apple will further decline its market share, and in the short term sales will drop significantly.
Your loathing of the clear leader in CPU technology is only made weak by your spelling problems.....Go study...get a REAL job, then talk about something you may have some knowledge about....
"what is the driving force?
Microsoft.
The obvious questions about performance and 64-bit computing come down to marketing. At first, I thought that Steve Jobs was somehow taking up the challenge of making users believe war was peace and hate was love simply to show that he could do it. Steve is such a powerful communicator and so able to deceive people that for just a moment, I thought maybe he was doing this as a pure tour de force -- just because he could.
Nah. Not even Steve Jobs would try that.
The vaunted Intel roadmap is nice, but no nicer than the AMD roadmap, and nothing that IBM couldn't have matched. If Apple was willing to consider a processor switch, moving to the Cell Processor would have made much more sense than going to Intel or AMD, so I simply have to conclude that technology has nothing at all to do with this decision. This is simply about business -- BIG business.
Another clue comes from HP, where a rumor is going around that HP selling iPods could turn into HP becoming an Apple hardware partner for personal computers, too.
Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.
Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.
Intel is fed up with Microsoft. Microsoft has no innovation that drives what Intel must have, which is a use for more processing power. And when they did have one with the Xbox, they went elsewhere.
So Intel buys Apple and works with their OEMs to get products out in the market. The OEMs would love to be able to offer a higher margin product with better reliability than Microsoft. Intel/Apple enters the market just as Microsoft announces yet another delay in their next generation OS. By the way, the new Apple OS for the Intel Architecture has a compatibility mode with Windows (I'm just guessing on this one).
This scenario works well for everyone except Microsoft. If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft. And if they tuned the OS to take advantage of unique features that only Intel had, they would put AMD back in the box, too. Apple could return Intel to its traditional role of being where all the value was in the PC world. And Apple/Intel could easily extend this to the consumer electronics world. How much would it cost Intel to buy Apple? Not much. And if they paid in stock it would cost nothing at all since investors would drive shares through the roof on a huge swell of user enthusiasm.
That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company.
Remember, you read it here first."
taken from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
Once upon a time.......
Fairytale stuff.
Intel wont buy apple, why would they?
The real money is in software, it always has been. And until Mr "Mactel" Jobs wakes up and smells that, he is playing around on the fringes of the pc world.
Microsoft needs real competition, not some half lame "has been" manufacturer stuck in the dark ages.
Apple one button mouse??? Come on!
Time to move forward apple...Release OS X for all pc,s, let people build their own...The people want choice....
Only if apple do this will they really start to make an impact....but they dont have the "nuds" for it!!!
Why did windows succeed? Because it was a universal operating system, designed for all pc,s.....Apple lost market share because they insisted on making their own hardware...
End of story...and Apple
Apple have gone nuts, they could have taken the chance to use the CELL processor a chip that will blow anything Intel has out of the water. No longer is Apple being an innovator now they are just going to become another Dell, Tiny, Gateway........
I think it is a good move for apple. Back in the day pre windows 95 I used a Macintosh because of its superior operating system OS7. Os7 Compared with Win 3.1 Microsoft was a joke none the less. Then the win 95 launch came and I still liked the Mac better. It wasnt till after I purchased a ppc Mac an ibm601 POS that I trashed the Mac and went with the superior Pentium based system and windows 98. Although I still liked the Mac OS I wanted and needed superior hardware. And Apple dint have it and in my opinion still doesnt. I havent had the mega cash to front for a new Mac so I havent been able to use there new gen of operating system OSX but im sure it is impressive and much better than Microsofts as it always was. I doubt that apple will make there OS portable from there proprietary systems even if they move to an Intel proc. Why they hold on to the dying proprietary hardware end is beyond me? I think it is just I dream of some ones and they dont want to let it go. It is an old way of thinking. They are trying to sell computers not game consoles. Apple could make more money in 1 year selling a Multi platform os than it would stumbling along trying to sell proprietary systems for 5. This is based on an old theory listen to the customer and give them what they want. And I dont know about you but I want it my way right away. And as much of it as affordable. If Apple would build an OS to run on a generic Pc would they Trump Microsoft? I would bet some cash on that one.
Yay! Screw Apple! Linux owns anyway and Mac is for true newbies. I'm glad Apple is going down.
I converted 2 of 3 my brothers from amd desktop and intel laptop to eMac 800 and iMac G5 after amaze them with my loyalty to Mac (lc475, 7100/80, 5200/75, 8100/110, 8600/300, 1400/166, eMac700, eMac 1.25). But now I feel like licking my own spit with what Apple did and will do.
Should I convert them back to what they believe before ?
Is Apple wants to be a software seller like M$ does for living, wait till they see cheap copies lying around on boardwalk for 25 cent in asia. Intel will gain the market share not the Mac OS.
Better keep the perfect roadpath on powerpc, and if Apple want to spread the market share, put intel to make custom processor that bundles with Mac OS for swithcer and macnewbies.
Don't make history repeat by itself (remember the clone ?)
Well i put a news article on my website...this is it!!!
Apple Ditches IBM Power PC CPU...
Steve Jobs the Apple CEO, announced at the Apple WWDC (Worldwide Developers Conference), that Intel Processors will be powering the new generation of Macs. The two year hardware switch seemed problematic, but Jobs announced that Apple had been developing their OS to be Intel compatible for a number of years now. This seemed to ease the developers fears. He also demonstrated OS X "Tiger" on a Pentium 4 3.6GHz custom Mac. Jobs claimed that IBM's Power PC CPU had failed his promise to reach 3GHz as he declared at a prior conference. He also stated that Intel's processor power requirements were far less than IBM's, despite the revolutionary, "Cell Processor", IBM has been working on which is rumoured to destroy the competition.
This flies in the face of what Apple stand for. The ,"Think Differently", slogan was based on using non Intel CPU's, once a bitter rival for Apple in their advertising campaigns. Intel have had serious problems with heat, power consumption, whilst their performance and thermals lag behind AMD desperately. Intel stopped its roll-out of 4GHz Pentium 4's last fall due to overheating problems, and the new dual core solutions drain big quantities of power whilst not offering AMD's superb, "Cool and Quiet", system for reducing heat and power consumption while the CPU is not at full load.
Reaction was mixed in the commercial sector, followed by a fall in Apple's stock price. One analyst said, "Ignoring AMD was a foolish mistake". it was also seen as an unwise move as potential customers would resist buying Mac's for fear that they would be obsolete in a year or so. Apple sales have already fallen. Once considered inspirational, it now seems Job's has lost his way in the market. With senior Apple figures insisting that OS X will only run on Apple hardware, but allowing them to install Windows seems suicidal at best.
With similar spec machines to big names like Dell, and carrying Apple's premium price tag, how can they compete? A declining market share of only 1.7%, (once 12%),and a partially disgruntled user base who feel betrayed by this decision, the once mighty company looks like a bit player tinkering on the fringes of the industry. Windows users would have welcomed the OS to their machine, but Apple do not seem to be up for a Microsoft fight. Us included, we are bitterly disappointed at Job's awful blunder. If he had embraced AMD then it would have been seen as a positive move. Intel continues to struggle against AMD, as their latest Dual-Core processors got wiped out in benchmarking tests against the new Athlon 64 X2.
Apple has fast become the ipod company, although the Mac-mini was hugely popular, it seems Job's is reversing all the good work done to date. It's not the first time Apple has misjudged the market. Only around 5 years ago the, "Cube" was launched, aimed at gaining a new enthusiast market, it failed miserably being quietly dropped after only 18 months of production.
We predict hard times ahead for Apple. Fitzgerald Group responded by announcing that we are to drop all support of Apple software and hardware instantly. Intel's hot and loud PC solutions are not seen as compatible to our vision for the future.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, its only a chip, "oh no my mac will have a chip that PC's Use, oh no its realy gona damage my every day life2 get over it, what most people fail to realise that Mac is a corporation, cost cuting and buissens deals are the name of the game.
you all talk about how M$ makes things only to work on there produvts, well Macs the same they just do it on the sly, giving the ilusion that the the one bright light away from the nasty Pc's. Before you ask i use both PC and Mac.
so screw you back to whom ever was calling me bad word whilst reading this.
P.S its only a chip.
This kind of came as a shock to me, because I had bought a new iBook the day before it was announced, and I had not heard of the rumours. The feeling was kind of like buying a gadget you had wanted for so long only to find that the next day a better one came out.
But with Apple, the transition to Intel is not coming until 2006, and anyway, both chipsets will be fully compatible. if Apple doesn't allow normal x86 pcs to run OSX, i will trawl the net to find a way to install it on my crap windows pc.
Anyway, this is a move that was expected to happen, and I don't understand people that are angry with apple. I mean, come on, did they get angry with the transition to OSX? This transition will be for the good, and although i feel like my iBook has been rendered obsolete, my next computer will be an intel mac.
What does this mean for AMD? Well, what did the Xbox mean for Nvidia?
My only real worry is that Intel doesn't stick on those awful 'intel pentium' stickers on the new macs.
It's about the fact that Apple are overpriced. And they will be MEGA OVERPRICED using the same hardware as a normal pc.
Also...
INTEL ARE CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!
Who wants a crap Mac? Ummmmmmmmmmm
What has made OS X such a strong and reliable OS, is because Apple is still the only major PC maker to OEM build the computer and the OS software. This make Apple outshine Microsoft in may important ways. Adding Intel to the equation takes nothing away from Apple. Intel has proven itself, being its what powers majority of todays PC's on the market.
intel have proved one thing...they are slower than amd....
they are not the performace kings they used to be.
too much power consumption
they run too hot
lack innovation
lag behind amd in all the above areas
my point again. who wants a not so hot mac????
you cannot dispute the facts!!!
think differently is not using an intel cpu!
it will harm apple no doubt about it, they are already onto a losing streak, they messed it up, and jobs is to blame.
os x is indeed very good, it's just a shame they wont release it on a normal pc. software is the future, and apple ignore this at their peril. they lack the guts to get stuck into microsoft.
If apple can put Intel in THEIR direction I am shure something good will happen. However I agree with above that Apple is grounded by not releasing their excellent OS on Pcs. It would just kill! The case is not the case, but what is inside!
Like the software. And software on mac is just a LAUGH! PC users just shake their head when they hear that Apple Shake and Final cut are the main progs to choose Mac. Industry standard, phew!
Arguments like stabile, delicious looking and virus free OS, is neverly mentioned. And what spine shreds the pc OS in general.
Good lord... Could Someone, ANYONE! explain in Layman's Terms what the Intel switch would mean for the consumer!
Should I Buy now? (cause I kinda need one) or should I Definitely hold out until after 2006 & why? (an explanation in point form would be cool... but is not necessary.) Thanks people. (where's the tech guru when you need one)
i like to move it, move it.
I think this is great. I can't wait to see a laptop with apple's industrial design magic that will run the os of my choice. I love my pc notebook, but I would love it even more if it were slim, silver, titanium and with that patented screen hinge...
I think it's obvious that Jobs went with Intel to push the powerbook/ibook forward as well as the desktop macs. PC's have had notebooks that compete with desktop performance for a few years now. It's time Apple did the same for those of us who want to be mobile with our computing. I also believe that Jobs favors Intel due to their branding strength and their dominance of the mobile market.
Also, I'll be surprised if the OS locked to the hardware thing actually works out. I suspect that it will be hacked very quickly and apple's os WILL be running on some non-apple hardware.
I can't believe it's true. I have a dual 1.8 and I have always been astounded by the technical arcitechture of the IBM processor. Now Apple is switching to Intel? My main concern of course, is future support of my apple. But then again, by 2007 my mac will be outdated and I will be on the market to purchase a new computer. I don't mind the switch, just as long as the apple-intel products have a far more superior chipset than that of the pc-intel line. Otherwise, the only difference is the Operating System.
For someone who wants to buy an Apple, go ahead. The switch isn't for another couple of years. I have a G3 blue & white tower that I purchased in 1996 that is still running. In my opinion, you get your moneys worth because Apple manufactures a stable and reliable computer.
Well, I don't know where I've been but I just found out about this, the same day I recieved my new dual 2.7. If Intel (with the aid of apple) can outpower the AMD then it seems pretty obvious to me that the old "I don't want to buy a mac because it won't run any of my programs!!! A better machine or not; I am not willing to sacrifice my productivity" flame goes out the window. Think about it, if Intel ships its machines out preconfigured with OSX, with the possibility of running XP (or longhorn if it ever surfaces) then Apples revenue will certainly increase, and perhaps as the general public realizes the power of the Mac (I know... is it really still a mac?) then perhaps we will see Micrososoft go in the tank. Then again, if Apple becomes #1 in the long run, are they really still the same innovative, immaginitve company? Can we still "think different" if we level the playing field?
What happens now to mac hardware??
Does this change anything for them.....Thanks
I am not worried about the switch to intel... I trust Apple is making the right decision... I just was browsing some old archived websites, and found this rather amusing:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980429140407/http://www.apple.com/
That is a link to what apple.com looked like on April 29, 1998... they were trashing the intel chips, and now they're using them! :-)
What is wrong with you people? Apple has been the most stable workinghorse of the whole computer-world because of his own hardware. Even a Dual Xeon bites the dust next to an Dual G5 ... this is going to change ... I feel screwed
greetz from Holland =S