Disney Count support may be spotty from here. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Apple. who cares which chip?

Good article but. Do users really think about whether the chip is Intel or Motorola or AMD (or whoever)?

Just curious as to why the switch to Intel is any more than brief hype.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 11th, 2006
The Intel Dual Core chips are WAY faster than any of the PPC processors currently in Macs. That's the reason for the excitement.

That's it.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
What's a good article?

Hypothetically the chip shouldn't matter, however Apple was held down by a design that saw far less R&D than the x86 (and the 64-bit variants) did, so it was falling behind. It had to happen, but the software should be exactly the same.

The real news is pondering whether Apple might eventually sell their OS for standard PCs, which would be revolutionary.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 11th, 2006
I can't see OS X (or XI or whatever) appearing on non-Apple hardware. The software is more or less an afterthought to the hardware in terms of what drives people to buy Macs over PCs -- even Apple's traditional niche markets (DTP and the like) are no longer a selling point, so now they're selling a lifestyle more than anything, and a CD in a box doesn't have the same effect as a piece of beautifully sculpted hardware...
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
It will take approximately 2 minutes for a fully functioning version of the x86 OSX to be hacked to a point where it will run on PCs.
Permalink Phil 
January 11th, 2006
Sure, it'll be *hacked* to run on PCs (although if they go for some sort of trusted-computing deal it may take longer than 2 minutes), but my grand prediction is that Apple will not release a standalone generic x86 version of their OS for at least the next two revisions, if ever.
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 11th, 2006
I agree, they make their money from the hardware. But the hacking is why I care.
Permalink Phil 
January 11th, 2006
" I agree, they make their money from the hardware. But the hacking is why I care."

Hmmm. I wouldn't mind the Apple hardware. I like it, but the one-button mouse confuses me. I admit I know nothing about Apples and I have one in the office now and I hate it. But it looks pretty.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 11th, 2006
I was a hard core mac addict for years...i'm always on the wrong side of the fence...as soon as they became popular (iMac, OSX, etc) i was into PC land...I can't win. The mac hardware is pretty and all, but I still can't do most of my work on Mac unfortunately.
Permalink Phil 
January 11th, 2006
One of the keys to the Mac experience is the close integration of the software with the hardware. With that, you get the "It just works" benefit.

Plus, I have to admit that 2-4 times increase in performance by switching chip vendors is nice.
Permalink example 
January 11th, 2006
> I like it, but the one-button mouse confuses me.

You're trolling, right?
Permalink sixtyten 
January 11th, 2006
On the flip side the new Apple hardware will run Windows, supposedly out of the box...

I think this is great. I would honestly consider purchasing a MacBook Pro for this reason, even though the hardware comes at a premium. Right now, it seems like they are conceding this as a side effect of the switch they don't want to go to great lengths to avoid. I think they should trumpet it as a feature, and even include it as an option from the factory.
Permalink Jeff Barton 
January 11th, 2006
Interesting - VirtualPC and the like could run Windows on a Mac box, or vice versa (presuming the protections were defeated...e.g. a VirtualPC wrapper that presented all of the trusted computing info) with no software emulation. XP could be running on the Mac box at close to 100% speed.
Permalink Dennis Forbes 
January 11th, 2006
"You're trolling, right?"

No. Maybe this is evidence of a mental handicap.
Permalink sharkfish 
January 11th, 2006
You can hook up any old USB mouse to a Mac. My Mac's mouse has 7 buttons.

Everybody knows this. Anybody who posts about the one button Mac mouse being the Mac's downfall is trolling.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
> Maybe this is evidence of a mental handicap.

Or, possibly, having never read any comment thread on apple.slashdot.org ever.
Permalink sixtyten 
January 11th, 2006
" You can hook up any old USB mouse to a Mac. My Mac's mouse has 7 buttons."

I didn't know. I assumed it is possible to hook up a regular mouse, but I thought maybe the buttons do not have the same functions attached (right click for context menu, etc.).

Another annoyance (not monumental in any way) is the window controls being on the left side of the panel. Maybe this is a config thing.

I have never bothered to even read Mac for Dummies, since I've been in accounting/IT type shops or engineering type environments with only PC Windows or Linux, period. I never even got curious until my current job where the Mac sits in a corner for testing.

Funny thing is, if I was in a shop with an AS/400 or other mini/mainframe, I'd be playing with it constantly. I wonder what makes Apple so not interesting to me that I'm not even curious enough to get past the one-button mouse?
Permalink sharkfish 
January 11th, 2006
The buttons on the left hand side make more sense, to me, but that's me.

Also, right click does bring up context menus, just like you'd expect. Other buttons are configurable either through the OS itself or even further with 3rd party utilities made just for the purpose.

I'm not sure why apple insists on one button mice as standard, still. I guess it's a tradition thing.

There IS an official two button Mac mouse now, though, but it's not included with a new PC, you have to buy it. (And it's not that great, though it was greatly hyped for about a week after its release).
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
I have a friend who is a programmer for Apple. I was talking to him during the holidays and the basic reason for the change away from the PPC is the support from IBM is getting worse and worse and the deliverables from them are very poor. We both found it curious that they mentioned Intel and not AMD, figure there is some deal brewing.
Permalink What is .NET? 
January 11th, 2006
"The real news is pondering whether Apple might eventually sell their OS for standard PCs, which would be revolutionary."

Is not going to happen. At least in the forseen future.
Permalink What is .NET? 
January 11th, 2006
"Hmmm. I wouldn't mind the Apple hardware. I like it, but the one-button mouse confuses me. "

Apple has always supported a two button mouse and support scroll mice.

I am also trying to find the logic in "it's an x86 architecture so it's more hackable?"
Permalink What is .NET? 
January 11th, 2006
"Apple has always supported a two button mouse and support scroll mice. "

This isn't quite correct, is it? :)
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
"Do users really think about whether the chip is Intel or Motorola or AMD (or whoever)?"

Zelots do.
Permalink A. Nonymous 
January 12th, 2006
Users notice the speed. The PPC chips had fallen behind, despite Apple's (or Apple fans'?) claims that slower clockspeeds on PPC are equivalent to much higher x86 clockspeeds.

The new Intel processors will be dual core and much much faster than anything Apple offers in the PPC world.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics