Are you ready for . . . Mactel?
Steve Jobs announced today (June 6) that by 2007 all Macs will use Intel processors.
I wonder if they'll have to put those tacky looking "Intel Inside" stickers on those sexy looking Power Mac cabinets.
Link to several CNET News stories below.
> Are you ready for . . . Mactel?
> Steve Jobs announced today (June 6) that by 2007 all Macs will
> use Intel processors.
That's probably a smart move by Apple to gain market shares.
Most users probably don't care so much about the underlying
processor but more about the applications and by the look and feel
provided by the OS, which is independent of processor. The systems
will probably be cheaper to build as well.
This could also mean that in the long run it will be possible to
run Mac OS on generic x86 platforms and not only on Apple's own systems
since the OS and all applications needs to be built for x86 architecture
anyway. Stronger competition with Microsoft on the desktop OS side is
always good.
Elated: Brilliant move by Jobs moving to a different CPU. IBM's R&D has been behind the ball for years, failing to compete on performance with other chipmakers, especially in the laptop arena. There's still NO G5 Powerbook, and that it ridiculous.
Not to mention the fact that IBM sold it's chip division to a Chinese firm. For even the most bullish globalizer, it gave the PowerPC a unsure future.
This is switch that had to be made.
Pissed: Why m&*%^f*&^g Intel? Why not AMD? Better chips, better performance, better prices. A M D. Or even TransMeta, give Linux a boost. But Intel, those overpriced, over-engineered hunks of crap?
The big question, is just how open Jobs will be to OEM PCs running Mac OS X, and people running Windows on "MacTel" machines.
I say open up and let the competition thrive. It will only help Apple. Die hard Apple snobs, aka stockholders, like me will continue to buy Apple hardware, but an expanded market for a UNIX based OS can only help everyone.
Good Bits,
V
> Elated: Brilliant move by Jobs moving to a different
> CPU. IBM's R&D has been behind the ball for years,
> failing to compete on performance with other
> chipmakers, especially in the laptop arena. There's
> still NO G5 Powerbook, and that it ridiculous.
> Not to mention the fact that IBM sold it's chip
> division to a Chinese firm. For even the most bullish
> globalizer, it gave the PowerPC a unsure future.
> This is switch that had to be made.
Agreed. Truth is, the processors were simply a whole lot more important to Apple than they were to IBM in the overall scheme of things.
> Pissed: Why m&*%^f*&^g Intel? Why not AMD? Better
> chips, better performance, better prices. A M D. Or
> even TransMeta, give Linux a boost. But Intel, those
> overpriced, over-engineered hunks of crap?
I think you already touched on the answer. I'm as big a fan of AMD as anyone, but my next laptop will have the Pentium M/Centrino setup. This is simply The Hot Ticket for a laptop, with an optimal combination of small size, low power drain, and computing power. I imagine that they will come up with something similar for the Powerbook.
BTW, Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) is no longer associated with TransMeta. He now heads Open Source Development Labs, a consortium funded by Redhat, Novell, IBM, AMD, etc., where he is able to devote all his energy to development of the Linux kernel.
TransMeta CPU's are tiny units well-suited for embedded devices, although I have seen a few small laptops that utilize them.
> The big question, is just how open Jobs will be to OEM
> PCs running Mac OS X, and people running Windows on
> "MacTel" machines.
From what I have read, not very open. He insists that OS X will be strictly for genuine Macs, regardless of the CPU used.
> I say open up and let the competition thrive. It will
> only help Apple. Die hard Apple snobs, aka
> stockholders, like me will continue to buy Apple
> hardware, but an expanded market for a UNIX based OS
> can only help everyone.
I agree. Besides, it will likely happen despite Jobs' intentions. Hackers are, after all, a most resourceful bunch.
> Pissed: Why m&*%^f*&^g Intel? Why not AMD? Better
> chips, better performance, better prices. A M D. Or
> even TransMeta, give Linux a boost. But Intel, those
> overpriced, over-engineered hunks of crap?
One reason is Intel's massive manufacturing capability. Intel invested heavily during the lean years and is now running well below capacity. AMD has fantastic designs; but can't always produce what its salesmen can sell. Another reason is Intel's advertising budget. I would guess Intel will push its alliance with Apple. Not because Apple will add significantly to volume; but because it adds to the image as innovator that Intel wishes to stress.
The is a third intangible. Most offices run Intel/Windows. There are always a few people that demand Macs; but they might be ignored because support for two technologies cannot be afforded. Anything that brings these two closer together can improve Apple's inroads.
> The is a third intangible. Most offices run
> Intel/Windows. There are always a few people that
> demand Macs; but they might be ignored because support
> for two technologies cannot be afforded.
That's true in my neighborhood. Out of maybe, 40 boxes, not a Mac in the place; except of course on the IT guy's desk.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks