"The buzzwords for the 2006 technology outlook fly thick and fast in nerd circles: high-definition DVD. A la carte TV shows from the Internet. Windows Vista. Most of these goodies will take time to reach the masses. One, however, has already arrived, six months ahead of schedule: Apple Computer's switch to Intel chips for its Macintosh computers."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-22
Member since:2006-01-15
Member since:
2005-07-04
Each one, not to mention the operating system itself, must be rewritten in the Intel language.
That's a nightmarish mountain of work, but Apple has pulled it off almost flawlessly. The operating system, Mac OS X 10.4.4, has indeed been rejiggered to speak Intellese, while otherwise remaining 100 percent identical in look, feel and features.
How clueless is this guy? He has to be kidding, right?
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-11-14
Exactly. He writes for the New York Times. I am, however, curious as to why CNET didn't include the last few paragraphs of his article. The rest of it can be found here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/technology/techspecial2/25pogue.h...
Member since:2005-10-12
Indeed, the last few paras are interesting. This is the part that lost a few people I know. They really really didn't want to buy all the apps again, and pay for all the updates.
The things I personally miss about Classic are: Hypercard, Claris Organiser, More.
Nothing to match them, after all these years.
Member since:2006-01-10
Who is paying for their apps all over again? Most of the Universal versions are free. Hypercard etc have NOTHING to do with Classic going away. The decision to can them was made before that and OS X versions could have been made if there was a market. There wasn't. Next you'll be bitching about Ogg support in iTunes.
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:
2005-07-08
no he's not kidding, and he's not clueless either. he's david pogue and worked for macworld magazine for years before becoming the head technology writer for the new york times. he also writes a lot of the "for dummies" books on the mac platform. david does come across as a fan boy of sorts a lot of times though, so i understand your reaction. you gotta understand that it's not that he doesn't understand the tech though, it's just that he has always written in a way that makes his articles palatable to non-techie audiences.
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't know about that. His "simplification" is so inaccurate as to be misleading. Apple didn't have to "rewrite" OS X in "intellease". They had to port it. That's a very substantial difference, and a very important distinction to make. What he says gives people the idea that moving OS X apps to Intel is going to be an "enormous mountain of work", which it really isn't. If they think it is, they might hold off on buying an Intel Mac, expecting ports to come very slowly. I think it would have been much better to just say "OS X has already been running on Intel machines for the last five years, and Apple has just unveiled them now". That's both more accurate, and easier to understand.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-12-28
Okay, so if you want to be nitpicky, he actually said "The operating system, Mac OS X 10.4.4, has indeed been rejiggered to speak Intellese," and "rejiggered" is substantially different from "rewrite." A person could rejigger a door jamb for it to swing smoothly and close tightly, but that wouldn't constitute rewriting the door. I'd say the average non-techie would get "rejigger" over rewriting software, and if their understanding is that basic, they're probably not too worried about the rate of ports.
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-11-10
When I was taking Journalism classes our professors told us to write our articles to suit our audience and that in the world outside of college that means writing as if your audience is in the 6th grade. When you write an article it is supposed to be simple enough that a 6th grader can read it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:
2005-07-10
Now just in case some of you have been locked in a closet for the last week it should be noted that Apple isn't the only company to sell laptops with the new Intel Core Duo processor. The other companies are Dell, HP and Gateway. This is actually a good thing as more competition offers better pricing for consumers.
I question Intel's need to release the Yonah processor. While going to a 65 nanometer die is a significant accomplishment it still doesn't compete with AMD who has for several months offered manufacturers dual core 64-bit mobile processors. It will be interesting to see if Intel can release Merom (Core Duo 64-bit with Hyperthreading) before AMD releases their new mobile dual core based on 65 nanometer technology.
Also since manufacturers are well aware both hardware and software technology is heading for 64-bit, not 32-bit it should make some question why they release some products the way they do. Such as if a manufacturer is developing a laptop to support 64-bit then ensure the RAM is above 2 GB. After all the processor running would be capable of handling more than the limitations associated with the 32-bit architecture. So when Merom is released from Intel I do hope to see laptops from Apple, Dell, etc offering 4 GB RAM. Now if NVIDIA can figure how to get their Quadro FX 4500 SDI squeezed into a laptop I'll be all set 
Edited 2006-01-29 18:27
Member since:2005-07-07
Sure, AMD has done all those things you've said, but how do their notebook processors compare to Intel's in terms of power consumption? These are notebooks after all, and while the Intel chips may not have 64 bit ISA support, hyper threading, or an on-die memory controller, they aren't poor performers either. Most of these features that AMD processors have are relevant in other areas, but not in the notebook space.
Member since:2005-09-21
Member since:
2005-08-28
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
...written by someone who "likes" Apple and its products. Mind you, I do too... but this read like an advertisement or a revved up status report for board members or something...
I'm not denying that a lot of work has gone and will continue to go into this switch and I do think Apple does well with this sort of thing. The article itself is just sort of rah-rah-ish.
In reality, I am guessing Apple has had this in the works since Jobs came to Apple, or at least in the back of their minds. They've probably gone over the "what if" scenarios so many times that when the made the decision all the angles were already considered.
Member since:
2005-07-07
In general I thought it was an excellent summary of what the Intel switch means to your average user.
It is true that Intel chips have a slightly different 'language' albeit assembly, some parts of the OS had to be rewritten, and old programs will not run on the Intel chips without translation. I agree that the details were misleading, but at least it helps people understand that processors are different - many people don't have a clue.
I don't think a description of what compiling means would fit into the column inches or interest a lot of those people. They'll still be much better informed for reading it...
Edited 2006-01-30 14:25
Member since:
2005-07-06
I'm buying an intel based iMac in May. The only reason I'm waiting that long is that I'm saving up my money. I know, totally unamerican to not just go and put it on my credit card. But then I don't like paying interest if I don't have to. I can wait.
As far as apps. I don't run Pro apps on my Mac. I don't run Adobe software either. Nothing against them but everything I need either comes with new Macs, is available in iLife (which comes with new Macs), iWork, or Nisus Writer. I don't really have a need for much else.
I do play games once in awhile. I haven't been a hard core gamer since Quake 3. Games since then (mostly psudo based on WWII) have little interest for me. For me DOOM 3 is cool looking but id lost what was fun in DOOM and DOOM 2 or Quake 1 and 2.
