Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-25
The best part of this is reading the comments on that thread. Here are some highlights:
And props to Eugenia for this bit of foresight:
Not 100% dead on, but very very close.
Member since:2005-07-06
I think it's understandable why people reacted the way they reacted. After all, Apple itself had to eat its own words, too. They more or less successfully camouflaged it by trying to spin it into a positive light marketing wise by showing some pretty graphs. But they definitely did a 180 degree turnaround.
P.S why am i unable to see more than a handful of comments when there are 336?
Member since:2009-02-19
That's when I really started to detest Apple. I'd been a Mac advocate for a while, and I fully bought the whole, "the RISC PPC is really much faster, in terms of operations dispatched, despite it's lower clock-speed." When they switched to x86, the message was, "look how much faster these x86 chips are! THEIR CLOCK SPEEDS ARE SO MUCH HIGHER!" They switched messages without missing a beat. Their blatant display of self-righteous, unashamed self-contradiction and hypocrisy lost them one hard-core Mac advocate.
Member since:2006-11-26
This was exactly my point, but you stated it much more clearly than I.
I bought into the PPC being faster argument too, and maybe it was true at some point. But when the PPC speeds started to stall, and IBM was unable/unwilling to deliver the G5 in a laptop package, moving to x86 made great sense. I just didn't like the spooky switch in messages, and everyone's complacency about it.
Member since:2007-07-27
they didn't. the message was "intel chips are more power efficient", which was true as apple didn't switch to the p4 but to the core architecture. the clock speed of the last imac g5 was a bit higher than that of the first intel imac.
Member since:2006-01-25
Member since:2006-11-26
What I recall from the whole switchover was Jobs' adamant denial a few weeks beforehand that Apple would never, ever, not in million years support the x86 platform. I think the news had been broken on the Apple secrets site that was shut down a couple of years ago. I can only speculate as to his reasons for the denial (contract negotiations I suppose), but the way it came off after Apple made it public was that he was just lying outright. And this about face didn't gather as much attention as I'd hoped.
Member since:
2005-11-07
Member since:2006-05-12
Member since:
2006-02-22
I remember I was shocked when I heard about this. But as soon as it was announced I realized it was actually a brilliant.
My instant reaction was "NOOO!" then it was "waaaait a minute, you mean I can now run any OS supported by X86?, wicked!"
After I got my first Intel based Mac, I had multiple instances of Linux, FreeBSD, Windows and Mac OS. All of sudden you wonder " why the heck didn't they do this sooner"
By switching to intel Apple instantly removed a barrier to adoption that stood in the way of the old architecture. Namely, you can run whatever OS you want on your mac now. THAT i believe made a huge difference to allot of buyers.
Member since:2006-11-26
It was definitely a great move for Apple.
When anyone inquires as to which platform I think is better now, I tell them, with a bit of a wicked grin, that a Mac is a PC.
It's certainly brought down the barriers to adoption in the organization where I work. I'm glad the Mac people get to use their preferred platform, and if necessary, we can just use Windows only on the computer. Now if only vendors would offer dual-licensing agreements, or support OSX at all. I'm looking you Adobe and AutoDesk.
Member since:
2008-09-21
Member since:
2008-06-30
Member since:
2006-05-10
Apart from the PPC>x86 switch, David points out another article concerning "responsive computers" and asks the question at what point it is today.
To take one example, eye movement registering has made great advancements but still requires a dimly lit room and very specific (i.e., individualised) calibration to measure eye movement, gaze and other such factors well. The equipment is quite expensive still.
Three-dimensional haptic tools (that is, not tablets or force feedback) still are "scientists' toys" and only extend to some specific tasks at the time. Exceptions to this, naturally, are the multi-million dollar research projects.
Nevertheless, we did see an impressive increase in the use of touch screens; from navigation to printing, from smartphones to image browsing. For now, embedded systems are the way to go. It seems over the past few years we have become realistic in the daily usage of such systems. We don't want our fridge to tell us to get more milk, we do want our car to tell us how to get to the supermarket in order to get the milk. It seems we'll be following this path for the years to come. But just maybe, in a few years, my computer will say "Welcome home!" and wag its tail.
Member since:
2007-03-29
...why Apple moved their Xserve away from Power. The Power6+ is the fastest CPU on the planet, x86-servers trail waaaay behind.
Sure, you wouldn't want a Power6+ burning a hole in your desk and there is not even a hint of getting it in a "portable" version so I can see the desktop side of things moving x86 as smart.
Member since:2005-07-22
Apple doesn't like supporting more than one type of processor at a time? I don't think they sell that many Xserves, so they wouldn't get any sweet discounts from IBM even if they did switch to POWER. Apple's marketing department would have to make OS X Server a must-have in the enterprise before it'd make sense.
Member since:2007-03-29