The latest version of the Mac OS X operating system could easily run on Intel chips, but Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs said on Wednesday that the company has little interest in changing processors. “It’s perfectly technically feasible to port Panther to any processor,” Jobs said at a meeting with financial analysts. But Jobs said the company is happy with IBM’s PowerPC family of chips and feels the performance is “quite competitive.”
Apple Says Could Move to Intel, but Happy with IBM
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
For if they went to Intel, they would be putting on foot in the grave.
And this is why Apple will always be a marginal player.
Instead of porting to Intel (inexpensive, generic hardware) and winning OS market share, they’re content to sit back and sell high-priced, proprietary hardware.
I’d like to run Panther on Intel rather than pay ridiculous prices for niche hardware.
Oh please. No, mr Jobs, i’ll tell you what you really want: what you want is people buying your Mac computer with PPC and OSX instead of an x86 so that even normal PC’s could run OSX. Because that means ”more profit”. That is the real reason. And we users can’t do anything but sit down and obey, instead of chosing. Nobody can’t port it except your puppets. Therefore chosing for OSX is chosing for (expensive) Mac (or PPC) hardware, it being ”special” and ”leet”.
With G5s in Xbox 2, when will we start hearing about this project? I suppose it wont be half as exciting tho considering its announced and advertised and likely to happen.
I sure hope they do not leave IBM. IBM makes a much better cpu then intel in my opinion. It’s totaly differ being risc base and this means a cpu that puts out a lot less heat and uses a lot less power. Then again I could give a long list why they should stick with IBM but anybody that really wants to find out can easily do so. IBM just makes a better chip in the end. If they goto Intel I would never buy OSX cause in my opinion it will end up like windows.
–Idoxash
MacOS will always run on Apple branded hardware so even if Apple decided to go with Intel chips they would only allow OS X to boot on approved hardware. Remember they are a hardware company first, software just sells the hardware.
Yes Macs are so overpriced that you couldn’t actually build a supercomputer that does over 10 GFlops for the same money as the Virginia G5 cluster if you used any Intel technology. Even the far more expensive Itanium cluster on place 4 is slower. 😉
Isn’t it time that we REALLY stop that 80s FUD about Macs being overpriced, not expandable, non-standard hardware? The only non-standard piece of hardware in a Mac is probably the G5 CPU itself and the Apple ROM.
Dude, apple like any other company is in business for one and only one reason: to make a profit, not to increase market share just for the shake of increasing market share.
Increasing market share by moving over to intel would imply a reduction or even dissapearance of its current profit. Hence why would they move over to intel.
And for all of you who claim that moving over to intel is somehow the magic bullet, well obviously you are ignorant that Mr. Jobs already has the wonderful experience of moving over to intel with NeXTStep… and according to your theories we should be seeing NeXTStep everywhere, right?
Apple is right where they want to be, so in such a sense they are being quite sucessful. All of this kiddie armchair quaterbacking is getting really tyring as the only thing some of you seem to be able to propose is to move over to intel. A move to intel would be rather damaging for Apple, since that would mean that developers would have to support yeat another platform. That would make the task of developing for OSX even less attractive, plus that would open the flood gates for the milliard of driver/compatibility issues that Apple would have to deal with.
What does NeXTStep have to do with Apple? Who here claims we should see NeXTStep on every arch? Who here claims Apple should stick with Intel and NeXTStep?
Please, Apple, don’t ever switch to Intel x86 based processors. I moved from Windows to Linux but grew so tired of all the crap computers, crap OS’s, crap hardware… so, I moved over to OS X and finally found bliss!
I am happy with where Apple is. I like them being the underdog, the “marginal player” as someone put it. I don’t care about world domination. I can afford a used PowerMac G4 on ebay so that’s what I got. Apple’s hardware is so much better than anything out there in x86 land, and clearly Panther is the best OS…
Frankly, I like being part of niche… I like being differnet. It’s better than anything else out there.
Don’t change, Apple!!!!
“What does NeXTStep have to do with Apple”
OS X is based on NeXTStep, so it has a lot to do with Apple.
And why would the move to Intel? Lol, Intel can’t even get 64 bit chips done right.
with the silly investors. os x is sticking on powerpc for a while.
Jeez…
The constant “Macs are more expensive than PCs” nonsense is really getting stale. Please get a new mantra, folks! Fact is, Macs are NOT more expensive. The Mac has an out-of-the-box value that the PC cannot touch. The eMac starts at just $799.00 USD. Get this, it includes Panther, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and iChat AV. Someone please tell me how that is too expensive!
I can sense a definite and severe case of OS envy in this crowd.
dpi, I don’t know a lot of businessmen that don’t want to make a profit.
Even if Apple moved to Intel the hardware would still be proprietary so I don’t know how people can come to the conclusion that they could run it on what they have. Some people can hardly run iTunes as it is with their setups.
As far as IBM being a good choice, MS choosing to use PowerPC speaks volumes as does the Mac supercluster at VT.
“OS X is based on NeXTStep, so it has a lot to do with Apple.”
Interesting. Do you have more info about this?
“I don’t know a lot of businessmen that don’t want to make a profit.”
So if it’s for profit, anything is possible? No, i don’t think every business or company is the same regarding this. The way a company can earn money varies on a wide aspect. Some do it in a ridiculous way, some do it in an honest way. If i look to the companies here who sell food, they all want money. Some sell meat, some sell only nature products and vegan food. If i look to the ISP’s here, some respect privacy and will host sites which are legal by law (freedom of speech), some will kick you off when they get a complain about you sharing a MP3 on a website or when you host information on your site which is ”bad” (for example criticism about <fill in here>).
If Jobs would have said ”because then people will be able to run it on x86 and we will sell less hardware” i’d have respected his honesty. And yes, i really believe money is the reason in this situation and frankly it’s hard to argument about it without proof.
How blind maczealots are. Please, get your facts straight.
1- Dollar for Dollar, no Imac can compete with any x86 PC.
2- G5 doesn’t run that cool. 9 fans for the whole thing?
3- Market share for market share sake. Hmmm, how many billions have Microcrap made with this wrong way of thinking?
4- Neither Microcrap neither IBM have stated what CPU Xbox will use. IBM could very easy use the Opteron core (backward compatibility anyone).
5- “Macs have better quality parts” Zealots, for the last time, please, the G5 have the same components as a PC, except for the CPU itself. Enough of that nonsense.
Granted, a G5 is a nice machine, but at an entry level price of US$2000, not even including a monitor (Does Apple still charge extra for keyboard?), is just too much money, not everyone is rich, you know.
Back to reality.
Go ahead, Eugenia, mod this one down.
And you’re probably right. But you can’t expect a company to sign its own death warrant. Sure, a lot of people would like it if Apple went to Intel chips. But they’d be destroying their own profits, and without profits their will be no Apple. I fail to see how keep themselves alive is dishonest.
2- G5 doesn’t run that cool. 9 fans for the whole thing?
That’s not the issue. It is a proven fact in the computing industry that RISC architecture chips of all forms, not just the PowerPC, run significantly cooler than CISC chips (including x86). The reasons are quite complicated, and I recommend you read a good overview of the RISC architecture.
4- Neither Microcrap neither IBM have stated what CPU Xbox will use. IBM could very easy use the Opteron core (backward compatibility anyone).
Um…Opteron is owned and produced by AMD. If Microsoft wanted to buy Opteron’s technology they would have contracted with AMD. But instead, they released an announcement specifying that they made this dealing because they like IBM’s own silicon technology. IBM does not produce x86, ia64, or x86-64 chips. They have quite some time now made PowerPC chips. While this does not mean it will be a G5, it does give a strong indication that it may be a PowerPC. Either that or a completely custom architecture. But given the short turn-around Microsoft has for this project, I doubt they’ll do something like that.
“Interesting. Do you have more info about this?”
Here ya go: http://www.macspeedzone.com/archive/art/con/be.shtml (google for ‘apple next acquisition’ to find more links)
Intel has said they’re droping the line in 2008; at which point everyone will need to switch over to the IA64 family.
If IA32 is only going to last another 5 years, why would Apple want to go through all the trouble of coverting everything over to it and getting all the drivers working. About the time they got it right, there wouldn’t be any new chips to make computers with.
Also VT was looking at the IA64s and dropped them because they were too slow. For example, in SQL serving a 32-way POWER4 system is about equal to a 64-way I2 system.
With the new POWER5 systems expected to be about 4x faster, I don’t see the I2 as being very a very good choice. Thus, the future PPC980(?)s could easyly be 2x faster then the current PPC970s and should diffently leave the I2 in the dust.
“4- Neither Microcrap neither IBM have stated what CPU Xbox will use. IBM could very easy use the Opteron core (backward compatibility anyone). ”
Opteron is an AMD made part, as far as I know IBM has no similar part… Did I miss something?
Otherwise, Macs have always been more about integration and an “everything just works” expiration. Its about the whole package of hardware from the processor to the iPod to the digital camera. Dollar for dollar its difficult to get that kind of total integration in the PC, and when you do find a PC with apple level integration it costs about the same. That being said I have a Sony Vaio, which like the powerbook allows me to bring all my digital toys together. If you have ever priced a Sony, you will notice that they are similarly priced with apple. Sure you can get more power for your money, but for Apple and Sony’s target market can you get a better package?
The “operating system could easily run on Intel chip,” but wouldn’t that mean that every 3rd party application would need to be recompiled to run on Intel OS X? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds like at least a small compatability problem?
The reason for 9 fans is to have a quite computer…
PCs have 2 case fans and 1 fan per CPU. They also have problems with hard drives, power supplies, and cards overheating.
Apple has divided the computer into differnt zones and then use indenpendant fans to control the tempature by zone. PC’s run all fans at full speed and hope everything stays cool.
Not everyone can afford a $2000 computer. I think that is correct, but at the same time, I don’t think that using a slightly better performing processor at a slightly better price really solves anyone’s problem. I think there is a great business model in selling to a higher income bracket. The fact is that Apple has been overall a profitable company for 20 years. It gives thousands of employees jobs including one very wealthy CEO. What is so wrong with that? Why is having 90% of the market share the only option and everything else must be crap and a failure.
1. As a similar example, there are many high end stereo companies that compete for a very small market, and most do quite well. And there are many people who agree that while music may sound better, it certainly doesn’t sound $10,000 better. If people want to pay extra for design, perceived quality, or even eliteism, I say more power to them. It’s the American way.
2. I also believe that Apple also benefits from having a smallish but very loyal market share. Because they do, they can be so bold as to force all their users to make the big leaps to better systems, eg PowerPC and OS X. Microsoft is permanantly hitched to the DOS anchor. Every outdated, bloating, useless feature from the early 90’s they throw out means millions of screaming customers. So many people depend on their software, that they are forced to KEEP their old bugs just because fixing things risks too much breakage.
3. I don’t see what benefit and Intel processor really provides. Sure, there may be a speed increase. Sure, there may be a little price drop. But I can’t imagine that they would ever want to enter the commodity PC market. Unless you have huge amounts of resources, the low end market is never a good place to be in my opinion. It is a wholly different business model that grinds all but the very select few companies into the ground.
4. Beacause of work, I almost solely use a Wintel box. WinXP works pretty well, I think. But at the end of the day, I still deeply love my 3 year old PowerBook. There is just a certain je ne se qua about it. I’ve tried, and never successfully explained myself to other logically minded friends. To them, the numbers just don’t add up. But it isn’t a logic issue. Life is not to be reasoned out. Try explaining to your folks that they SHOULD be loving Snoop Dog as opposed to Willie Nelson. Macs are cool independantly of any other computer. They can and always will stand on their own.
and I just got my new ibook yesterday. Here are some reasons which makes Apple great:
1- Under controlled hardware set, there are less conflicts. Admit it, how many time you bought some crappy PC hardware… and find out that they have all kind of problems with other hardware, the official driver, the OS…blah blah blah. If you didnt experience that, then probably you have a computer priced comparable to a mac. I buy a lot of cheap PC hardware, but all the problems got me to replacing this part and that part, and now my cheap a$$ PC is really no longer that cheap.
2- To maintain profit is of course one of the reasons. And a good reason for some people to get a mac is because they look cool! It sounds like a lame arguement, but I think many people don’t even care x86, ppc, ibm, ms, osx whatsoever, all they know is that imacs look cool and stylish in their home. It is just like buying some cheap arts to declearate your home… and now your art can even give your email and internet capability…
What I hope Apple will do though, is to release a computer without a monitor, and NOT so powerful (means non powermac). A normal computer without a monitor is what they don’t really offer right now.
I think those are good points. Going to Intel will mean commodity market. If going to Intel but with restricted hardware, then the price won’t drop. But going to commodity market will not do any good to Apple, probably not even to normal users too.
The eMac starts at just $799.00 USD. Get this, it includes Panther, iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and iChat AV. Someone please tell me how that is too expensive!
It is, especially if I don’t care about iStuff. I am not interested in making lame movies about myself and my cat. I don’t own an iPod, and Apple won’t sell me music I like, so I don’t care about iTunes. iChat? Text is good enough for me, and my friends are mostly on ICQ or IRC.
I might consider Panther, since I like how it moved closer to Unix, but the “you shouldn’t look there, it just works. Or just doesn’t” and “There is a single right way. It’s out way” attitude is not exactly what I am looking for. I prefer ideology of vim and perl
.
its little late for apple to switch to intel right now.
theres a fine line between victory and defeat.
2- G5 doesn’t run that cool. 9 fans for the whole thing?
Having actually used one of the dual processor G5 Power Macs, I am impressed with the cooling system. The system is so quiet you cannot tell it is running.
I am ashamed your trolling caught me.
Ostriches? Overpriced? What planet are you from that you haven’t heard about Virginia Tech’s Terascale Cluster? It beats the hell out of ANY Intel offering in terms of performance AND price. Motorola’s inability to ramp up the performance of the PowerPC or obtain satisfactory yields is the basis for the myth that PPC is inferior to x86. IBM has hit the ground running with the G5, and in my opinion going with Intel would be a giant step backwards technologically. The PowerPC family still has enormous potential; x86 does not. I’m really sick and tired of know-nothings who continue to abuse the deceased equine.
Now let’s see…Longhorn will be released in 2006. Maybe. At less than $1,000.00 too, goll-ee!. And Windows users say that Mac users are crazy for paying $129 for Panther. Of course, Apple will still have nothing but Panther in 2006. How about letting us borrow your crystal ball, so we can see for ourselves that there will be no further upgrades to OS X by then. Obviously you can.
re leet And for all of you who claim that moving over to intel is somehow the magic bullet
Apple is a big “name”, joe user has heard of ’em. Next nobody but geeks know of.
this is just to scare IBM into being good.
re MM 1- Dollar for Dollar, no Imac can compete with any x86 PC.
Yeap. But that does not make macs “over priced”, just “more expenive”.
Ohh eMac (Uncustomized superdrive) is ~£850, a Dell Dimension 4600C (faster processor, 1/2 the harddrive size, only 15″ screen (vs 17, but built in) and only a DVD/CD-RW[1]) is £950.
But The cheap dell is MUCH cheaper than the cheap Mac, as are custom build, I’m sure with some playing I get get a “equal” Dell the same price/less than that of a Mac.
re: mice
as I’ve never seen a pre-build computer coming with a mouse worth keeping, this is a really lame argument.
[1] This is a free extra, not part of the standard set up.
but I dont plan on “making the switch” any time soon.
Why?
1.)Price
Im not a PC gamer(mostly console) and just need a computer for those basic everyday tasks and a bit of programming on the side. I cant find a MAC below $1000(CAN),In contrast I just bought an AMDXP-2500+, 512MB, Radeon 7500 64mb comp for $850(CAN).
2.)Software
Ill admit it. I cant live without may fav apps(kazaa, trillian, NERO,etc). I know that their are mac alternatives but im just not comfortable using them.
3.) User Interface
Theres just too much eye candy in OSX. I just couldnt get work done in that kind of enviroment. Heck in Winxp I turn all the visuals off and go into win2kish mode(gets ride of that g@y taskbar, etc). Its just too much garbage that gets in my way when im trying to do serious work.
For now ill just stick with winxp/linux.
Good Luck to Apple though!
My bookmark is to the US dell, why I can not work out.
the price diffrence is now £100, in favour of the Dell.
Apple is a big “name”, joe user has heard of ’em. Next nobody but geeks know of of Next.
Oh grow up! Every time there is something about Apple here on OSnews, anti-Apple WIntel users come and troll about how Macs are over-priced and over-rated and that OSX should run on non-Apple x86 hardware as well. As someone pointed out above, even if Apple does port OSX to x86, it still won’t be installable on non-Apple x86 machines.
Take a look at the Xbox, it is nothing more than a miniaturized PC, but can you install anything on it without soldering on some mod-chip? No! Even the XBox Linux project is under threat because of Microsoft’s latest updates that make it much more difficult if not impossible to run Linux on the XBox.
Wintel users complaining about Apple is, more often than not, a severe case of sour grapes. So even if and thats a big IF Apple switches to x86 at some point, we will still have these Sour Grapers bitching about how Apple’s x86 offerings are over-priced and they want Apple to release OSX for everyone.
What About having Windows and Linux launched for G5!
Commoditize (forgive me, please, English native speakers) G5 and make PC’s with it! That would be great!!
Imagine if I can buy a G5 the same way I can buy an AMD or Intel chip (together with a proper motherboard done for it by ASUS, ECS, Soyo, or any other like those…)
Then we will be able to really compare the OS’s for what they can do in the same hardware (or nearly the same) without needing to pay for the Ithings.
Why should I buy a G5 from Apple? I want to buy it directly from IBM and make my own cluster!
Why isn’t that possible? I guess by law I should not be prevented from doing that.
“What About having Windows and Linux launched for G5!”
Some linux distros already support PPC(MDK 9.0, Debian, etc)
Hmmm Windows for PPC. I doubt it, heck look how reluctant they were to make an OS compatable for X86-64.
Dropping frames while watching a trailer?
From other things you said in your comment I assume you watched this trailer on a public computer, and I also assume you watched it from Apple’s trailer website (perhaps a bad assumption, but likely non-the-less).
Since the Apple trailer website doesn’t allow people to download and save to disk (at least not the Matrix trailer), you were watching the film as it was streamed to your machine, and bandwidth is most likely responsible for your missed frames. I also missed some frames while watching this trailer from Apple’s website.
I own a PB12 (867MHz) and I never loose frames when watching full screen video off the HD or DVD, unless I have mistakenly told the OS to run the CPU at reduced speed to prolong battery life.
It’s been done, with NT 3.51 if memory serves, and it could be done again. For that matter, it would make sense for Microsoft to do it. Whether it’s the best chip out there or not, the G5 is pretty darn spiffy, and Microsoft doesn’t have to ship an OS with perfect backwards compatibility if they target a specific area with a limited number of necessary applications.
I’m sure that if someone wanted to buy a G5-based server from IBM, Microsoft would be happy to supply the OS.
Macs are VERY overpriced under the $1,500 range. I could get a quite modern PC system that can run all of today’s games for $1,000, but with a mac, I’d stuck be stuck with the hideously underperforming eMac/iMac..
I prefer ideology of vim and perl
Well, OS-X (even before Panther) comes with vim, perl, python, and other goodies.
I have a feeling that the reason PC users and Mac users don’t see eye to eye about Mac prices is because they have different priorities. Most PC users care about CPU speed, memory, the graphics card, and the price. They couldn’t care less about fancy cases. They don’t attach any value to bundled software like iChat or iPhoto. They want something cheap and dependable, and PCs give them that.
Oh, and the eMac is a piece of shit. 1GHz G4? 128MB of RAM? 40GB hard drive? Its not 2001 anymore! You can get a Dell for about the same price with a 2.6 GHz P4, 512MB of RAM, 80GB hard drive, and real (not built-in!) speakers. The G5s are Apple’s only decently-priced machines, and that is only because 64-bit x86 hardware still carries a big price premium.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12523
All I ask from Apple/IBM is to let me build my own system, I don’t waste my time looking at “how pretty my case is”.
With the current displease of the market with Windows, I think that OSX has a very good chance. Is a matter of PC’s users that migth/will/want to use OSX but sees the “need” to buy the whole thing (G5) innecesary.
Sorry, but to me, rigth now, the only CPU that I think is good from Apple is the G5, anything else is just mediocre hardware.
—
“OS X is based on NeXTStep, so it has a lot to do with Apple.”
Interesting. Do you have more info about this?
—
Actually, the worst kept secret in the computer industry is that even though Apple purchased NeXT, it was NeXT that did the take over. :-p
Actually I (currently an x86 user) find this “Apple hardware is expensive” discussion a little strange considering their laptops.
I’ve been looking for a new laptop and I’ve yet to find a 12″ PC laptop with a decent display adapter (we’re not talking about IGP, “Mobility Radeon” or GF2Go here, but >= Mobility Radeon 9000 or GF FX Go and up here) and DVD/CD-RW combodrive (hell, most 12″ PC laptops come without optical drive altogether) with a < €/$2000 pricetag. Their iBook G4 series looks really interesting and sanely priced.
Also I get a nice UNIX-based OS with decent hardware support instead of the flaky and incomplete Linux x86 laptop support (I’m not really a Windows hater but it’s still not “ready for my desktop”).
The closest thing I’ve been able to find on the x86 side is the IBM Thinkpad X series with comparable models starting at ~€2500 or so.
Am I missing something? I’m genuinely interested in this because I’m most probably going to buy a new laptop in a couple of months.
And please note that I’m only talking about laptop prices here. Desktop prices may be high, but I couldn’t care less about desktops as I’ve been a 100% laptop-user for a while.
You are right. Apple’s laptop prices are very competitively priced. I was shopping for a laptop sometime ago, and I couldn’t find any x86 based notebook that were cheap enough and good enough. I was looking for something just over £1000. At this price range, I could get a few notebooks with a decent processor, but *all* with dismal graphics (from Intel, ATI, and even *S3*). Plus these notebooks were large and heavy, definitely not built with portability in mind.
So I got a Powerbook 12′ off eBay for £950. Sweet deal, as it came with 640 MB ram and a 60 GB hard disk. So yeah, if you’re looking for a laptop, Apple is definitely worth looking at.
Can’t say much about their desktops as I don’t use one.
I bought X31 a few weeks ago:centrino 1400 mhz, 40gb, 256 ddr, 4:50h battery and the best … 1.6 kg
1600 € for students in austria … and there are even cheaper in the US. great price for a great laptop.
M.
The prices for MAC laptops are exactly what makes me think Apple could low further their desktop prices IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT.
I think you are right, at least to some sense. It is a question of priorities, and I (as a PC user that used Macs in te past) can not understand why most Mac users do not understand not everybody wants everything extra Mac uses to defend their prices. And anyway I still think they could diminish their prices even more but they don’t want.
In Brazil, Mac prices are so insane that you practicaly just see iMacs occasionaly in some TV ads (not an Apple ad, something other that uses the Apple design as part of the set).
Maybe it is the other way around.
If Microsoft talks firmly about Win for G5 and Mobo manufacturers are free to release their boards to G5 as they can do for AMD and Intel, THEN people will buy it.
A RISC processor has a reduced instruction set but G5s have a lot of vector instructions so I think it’s not so realistic to call them RISCs anymore. I call SPARC and MIPS true RISC processors…
There is a lot of consistantly wrong misconceptions and FUD that some people spread whenever Mac articles come up. A majority of these trolls seem to have never used a Mac before or they’ve seen pictures of Macs and read some articles and now they are experts.
“The G5 is a PC”
You wish! Its not, what a dumb assertion. Fords and Mercedes both use the same principles in designing a car and can even use some of the same parts but a Ford IS NOT A MERCEDES and a G5 IS NOT A PC.
“eMac is junk”
The eMac is fine machine. Not the fastest but it does what no other PC will do, it run MacOSX. Nobody buys the low end Macs for their blistering speed. If you want fast Apple has it but not at the low end.
“Macs don’t come with keyboards”
Yeah they do, another genius at work.
“Macs cost too much”
You can get a Mac for under $1000US easy.
It goes to show you how well informed some of these people are when posting comments and just how much they know about the Mac. A lot of these FUD and troll postings are really uniformed and come from people who have zero to no experience using a Mac or better yet a manufactured experience. Really pathetic and their posts reflect it.
“Oh, and the eMac is a piece of shit. 1GHz G4? 128MB of RAM? 40GB hard drive? Its not 2001 anymore! You can get a Dell for about the same price with a 2.6 GHz P4, 512MB of RAM, 80GB hard drive, and real (not built-in!) speakers. The G5s are Apple’s only decently-priced machines, and that is only because 64-bit x86 hardware still carries a big price premium.”
The equivalent (ie: same price point…not on sale) Dell has the following specs:
2.5GHz Celeron
256MB RAM
80GB drive
integrated intel 3d graphics
integrated 10/100 ether
cdrw/dvd combo
XP Home edition
no monitor
That config is $728
The emac gets you 1ghz ppc with OS X and real graphics (radeon 7500) plus a 17″ display and firewire. less RAM and smaller HD.
I’ll take the Mac any day.
As to the G5 being the only decently-priced machine. Bullshit. Their laptops are completely in line with intel-based laptops.
Oh god!
Not again! All these arguments abotu expensive hardware and such…good grief! no more please!
Are people going to cry how they can’t afford anything again?
Its kind of old when you troll how Macs are expensive yet you wouldn’t buy one if they are cheap. Doesn’t make sense. Why troll here? A lot of these whiners haven’t even used a Mac for more than a minute before making up their mind as well as becoming MacOSX hardware and software experts with 1 minute of experience.
eMacs are fine. We have several at work and all the users are happy with them. Desktop real estate and cord clutter is a big deal in an office. So an all in one system is not bad.
I don’t see what the problem is in paying for a system that is free from most viruses, Unix-like stability with nice multimedia apps and a cool GUI.
I’m glad Apple is sticking with PowerPC. It keeps the Mac people happy and it gives the trolls something to whine about along with the price which is all the ammo they seem to have these days.
you would think at some point people would be able to look at a price feature list for themselves, wouldn’t you?
it is amazing how many people are unable to string a few logic thoughts together on their own…….
You are right.
I would buy a Mac if I could find one for US1000 (R$3000) here in Brasil. But the cheaper model, a 800 Mhz eMac (CD-ROM only) costs US$1800+ (R$5650). Really insane, since I can get a PC for US$800.
The laptop prices are acceptable, anyway.
(sorry about my english)
I love the comparison of the Megahertz going on. Has anyone ever told you that the Megahertz of a machine is not the true rating of its throughput? If I have a machine running at 3 megahertz and doing 400 MIPS (millions of Instructions Per Second) and a machine running at 10 megahertz but only doing 100 MIPS who do you think will finish first?
Just some food for thought.
Mith
As always, some intelligent discussion here, and some of the usual trolling. I wish the weenies would get a life.
I’m a huge Mac advocate. I am convinced that Apple is set to regain marketshare; all the pieces are in place. Of course, when you have just 3 per cent of the current computer market, many would argue that you have no where else to go but up. But unlike most PC makers, Apple continues to make a profit in just about every economic quarter since Steve Jobs returned. They are right where they need to be to start growing again.
Even here, on this board, people finally seem to realize that Apple actually is competitive in four of their five major markets. Dollar for dollar, in North America anyway, the money you shell out for a consumer or pro laptop, or a pro workstation is similar on both sides of the Apple/PC equation. It’s only with the consumer desktop market that Apple doesn’t compete. It’s not that the eMac or iMac are expensive, it’s that they simply aren’t nearly as fast as a comparable PC. (The fifth market is Apple’s iPod).
But eMacs and iMac are still terrific computers. I use a (first-edition) iMac G4 800, and I design web sites with Dreamweaver and Fireworks, do a fair bit of intense Photoshop work, and I edit DV with Final Cut Express. I wish that my iMac ran a little faster, but it is a gorgeous computer… OS X has crashed twice in two years of heavy use. It’s loaded with best-of-breed software. It runs a bevy of open source software. It’s as quiet as a whisper. I’ve discovered that I can make professional quality video and DVDs, even though I don’t have any formal training… Yes, it occasionally bogs down when I push it really hard, but most computer users simply never come up against these limits.
Yet the perceived “slowness” of the eMac and iMac lines that is going to change, probably within six months, when Apple makes consumer desktops based on the G5. Slap a 1.6 or 1.8 or 2.0 GHz G5 in an iMac, and you have a consumer level desktop that would compete with any P-IV running at less than 3 Ghz. And this isn’t just wishful thinking. Several (usually reliable) rumours have suggesting that the PowerMac line will move to speeds of 2.2 to 2.6 Ghz in the next iteration (which will probably be announced at Macworld in January), and that a new iMac line is imminent.
Truth to tell, the PowerPC roadmap sounds awesome! It would be folly for Apple to switch now. They have a 64-bit processor available to them that creams any Intel-based chip running at similar speeds.
How else did they convince the people at Virginia Tech? As others have mentioned, they’ve build the world’s third fastest supercomputer at a bargain-basement price. When Dr. Varadarajan was asked why he cose to build a G5 cluster, rather than opting for one using an Intel or AMD processor, he responded…
“Both are fairly nice, but they’re expensive. First, it didn’t pass the price/performance ratio test. Opteron doesn’t do what the G5 does. 4Gflops at peak, the G5 is twice that. The Itanium is phenomenally efficient, but only at 1.5Ghz, not the 2Ghz. The #4 is a 8.6Terafllop Itanium II cluster (on 2000 procs).”
So…. all the trollers will soon need to find another way to slam Apple. Job’s reliance on black turtlenecks perhaps… or the fact that a Mac doesn’t break down enough for geeks who like to troubleshoot their systems…
Please, respect opinions of others.
People can always say wrong things. Intentionally or not but you are not always right because of that. And I can show some example in your very post:
You say “You can get a Mac for under $1000US easy.”
Not in my country. You will NEVER find a sub-$1000,00US in Brazil. unless used… But you will see that most people here buy sub $800,00US PCs. Fitting their needs.
And plus. I’ve used a Mac, for the entire 2001 year. I’ve used a G3 and had the opportunity to compare a PC with a G4 also. Maybe it is your misconception that everybody that has criticized Apple is ignorant about it.
I will never say Apple is crap. I say today it is not affordable here and I don’t like their price policy. Not because I hate Apple. Because I would love to have it really competing. I am consummer.
I’m a long time Windows PC user (16+ years), but after purchasing my first Mac a few weeks ago — a dual processor PowerMac G5 — I’m what Apple has affectionately classified as a “Mac switcher.” I made the switch simply because I’m a savvy consumer who saw an outstanding product at a fantastic price.
In the weeks that I’ve owned my new computer, my wife — who managed to get a few hours in on the machine on the rare occasions that I wasn’t using it — was so impressed, that she too decided to make the switch and picked up a 12″ powerbook from a local Apple reseller.
Before shelling out any money, we made sure to compare prices and feature sets from at least four other PC manufacturers. Like the G5, we were so impressed with the PowerBook’s price relative to its feature set, that choosing it over the competition was a no-brainer.
When telling others of our purchase however, I was somewhat perplexed with the response they gave. Most inquired about how much money we spent between the two machines. While it’s true that we had indeed spent a lot of money, the comments I received eluded to the notion that our new computers must have cost a lot of money, if only for the simple fact that that they were both Macs.
I clarified my purchasing decision by making note of the fact that comparably equipped PCs from at least 5 other manufacturers were in fact more expensive. For some, the only way of convincing them was by going to each manufacturer’s Web site and making multiple side by side comparisons. I expected it to some degree. Such thinking is commonplace amongst many computer buyers.
The situation has compelled me to define the word “expensive?” I keep finding this word thrown around by various individuals who may mean what they say, but don’t necessarily always say what they mean. Worse yet, the continued misrepresentation of this word has only furthered its misuse.
I would like to ask the osViews community to help me define the word “expensive.” Does expensive refer to something which (a) costs a lot of money, (b) costs more money than what I have, or is it (c) something that costs more than the equivalent product from another source?
While all of these are true to some degree, when people user the term to describe the price of a Mac, what is often said is the (a) definition. However, what is perceived by many that hear that, is most often the (c) definition. As a result, the misappropriated (c) definition gets propagated by others.
The “expensive” misconception does a major disservice for my new preferred platform. It’s now in my best interest to see that the platform grows, but as long as people perceive that they’re not getting their money’s worth, it’s growth potential is hampered.
The fact that you can’t custom build a Mac yourself doesn’t help the misconception though. With a PC, you can custom configure your computer and buy less and therefore pay less. But that doesn’t make it less expensive, but rather, more configurable.
After making side by side price comparisons with several individuals who doubted the price to performance advantage, I was surprised to see the same individuals — who previously were calm and collected — get overly defensive and turn somewhat irrational.
I’m embarrassed to admit it now, but I too had similar feelings when I first considered a Mac. It doesn’t make sense now, but I had to come to terms with the fact that I wasn’t admitting any sort of defeat by making a switch and it was only I that had the most to gain if I researched my options properly.
So, I took up the challenge that was put before me, made the comparison and then was surprised to learn that Apple’s new computers were indeed less expensive.
I wish more people would stop trying to justify their computer purchase to the world by spreading lies about alternative computing platforms. It does a disservice to the entire computing populace as a whole.
Found the above article on osViews.com
you have some good points. Macs can compete more with a lower price especially in the global market.
I do see flagg’s point however. There are a lot of people who post negatively about MacOSX or the hardware yet they don’t have experience with either.
Karrick S. McDermott: Nope, trailer was on the HD (wasn’t dropping frames when in normal window mode). Well, I guess Quicktime itsn’t really the movie format of the future
Oh, please enough of “Apple is a better computer,” crap. Actually Apple could get out of the 5% market if they would just make software instead of hardware, after all look at MS. Pretty much all MS make that sell is software.
@Owen Anderson : Please don’t talk about things you don’t understand. RISC CPUs do not automagically take up less Power than CISC CPUs. First, none of the PowerPC or x86 chips are either RISC or CISC. They’re something inbetween. The PPC architecture (which was never pure RISC) has gained a lot of instructions and features that aren’t really RISC-y, and x86 chips have ditched the CISC core for RISC-like inner cores with outer x86 decoders. Second, some of the most power-hungry CPUs in history were RISC. The Power4 dissipates over 135W, the later Alphas were well over 100W, the UltraSPARC III (at 600 MHz!) dissipates 70W. The PPC970 at 2GHz dissipates about 50W, while the fastest Opteron dissipates about 70W (removing the power dissipation of the integrated memory controller, which is external on the PPC970). That’s not a large difference to begin with, and gets even smaller considering that the Opteron’s clock-speed is higher.
@Jason: Where are you getting those numbers? Mine are right from Dell’s website (for a custom machine) taking into account a $150 rebate. This seems unfair at first, but note that Dell has a ~$200 rebate going every week (got over $300 in rebates and upgrades on my Inspiron, plus a student discount!) and I can’t remember the last time Apple had a big sale.
Cool! All I need now is my upgrade to panther!
😉